Clean up codebase indexing parity, fix behavior when you turn off codebase indexing by moirahuang · Pull Request #11254 · warpdotdev/warp

moirahuang · 2026-05-19T01:22:37Z

Description

Fix remote codebase indexing parity with local Codebase Context behavior:

Share Codebase Context / auto-indexing policy helpers between local and remote paths.
Gate remote search/status/manual index requests on Codebase Context being enabled.
Stop remote SearchCodebase from implicitly starting indexing for NotIndexed repos.
Clear client-side remote index state and best-effort drop known remote indexes when Codebase Context is disabled.
Scope remote codebase context entries to the active remote host.

Testing

Added unit tests + locally tested

I have manually tested my changes locally with ./script/run

Screenshots / Videos

https://www.loom.com/share/47167d614c704928978ae3ec7dfb924b

Agent Mode

Warp Agent Mode - This PR was created via Warp's AI Agent Mode

CHANGELOG-NONE

Co-Authored-By: Oz oz-agent@warp.dev

Conversation: https://staging.warp.dev/conversation/06ff18ae-3bf1-4c50-9d31-4f5daa10e0de
Run: https://oz.staging.warp.dev/runs/019e3d90-2fd2-7c00-bd7e-9f79f109f938
Plans:

Remote codebase indexing parity fixes
This PR was generated with Oz.

Co-Authored-By: Oz <oz-agent@warp.dev>

…nd remote, pass host for codebase context

oz-for-oss · 2026-05-19T03:20:06Z

@moirahuang

I'm starting a first review of this pull request.

You can view the conversation on Warp.

I completed the review and no human review was requested for this pull request.

Comment /oz-review on this pull request to retrigger a review (up to 3 times on the same pull request).

Powered by Oz

oz-for-oss

Overview

This PR centralizes Codebase Context policy, gates remote indexing/search on the shared enablement, scopes remote codebase context by host, and refactors remote search shaping to share local fragment-building logic.

Concerns

Remote search now reads each candidate file as a whole file with the default file-read limit before fragment extraction. That limit is lower than the Codebase Context indexable file size, so results from larger indexed files can be silently dropped.

Verdict

Found: 0 critical, 1 important, 0 suggestions

Request changes

Comment /oz-review on this pull request to retrigger a review (up to 3 times on the same pull request).

Powered by Oz

oz-for-oss · 2026-05-19T03:24:26Z

+                    })
            })
            .collect(),
        max_file_bytes: None,


⚠️ [IMPORTANT] The whole-file request keeps the default 1MB per-file read limit, but Codebase Context indexes files up to 3MB. Any fragment from a larger indexed file is returned as truncated or omitted, then fails build_fragments_from_file_contents, so remote search silently drops valid results. Request enough bytes to cover the index limit or fetch bounded ranges around each fragment before reranking.

Co-Authored-By: Oz <oz-agent@warp.dev>

kevinyang372 · 2026-05-19T15:37:41Z

+        && codebase_context_enabled
+}
+
+#[cfg(test)]


These unit tests seem unnecessary if they are just verifying a written out logic condition

kevinyang372 · 2026-05-19T15:38:52Z

+#[cfg(not(target_family = "wasm"))]
+use crate::features::FeatureFlag;
+
+#[cfg(not(target_family = "wasm"))]


Is this function just carrying this one method? If we actually want a separate module for all the policy conditions I would consider moving is_auto_indexing_enabled here as well

or i can just move the remote_codebase_indexing_enabled logic out and remove the module entirely

kevinyang372 · 2026-05-19T15:41:01Z

        }

        let remote_paths = self.active_git_repo_paths_needing_auto_index();
        emit_auto_index_requested_telemetry(


I just noticed emit_auto_index_requested_telemetry is only emitted after the early return for !should_auto_index_codebase(CodebaseAutoIndexingSurface::Remote, ctx) -- this means its not really accurate right?

i'm not fully following this comment. we want emit_auto_index_requested_telemetry to fire when we actually auto index. so don't we want it to emit only after we know that we aren't early returning?

Ah I see -- I thought we are emitting it whenever it changed

kevinyang372 · 2026-05-19T15:44:25Z


+    fn clear_remote_codebase_indexing_state(&mut self) -> Vec<RemotePath> {
+        let remote_paths = self.statuses.keys().cloned().collect::<Vec<_>>();
+        self.statuses.clear();


nit: We should be able to take ownership of statuses since we are clearing it anyway -- this avoids the extra clone above

kevinyang372 · 2026-05-19T15:48:43Z

        fragments: Vec<Fragment>,
        context_lines: usize,
    ) -> HashSet<CodeContextLocation> {
-        // Map to collect fragments by file path


Erm why the refactor here?

there was duplicate logic w remote so it's consolidating it

kevinyang372 · 2026-05-19T15:49:45Z

 }

+#[cfg(test)]
+mod tests {


What are these unit tests actually verifying?

to make sure that the remote metadata format is correct but i can simplify

Can we keep them in a separate test file rather than in the middle of the actual app logic?

kevinyang372 · 2026-05-19T15:55:22Z

    if metadata.is_empty() {
        return Ok(SearchCodebaseResult::Success { files: vec![] });
    }
+    let metadata = metadata


It's a bit hard for me to grok what these refactors are for

it's meant to convert from remote metadata to FragmentMetadata so we can reuse more local paths but i can try to improve the readability of this

kevinyang372

I didn't read too much into the detail assuming most of the refactoring is moving logic around. But lmk if there is actually pieces that are worth calling out

kevinyang372 · 2026-05-19T23:03:29Z

 }

+#[cfg(test)]
+mod tests {


Can we keep them in a separate test file rather than in the middle of the actual app logic?

Fix remote codebase context disablement parity

f101538

Co-Authored-By: Oz <oz-agent@warp.dev>

cla-bot Bot added the cla-signed label May 19, 2026

moirahuang added 2 commits May 18, 2026 18:48

[remote codebase indexing] consolidate fragment logic between local a…

230bbd3

…nd remote, pass host for codebase context

auto index if you're in the repo

c5e4150

moirahuang marked this pull request as ready for review May 19, 2026 03:19

moirahuang changed the title ~~Fix remote Codebase Context parity~~ Clean up codebase indexing parity, fix behavior when you turn off codebase indexing May 19, 2026

oz-for-oss Bot reviewed May 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

moirahuang requested a review from kevinyang372 May 19, 2026 03:25

Merge origin/master into disable-codebase-context

6c5ae53

Co-Authored-By: Oz <oz-agent@warp.dev>

kevinyang372 reviewed May 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

clean up module and tests

276f69b

moirahuang requested a review from kevinyang372 May 19, 2026 19:12

kevinyang372 approved these changes May 19, 2026

View reviewed changes

Conversation

moirahuang commented May 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description

Testing

Screenshots / Videos

Agent Mode

Uh oh!

oz-for-oss Bot commented May 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

oz-for-oss Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Overview

Concerns

Verdict

Uh oh!

oz-for-oss Bot May 19, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kevinyang372 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

moirahuang commented May 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

oz-for-oss Bot commented May 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading