Skip to content

refactor: remove unused and_item_index field from ExecutionItemDisplay#394

Merged
branchseer merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/remove-unused-item-index-prBtt
May 21, 2026
Merged

refactor: remove unused and_item_index field from ExecutionItemDisplay#394
branchseer merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/remove-unused-item-index-prBtt

Conversation

@branchseer
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Removes the and_item_index field from the ExecutionItemDisplay struct, which tracked the index of execution items split by && in task commands. This field was populated during task planning but never used downstream.

Changes

  • Struct definition: Removed and_item_index: Option<usize> field from ExecutionItemDisplay in crates/vite_task_plan/src/lib.rs
  • Planning logic: Removed the assignment of and_item_index in crates/vite_task_plan/src/plan.rs (both for split commands and single commands)
  • Test fixtures: Updated all snapshot files to remove the and_item_index field from serialized output
  • Test utilities: Removed the field initialization in test fixture helpers in crates/vite_task/src/session/reporter/mod.rs

Rationale

The and_item_index field was computed during task planning to indicate which part of a &&-separated command sequence an execution item represented, but this information was never consumed by any downstream code. Removing it simplifies the data structure and reduces unnecessary computation.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01LXLpjxLchyX5FyD8Fzmxqp

The `and_item_index` field on `ExecutionItemDisplay` was only ever written,
never read by any reporter or execution code. Remove it and regenerate the
plan snapshots. The distinct `and_item_index` on `ExecutionCacheKey::UserTask`
is part of the cache key and is unaffected.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01LXLpjxLchyX5FyD8Fzmxqp
@branchseer branchseer merged commit 6e9bea9 into main May 21, 2026
12 checks passed
@branchseer branchseer deleted the claude/remove-unused-item-index-prBtt branch May 21, 2026 10:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants