next-leak 0.12.0 → 0.12.1

package/dist/{chunk-7WUE3WOI.js → chunk-G2777DKL.js}

@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 import { createRequire as __nextLeakCreateRequire } from 'node:module';import { fileURLToPath as __nextLeakFileURLToPath } from 'node:url';import { dirname as __nextLeakDirname } from 'node:path';const require = __nextLeakCreateRequire(import.meta.url);const __filename = __nextLeakFileURLToPath(import.meta.url);const __dirname = __nextLeakDirname(__filename);
 import {
-  effectiveVerdict
-} from "./chunk-4NKGNMEA.js";
+  effectiveVerdict,
+  withdrawnByDisagreement
+} from "./chunk-UU4RXOZO.js";
 import {
   assessPeakPressure,
   describePeakPressure,
@@ -74,7 +75,7 @@ function measuredSection(route, parameters) {
   }
   const verdict = effectiveVerdict(route);
   const color = VERDICT_COLOR[verdict];
-  const withdrawn = route.confidence.supersededVerdict === void 0 ? "" : `<p class="warn">Measured <strong>${route.trend.verdict}</strong>, withdrawn: the run did not observe what that verdict needs.</p>`;
+  const withdrawn = route.confidence.supersededVerdict === void 0 || withdrawnByDisagreement(route.confidence) ? "" : `<p class="warn">Measured <strong>${route.trend.verdict}</strong>, withdrawn: the run did not observe what that verdict needs.</p>`;
   const warnings = route.confidence.warnings.length === 0 ? "" : `<ul class="warn">${route.confidence.warnings.map((warning) => `<li>${escapeHtml(warning.detail)}</li>`).join("")}</ul>`;
   const curve = route.samples.map((sample) => (sample / MB).toFixed(1)).join(" \u2192 ");
   const findings = [...route.diff?.grownNodes ?? [], ...route.diff?.newNodes ?? []];

package/dist/{chunk-5VXBMWDN.js → chunk-L5KWU2RU.js}

@@ -6,8 +6,9 @@ import {
   effectiveVerdict,
   minGrowthFor,
   resolveCycles,
-  warrantsIssueDraft
-} from "./chunk-4NKGNMEA.js";
+  warrantsIssueDraft,
+  withdrawnByDisagreement
+} from "./chunk-UU4RXOZO.js";
 import {
   assessPeakPressure,
   assessPressureVerdict,
@@ -95030,7 +95031,7 @@ function abandonLines(route) {
 }
 function confidenceLines(route) {
   const lines = [];
-  if (route.confidence.supersededVerdict !== void 0) {
+  if (route.confidence.supersededVerdict !== void 0 && !withdrawnByDisagreement(route.confidence)) {
     lines.push(
       `      measured ${route.trend.verdict}, withdrawn: the run did not observe what that verdict needs`
     );
@@ -95621,7 +95622,7 @@ async function measureRoute(context, route, requestPath, index, pass = void 0) {
   };
 }
 async function writeEvidenceBundle(report, workDir) {
-  const { renderHtmlReport } = await import("./html-report-6KGPHCMA.js");
+  const { renderHtmlReport } = await import("./html-report-DLKFB3IU.js");
   const { renderIssueMarkdown } = await import("./issue-report-OALZZLVR.js");
   for (const route of report.routes) {
     if (route.status === "measured" && warrantsIssueDraft(route)) {

package/dist/{chunk-4NKGNMEA.js → chunk-UU4RXOZO.js}

@@ -121,6 +121,9 @@ function classifyMemoryTrend(heapSamples, externalSamples, options = {}) {
 }
 
