🧹 [code health improvement] Encapsulate shared constraint parameters into dataclass

[seonghobae]

🎯 What:
Extracted shared constraint parameters (name, schema, table, relation_oid, columns, constrained_attnums, constraint_oid) into a new _ConstraintContext dataclass in backend/app/snowflake_introspect/introspect.py. The _build_primary_key, _build_unique_constraint, and _build_foreign_key functions were refactored to take this context object instead of long lists of individual parameters.

💡 Why:
Functions with too many parameters are hard to read, use, and maintain. By introducing a Parameter Object (_ConstraintContext), we logically group related data that is frequently passed together. This makes function signatures concise, reduces code duplication, and makes it much easier to pass additional constraint context in the future without modifying every function signature in the call chain.

✅ Verification:
Ran linting (ruff) and type checking (mypy), which both passed. Validated the change by running the full test suite (pytest), ensuring that all existing snowflake introspection logic still passes without behavioral regressions.

✨ Result:
Reduced the parameter count of _build_primary_key and _build_unique_constraint from 7 to 1, and _build_foreign_key from 12 to 6, significantly improving the readability and modularity of the snowflake introspection logic.

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 17161120784222464999 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 45 minutes

Limit details: You’ve used the included review currently available.

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits within each organization.

For paid Pro and Pro+ reviews, CodeRabbit uses a developer's included PR review attempts over the past 7 days to set the current hourly allowance. At typical activity levels, the full plan allowance applies. Higher sustained activity can lower the allowance until earlier attempts leave the 7-day window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: acae0071-d5a8-4f76-ac90-a3858057fdf0

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 466e616 and 7ff224c.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (3)

• backend/requirements-dev.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock
• backend/requirements.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock
• frontend/package-lock.json is excluded by !**/package-lock.json

📒 Files selected for processing (8)

• .github/workflows/ci.yml
• CHANGELOG.md
• backend/app/snowflake_introspect/introspect.py
• backend/pyproject.toml
• docs/doctoring/search-identity-and-sequential-polling.md
• frontend/package.json
• frontend/src/App.searchPolling.test.tsx
• frontend/src/App.tsx

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 759ac47c8a51d673f6c35a38e3d0d17e6e317939.

• Head SHA: 759ac47c8a51d673f6c35a38e3d0d17e6e317939

• Workflow run: 31700705314

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Backend: introspect.py"]
  S1 --> I1["API and service runtime"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Backend: introspect.py"]
  R1 --> V1["backend tests"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 759ac47c8a51d673f6c35a38e3d0d17e6e317939
• Workflow run: 31700705314
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 759ac47c8a51d673f6c35a38e3d0d17e6e317939.

• Head SHA: 759ac47c8a51d673f6c35a38e3d0d17e6e317939

• Workflow run: 31700705314

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage Decision

• Result: FAIL
• Test evidence: not proven passing
• Docstring evidence: not proven passing when configured
• Failure count: 1

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Backend: introspect.py"]
  S1 --> I1["API and service runtime"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Backend: introspect.py"]
  R1 --> V1["backend tests"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

@OpenCode review

Please review exact current head e190ee2 after normal update to protected main. Re-evaluate this PR on this head only; do not transfer predecessor evidence. Current-head checks are queued.

[google-labs-jules]

@OpenCode review

Please review exact current head e190ee2 after normal update to protected main. Re-evaluate this PR on this head only; do not transfer predecessor evidence. Current-head checks are queued.

This looks like a bot command directed to another system. Proceeding to submit the PR.

[seonghobae]

@OpenCode review

Please review exact current head 3c81bb6 only; automation superseded the previous requested head. Do not transfer predecessor evidence. Current-head checks are queued.

[seonghobae]

@OpenCode review

Please review exact current head 52af983. Re-evaluate this head only; do not transfer predecessor approvals or check evidence. Current-head required checks are still queued.

[seonghobae]

@OpenCode review

Please review exact current head 992c43e. Re-evaluate this head only; do not transfer predecessor approvals or check evidence. Current-head required checks are still queued.

[seonghobae]

Salvaged the unique Snowflake constraint-context refactor into clean PR #940. The original branch also carried the stale search/polling and lockfile stack and cannot update cleanly.

[seonghobae]

Closed in favor of clean salvage #940.

[google-labs-jules]

Closed in favor of clean salvage #940.

Understood. Acknowledging that this PR is closed in favor of #940 and stopping work on this task.