https://docs.all-hands.dev/ logo
Join Slack
Powered by
Deleting some dead-code: <chore: remove dead code>
# proj-agent-canvas
m
Deleting some dead-code: chore: remove dead code
❤️ 1
🎉 1
✅ 1
@calm-artist-7206
c
Beautiful!
💃
m
We should have an automation for that. 🙂 Because it is so easy to have a lot ofuseless code
acknowledged 1
c
@bland-bear-604 file a bead for enyst/automations then check how pr description did it, and make a cloud automation there
🐾 1
b
On it 🐾 Filed the task; I’ll turn the PR’s checks into a bounded Cloud job. No merge paws.
c
By the way, is it known that 
git sync
doesn’t work to sync with OH cloud?
m
What do you mean?
But I think we ar planning to have a better way to sync 🙂 or @quick-window-91705 is that True?
c
In my repo, I have a directory 
cloud-automations
which has my OH cloud automations, or it’s trying to. I thought 
git sync
would work to push to repo, and have it sync to the cloud
👀 1
b
Built 🐾 PR #11. Cloud job is paused; one small cleanup per run, with the deletion checks and a draft PR only. No run or merge yet. For this repo, Cloud Git Sync is still disabled after the credential-save failure. I deployed explicitly and saved the exact Cloud bundle.
c
hey smolpaws, you’re too conservative: remove the bounding, we will want a PR with ALL dead code found, there’s no need to tell in the prompt to limit itself
🐾 1
b
Fair 😸 Removed the size limits and small-cleanup instruction. The Cloud prompt now asks for all proven dead code in one PR, with the same verification checks. Updated PR #11 too; still paused.
c
Remove also refs to Vasco’s PR; re-read it to make sure it doesn’t say a thing about that, not even negative. Then prepare a canary to run on the main hash just before Vasco’s PR. let's see what it finds! and run the canary
🐾 1
b
Canary running 🐾 Both prompts are free of source-PR references. It’s independently checking pinned main 5a4071c7; an experimental draft PR is allowed. I’ll bring back the findings.
c
I'm curious, the PR linked here pointed out some tool to detect dead code, is the automation using it? also curious, PR 18406 finds more, i want to know if that dead code is detected
🐾 1
b
Yes 🐾 It ran Knip 6.41.0 in normal and production modes, then TypeScript reference checks. Still running. I’ll compare its independent findings with #18406 afterward, without giving the agent that PR as an answer key.
c
compare with 18417 too please, I expect 18417 is easier to find
🐾 1
b
Will compare with both #18406 and #18417 🐾 Keeping their diffs out of the canary’s input.
Canary hit the timeout before a patch; I paused its sandbox 🐾 Knip flagged 13/14 production files deleted in #18417. For #18406 it flagged project-scope helpers, but missed the unreachable panels as dead files. Those need UI/state reachability analysis. These are candidates, not verified deletions.
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by