fix(pack): client chunking output root

[xusd320]

This pull request makes a targeted change to the output root directory used for client chunking in the Project implementation. The update ensures that the distribution root (dist_root) is used instead of the client root (client_root) when initializing the chunking context, which likely aligns output paths with the intended build output structure.

Build output path update:

• Changed the output_root parameter in the client chunking context initialization from client_root to dist_root in crates/pack-api/src/project.rs, ensuring output paths are consistent with the distribution directory.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @xusd320, 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 refines the client chunking process by ensuring that generated output files are directed to the correct distribution root. This change standardizes the output directory, preventing potential misconfigurations and aligning the build output with the project's intended distribution structure.

Highlights

• Client Chunking Output Path: The output_root parameter for client chunking context initialization has been updated to use dist_root instead of client_root.

Changelog

• crates/pack-api/src/project.rs
  • Updated the output_root parameter in get_client_chunking_context to use self.dist_root() instead of self.client_root().

Activity

• No specific activity has been recorded for this pull request yet.

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 makes a targeted change to correct the output root for the client chunking context. By switching from client_root to dist_root, the output path is now correctly aligned with the build's distribution directory. This is a good fix that ensures consistency with other parts of the codebase, like the library chunking context, and correctly uses a disk-based path for output instead of a virtual one. The change is sound and improves the build process's correctness.

[github-actions]

📊 Performance Benchmark Report (with-antd)

Utoopack Performance Report

Report ID: utoopack_performance_report_20260213_100712
Generated: 2026-02-13 10:07:12
Trace File: trace_antd.json (0.5GB, 3.18M events)
Test Project: examples/with-antd

---

Executive Summary

Key Findings

Metric	Value	Assessment
Total Wall Time	7,990.1 ms	Baseline
Total Thread Work (de-duped)	25,068.1 ms	Non-overlapping busy time
Effective Parallelism	3.1x	thread_work / wall_time
Working Threads	5	Threads with actual spans
Thread Utilization	62.7%	🆗 Average
Total Spans	1,589,847	All B/E + X events
Meaningful Spans (>= 10us)	514,151	(32.3% of total)
Tracing Noise (< 10us)	1,075,696	(67.7% of total)

Note on Thread Work: Thread work is computed by merging overlapping intervals
per thread, eliminating double-counting from nested spans. This gives the true
wall-clock busy time across all threads.

Workload Distribution by Tier

Category	Tasks	Total Time (ms)	% of Thread Work
P0: Runtime/Resolution	0	0.0	0.0%
P1: I/O & Heavy Tasks	38,551	3,596.3	14.3%
P3: Asset Pipeline	29,654	3,315.6	13.2%
P4: Bridge/Interop	0	0.0	0.0%
Other	445,946	21,194.2	84.5%

Note: Percentages may sum to >100% because task durations include nesting
while thread work is de-duplicated. This is intentional for hotspot attribution.

---

Parallelization Analysis

Thread Utilization

Metric	Value
Working Threads	5
Total Thread Work (de-duped)	25,068.1 ms
Avg Work per Thread	5,013.6 ms
Effective Parallelism	3.14x
Thread Utilization	62.7%

Assessment: With 5 working threads, achieving 3.1x parallelism indicates significant loss of potential parallelism.

---

Top 20 Tasks by Total Duration

Total (ms)	Count	Avg (us)	Max (ms)	% Work	Task Name
7,855.4	184,013	42.7	11.4	31.3%	module
4,016.7	70,153	57.3	254.9	16.0%	process module
3,506.5	35,663	98.3	254.8	14.0%	analyze ecmascript module
2,847.5	24,632	115.6	63.7	11.4%	code generation
1,776.8	62,053	28.6	8.2	7.1%	internal resolving
1,742.3	58,214	29.9	8.7	7.0%	resolving
1,362.4	30,540	44.6	21.5	5.4%	precompute code generation
1,342.9	14,495	92.6	50.8	5.4%	chunking
1,291.7	13,177	98.0	127.4	5.2%	compute async module info
1,088.8	8,044	135.4	51.9	4.3%	parse ecmascript
511.7	5,069	100.9	48.7	2.0%	compute async chunks
296.9	1,936	153.4	17.0	1.2%	generate source map
76.3	2,165	35.2	6.4	0.3%	read file
67.9	607	111.9	17.9	0.3%	compute binding usage info
62.6	1,873	33.4	10.8	0.2%	collect mergeable modules
58.6	104	563.1	17.2	0.2%	make production chunks
33.7	563	59.8	3.1	0.1%	async reference
28.9	6	4818.3	13.8	0.1%	compute merged modules
28.5	14	2038.2	9.8	0.1%	apply effects
28.0	13	2154.4	9.8	0.1%	write file

---

Deep Dive by Tier

Tier 1: Runtime & Resolution (P0)

Focus: Task scheduling and dependency resolution.

Metric	Value	Status
Total Scheduling Time	0.0 ms	✅ Normal
Resolution Hotspots	0 distinct task types	Check Top Tasks

Potential P0 Issues:

• Thread utilization at 62.7% suggests critical path serialization or lock contention.
• 1,075,696 spans < 10us (67.7%) contribute to scheduler pressure.

Tier 2: Physical & Resource Barriers (P1)

Focus: Hardware utilization, I/O, and heavy monoliths.

Metric	Value	Status
I/O Work (Estimated)	3,596.3 ms	✅ Healthy
Large Tasks (> 100ms)	3	Minimal

Tier 3: Architecture & Asset Pipeline (P2-P3)

Focus: Global state and transformation pipeline.

Metric	Value	Status
Asset Processing (P3)	3,315.6 ms	13.2% of work
Bridge Overhead (P4)	0.0 ms	✅ Low

---

Duration Distribution

Range	Count	Percentage
< 10us (noise)	1,075,696	67.7%
10us - 100us	488,764	30.7%
100us - 1ms	21,302	1.3%
1ms - 10ms	4,002	0.3%
10ms - 100ms	80	0.0%
> 100ms	3	0.0%

---

Diagnostic Signal Summary

Signal	Status	Finding
Tracing Noise (P0)	⚠️ Significant	67.7% of spans < 10us
Thread Utilization (P0)	🆗 Average	62.7% utilization
Heavy Monoliths (P1)	✅ Minimal	3 tasks > 100ms
Asset Pipeline (P3)	Review	3,315.6 ms total
Bridge/Interop (P4)	Low	0.0 ms total

---

Action Items (P0-P4)

1. [P0] Profile lock contention to address 37% lost parallelism
2. [P1] Breakdown heavy monolith tasks (>100ms) to improve granularity
3. [P1] Review I/O patterns for potential batching opportunities
4. [P3] Optimize asset transformation pipeline hot-spots
5. [P4] Reduce "chatty" bridge operations if interop overhead is significant

---

Report generated by Utoopack Performance Analysis Agent on 2026-02-13
Following: Utoopack Performance Analysis Agent Protocol