Avoid unchanged provider storage updates

[steipete]

Summary

• avoid republishing provider storage footprints when only the scan timestamp changed
• preserve the existing observable value for identical storage contents
• add observation-based regression coverage
• preserve contributor credit from perf: skip storage footprint republish when scan is unchanged #1416

Verification

• swift test --filter ProviderStorageFootprintTests (15 tests passed)
• swift test (3573 tests passed)
• make check
• autoreview clean, no accepted/actionable findings

Replacement for #1416 because GitHub Actions did not attach to the contributor branch after its rebase.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed June 11, 2026, 10:26 AM ET / 14:26 UTC.

Summary
Review failed before ClawSweeper could summarize the requested change.

Reproducibility: unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Review metrics: none identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Result: rating does not apply to this item.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Risk before merge

• [P1] No close action taken because the review did not complete.

Maintainer options:

1. Decide the mitigation before merge
   Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.
2. Pause or close
   Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

• Review did not complete, so no work-lane recommendation was made.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear. Retry the review first so ClawSweeper can evaluate the actual issue and fix direction.

AGENTS.md: unclear because the file could not be read completely.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 1bb6d107664a.

Label changes

Label changes:

• add rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Overall readiness is 🌊 off-meta tidepool; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🌊 off-meta tidepool.
• remove status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: Current PR status no longer selects a status label.
• remove rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Current PR rating is rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool, so this older rating label is no longer current.

Label justifications:

• rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Overall readiness is 🌊 off-meta tidepool; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🌊 off-meta tidepool.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• failure reason: retryable codex transport failure.
• codex failure detail: Codex review failed for this PR with exit 1.
• codex stderr: (≥150 ms) andlogChartRenderDurationIfSlow(≥50 ms) log via the same.warningpath, which persists to the log store, so a slow op would have been captured.\n\nOver the session:\n-slow menu operationwarnings (open/close/tab-switch blocking the main thread ≥150 ms): **0**\n- crashes / hangs: **0**\n-slow chart render: **1** — 55.1 mson the first hydrate ofusageHistoryChart(first hover only; subsequent hovers are skipped by the existing render-signature guard).\n\nSo the open/close freeze does not reproduce on this branch, and the one remaining sub-threshold hitch is the inherent first-build cost of a SwiftUI chart (not addressed here, and not cacheable on first render).\n\n## Scope / notes\n\nThis is a small, low-risk churn-reduction. It is **not** the main menu open/close freeze fix — recentmain` already addresses that via hosted-chart render signatures (Reduce hosted chart submenu stalls #1384), card hosting-view harvest/recycling, height caching, and deferred rebuilds (Defer tracked menu data-refresh rebuilds #1376). This just removes one remaining source of needless menu invalidation that those caches then have to recover from.\n\n🤖 Generated with Claude Code".
• codex stdout: No stdout captured.

Likely related people:

• unknown: Codex failed before it could trace repository history. (role: review did not complete; confidence: low)

What the crustacean ranks mean

• 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
• 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
• 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
• 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
• 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
• 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
• 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

How this review workflow works

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

[steipete]

Rebased onto current main and revalidated exact head bc24e95141abd62b65e20cc172bde6036ce155de.

Proof:

• swift test --filter ProviderStorageFootprintTests — 16 tests passed
• make check — clean
• autoreview --mode branch --base origin/main — clean, no actionable findings

Contributor attribution from #1416 remains in the commit and changelog.

[steipete]

Closing in favor of #1416.

The implementation is equivalent, while #1416 now carries the isolated real-storage-scan Observation regression, full-suite validation, and preserved contributor credit. Keeping the contributor PR as the canonical landing path avoids duplicate merge and release-note history.

[steipete]

Updated the PR head to e69cbe07f252f2c0da446b488c985185d63b4c25.

• rebased onto current main
• swift test --filter ProviderStorageFootprintTests: 16 passed
• make check: clean
• structured autoreview: clean, no actionable findings (0.88 confidence)

Fresh exact-head CI is now running.

[steipete]

Maintainer proof for exact head 11338df391fe113b1786aed932ad1056760f4478:

• swift test --filter ProviderStorageFootprintTests: 16 tests passed, including observation behavior when only scan timestamps change.
• make check: passed (format, lint, build, full test suite, parser hash validation).
• Autoreview: clean, confidence 0.84; no accepted/actionable findings.
• Runtime boundary: this is store/model deduplication with no external-provider or Keychain path. Focused tests verify unchanged visible footprint contents do not republish while refresh bookkeeping still advances.

The branch is rebased onto current main and ready once exact-head CI is green.