SED-4157-executions history

[lucianbaciu]

No description provided.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex usage limits have been reached for code reviews. Please check with the admins of this repo to increase the limits by adding credits.
Credits must be used to enable repository wide code reviews.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @lucianbaciu, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request implements a foundational feature for tracking and displaying the execution history of plans. It involves extending core data models to include canonical plan identifiers and historical result snapshots, introducing a new plugin to collect this data post-execution, and refining the execution engine's logic to correctly populate these new fields. These changes are crucial for providing users with insights into the performance and outcomes of their plans over time.

Highlights

• Execution History Reporting: Introduced a new ExecutionHistoryReportPlugin to automatically capture and store snapshots of past execution results for a given plan, enabling historical tracking.
• Canonical Plan Naming: Enhanced ImportResult and Execution models with a canonicalPlanName field to uniquely identify and group executions of the same plan across different imports or runs.
• Execution Data Model Updates: The Execution object now includes a list of ExecutionResultSnapshot objects, allowing it to store a concise history of previous runs directly.
• Data Access and Indexing: Updated ExecutionAccessor and ExecutionAccessorImpl to support efficient querying of past executions by canonicalPlanName and added a new database index for performance.
• Execution Engine Integration: Modified the ExecutionEngineRunner to correctly determine and assign the canonicalPlanName during plan execution, ensuring proper linkage for history tracking.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces functionality to track execution history by defining a canonical plan name. A new plugin is added to fetch and attach this history to executions. The changes are logical and well-implemented. My review includes suggestions to improve consistency in canonical name generation, remove dead code, make a hardcoded value configurable, and some minor code style improvements.

[lucianbaciu]

@david-stephan please take a look on this before leaving in vacation, if you can. Ignore the cleanup/formatting part. Let me know if the approach is fine.

[david-stephan]

@lucianbaciu in addition to the feedback from Gemini which are valid too, please see my comments