Un extracto representativo basado en el análisis de una base de código interna. Muestra la evidencia, la priorización y el alcance de remediación que puede producir un estudio.
Both resetProject() and purgeProject() bypassed the canonical teardown seam, duplicating ad-hoc cleanup that skipped job cancellation, agent process termination, workspace cleanup, event emission, and CodeStudy unlinking. Project-owned records could survive reset, and running jobs could continue against deleted change requests.
Consolidate project lifecycle cleanup through canonical CR teardown: route both resetProject() and purgeProject() through CrTeardownService.remove(), then run one project-scoped sweep for the remaining project-owned data.
Both lifecycle paths duplicated cleanup instead of routing through CrTeardownService.remove(), so they skipped job cancellation, process kill, workspace cleanup, event emission, and unlinking.
The UI promised an initial-state reset, but Features, Ideas, Initiatives, CodeStudies, BusinessRules, and KnowledgeDocuments survived and polluted future planning runs.
Bypassing teardown allowed BullMQ jobs and long-running agent processes to continue operating against deleted change requests on two user-facing flows.
This approach replaces two hand-curated cleanup matrices with one canonical seam. A point fix on resetProject() alone would leave the same orphan and process-residue risk on the delete-project path.