mirror of
https://github.com/Comfy-Org/ComfyUI_frontend.git
synced 2026-04-19 22:09:37 +00:00
3e197b5c57
## Summary
Architecture documentation proposing an Entity Component System for the
litegraph layer.
```mermaid
graph LR
subgraph Today["Today: Spaghetti"]
God["🍝 God Objects"]
Circ["🔄 Circular Deps"]
Mut["💥 Render Mutations"]
end
subgraph Tomorrow["Tomorrow: ECS"]
ID["🏷️ Branded IDs"]
Comp["📦 Components"]
Sys["⚙️ Systems"]
World["🌍 World"]
end
God -->|"decompose"| Comp
Circ -->|"flatten"| ID
Mut -->|"separate"| Sys
Comp --> World
ID --> World
Sys -->|"query"| World
```
## Changes
- **What**: ADR 0008 + 4 architecture docs (no code changes)
- `docs/adr/0008-entity-component-system.md` — entity taxonomy, branded
IDs, component decomposition, migration strategy
- `docs/architecture/entity-interactions.md` — as-is Mermaid diagrams of
all entity relationships
- `docs/architecture/entity-problems.md` — structural problems with
file:line evidence
- `docs/architecture/ecs-target-architecture.md` — target architecture
diagrams
- `docs/architecture/proto-ecs-stores.md` — analysis of existing Pinia
stores as proto-ECS patterns
## Review Focus
- Does the entity taxonomy (Node, Link, Subgraph, Widget, Slot, Reroute,
Group) cover all cases?
- Are the component decompositions reasonable starting points?
- Is the migration strategy (bridge layer, incremental extraction)
feasible?
- Are there entity interactions or problems we missed?
┆Issue is synchronized with this [Notion
page](https://www.notion.so/PR-10420-docs-ADR-0008-Entity-Component-System-32d6d73d365081feb048d16a5231d350)
by [Unito](https://www.unito.io)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: GitHub Action <action@github.com>
Co-authored-by: Amp <amp@ampcode.com>
Co-authored-by: Christian Byrne <cbyrne@comfy.org>
49 lines
3.6 KiB
YAML
49 lines
3.6 KiB
YAML
issue_enrichment:
|
|
auto_enrich:
|
|
enabled: true
|
|
reviews:
|
|
high_level_summary: false
|
|
request_changes_workflow: true
|
|
auto_review:
|
|
drafts: true
|
|
ignore_title_keywords:
|
|
- '[release]'
|
|
- '[backport'
|
|
ignore_usernames:
|
|
- comfy-pr-bot
|
|
- github-actions
|
|
- github-actions[bot]
|
|
pre_merge_checks:
|
|
override_requested_reviewers_only: true
|
|
custom_checks:
|
|
- name: End-to-end regression coverage for fixes
|
|
mode: error
|
|
instructions: |
|
|
Use only PR metadata already available in the review context: the PR title, commit subjects in this PR, the files changed in this PR relative to the PR base (equivalent to `base...head`), and the PR description.
|
|
Do not rely on shell commands. Do not inspect reverse diffs, files changed only on the base branch, or files outside this PR. If the changed-file list or commit subjects are unavailable, mark the check inconclusive instead of guessing.
|
|
|
|
Pass if at least one of the following is true:
|
|
1. Neither the PR title nor any commit subject in the PR uses bug-fix language such as `fix`, `fixed`, `fixes`, `fixing`, `bugfix`, or `hotfix`.
|
|
2. The PR changes at least one file under `browser_tests/`.
|
|
3. The PR description includes a concrete, non-placeholder explanation of why an end-to-end regression test was not added.
|
|
|
|
Fail otherwise. When failing, mention which bug-fix signal you found and ask the author to either add or update a Playwright regression test under `browser_tests/` or add a concrete explanation in the PR description of why an end-to-end regression test is not practical.
|
|
- name: ADR compliance for entity/litegraph changes
|
|
mode: warning
|
|
instructions: |
|
|
Use only PR metadata already available in the review context: the changed-file list relative to the PR base, the PR description, and the diff content. Do not rely on shell commands.
|
|
|
|
This check applies ONLY when the PR modifies files under `src/lib/litegraph/`, `src/ecs/`, or files related to graph entities (nodes, links, widgets, slots, reroutes, groups, subgraphs).
|
|
|
|
If none of those paths appear in the changed files, pass immediately.
|
|
|
|
When applicable, check for:
|
|
1. **Command pattern (ADR 0003)**: Entity state mutations must be serializable, idempotent, deterministic commands — not imperative fire-and-forget side effects. Flag direct spatial mutation (`node.pos =`, `node.size =`, `group.pos =`) outside of a store or command, and any new void-returning mutation API that should produce a command object.
|
|
2. **God-object growth (ADR 0008)**: New methods/properties added to `LGraphNode`, `LGraphCanvas`, `LGraph`, or `Subgraph` that add responsibilities rather than extracting/migrating existing ones.
|
|
3. **ECS data/behavior separation (ADR 0008)**: Component-like data structures that contain methods or back-references to parent entities. ECS components must be plain data. New OOP instance patterns (`node.someProperty`, `node.someMethod()`) for data that should be a World component.
|
|
4. **Extension ecosystem (ADR 0008)**: Changes to extension-facing callbacks (`onConnectionsChange`, `onRemoved`, `onAdded`, `onConfigure`, `onConnectInput/Output`, `onWidgetChanged`), `node.widgets` access, `node.serialize` overrides, or `graph._version++` without migration guidance. These affect 40+ custom node repos.
|
|
|
|
Pass if none of these patterns are found in the diff.
|
|
|
|
When warning, reference the specific ADR by number and link to `docs/adr/` for context. Frame findings as directional guidance since ADR 0003 and 0008 are in Proposed status.
|