Open
Conversation
The `#index_all` method does not return an error, it raises one. In the next commit we want to add a non-error return value, so we need to fix this first.
thomasmarshall
force-pushed
the
incremental-infrastructure
branch
from
b443345 to
1f13fea
Compare
Morriar
reviewed
Feb 11, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR sets up the basic infrastructure and API for incremental updates:
For now we can continue using:
…because
graph.resolve(nil)will resolve everything, but we might want to switch to making the parameter required.@vinistock suggested that we should be returning a list of units, but by returning a result struct containing two sets of IDs, it's easier to reuse the existing infrastructure for sorting and processing the units. I'm not sure I fully understood the benefit to constructing the units at index time rather than during resolution, but I'm happy to revisit if you think that would be preferable?
As of this PR, incremental updates don't work—we should continue using
graph.resolve(nil)for now.Feedback
I'm not confident in the FFI C side of things, particularly when the result will be freed (whether we pass it into
#resolveor not). Claude Code helped me with this and I sense-checked to the best of my current abilities. Any feedback on this would be much appreciated!