 // src/confidence.ts
+function withdrawnByDisagreement(confidence) {
+  return confidence.warnings.some((warning) => warning.code === "repetitions-disagree");
+}
 var resolveCycles = (cycles) => Math.max(cycles * 2, 6);
 function effectiveVerdict(report) {
   return report.confidence.supersededVerdict ?? report.trend.verdict;
@@ -324,6 +327,7 @@ export {
   minGrowthFor,
   classifyTrend,
   classifyMemoryTrend,
+  withdrawnByDisagreement,
   resolveCycles,
   effectiveVerdict,
   warrantsIssueDraft,

package/dist/cli.js

@@ -22,10 +22,10 @@ import {
   runSelfCheck,
   unregisterChild,
   validateTarget
-} from "./chunk-5VXBMWDN.js";
+} from "./chunk-L5KWU2RU.js";
 import {
   classifyTrend
-} from "./chunk-4NKGNMEA.js";
+} from "./chunk-UU4RXOZO.js";
 import "./chunk-E464SO7G.js";
 import "./chunk-6XYFBOL2.js";
 

package/dist/confidence.d.ts

@@ -55,12 +55,41 @@ export type ConfidenceReport = {
     warnings: MeasurementWarning[];
     /**
      * Verdict the evidence actually supports, when the measurement is not merely
-     * noisy but invalid. Only ever downgrades `leak`: accusing an app of leaking
-     * on evidence that does not hold is the expensive error — it sends someone
-     * chasing a ghost and ends as an issue against this tool.
+     * noisy but invalid.
+     *
+     * Two different mechanisms set this, and they mean different things.
+     * `assessConfidence` sets it when a run did not observe what its own verdict
+     * requires, and only ever downgrades `leak`: accusing an app of leaking on
+     * evidence that does not hold is the expensive error — it sends someone
+     * chasing a ghost and ends as an issue against this tool. `aggregateRepetitions`
+     * sets it for *any* verdict when repetitions of the same route disagreed,
+     * which is not a flaw in this run at all. `withdrawnByDisagreement` below
+     * tells the two apart; anything that explains a withdrawal to a reader has to.
      */
     supersededVerdict?: TrendVerdict;
 };
+/**
+ * Whether a withdrawal came from repetitions disagreeing rather than from this
+ * run failing its own audit.
+ *
+ * The distinction matters to anyone phrasing it. An audited withdrawal means
+ * the run never observed what the verdict needs — it never settled, the
+ * disconnects cut nothing, the deltas were too thin. A disagreement means the
+ * opposite: this run observed exactly what it needed, and another run of the
+ * same route observed something else. Telling a reader the run "did not observe
+ * what that verdict needs" in the second case is simply untrue, and the
+ * disagreement already carries its own warning naming the verdicts it produced.
+ *
+ * Both can be true of one report, and then this answers `true` and the audit's
+ * sentence is dropped along with the disagreement's. `aggregateRepetitions`
+ * keeps the winning pass's own warnings and overwrites only `supersededVerdict`,
+ * which both mechanisms set to `inconclusive`, so no reading is lost: the
+ * audit's warning still prints its own detail, which names the cause the generic
+ * sentence never did. Separating the two would mean carrying the winner's
+ * withdrawal reason through the aggregation, and it would buy the reader a
+ * sentence they already have in a more specific form.
+ */
+export declare function withdrawnByDisagreement(confidence: ConfidenceReport): boolean;
 export type ConfidenceInput = {
     trend: TrendResult;
     loadOutcomes: readonly LoadOutcome[];

package/dist/{html-report-6KGPHCMA.js → html-report-DLKFB3IU.js}

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 import { createRequire as __nextLeakCreateRequire } from 'node:module';import { fileURLToPath as __nextLeakFileURLToPath } from 'node:url';import { dirname as __nextLeakDirname } from 'node:path';const require = __nextLeakCreateRequire(import.meta.url);const __filename = __nextLeakFileURLToPath(import.meta.url);const __dirname = __nextLeakDirname(__filename);
 import {
   renderHtmlReport
-} from "./chunk-7WUE3WOI.js";
-import "./chunk-4NKGNMEA.js";
+} from "./chunk-G2777DKL.js";
+import "./chunk-UU4RXOZO.js";
 import "./chunk-E464SO7G.js";
 import "./chunk-6XYFBOL2.js";
 export {

package/dist/index.js

@@ -41,13 +41,13 @@ import {
   sourceIndexAt,
   summarizeBaseline,
   validateTarget
-} from "./chunk-5VXBMWDN.js";
+} from "./chunk-L5KWU2RU.js";
 import {
   renderHtmlReport
-} from "./chunk-7WUE3WOI.js";
+} from "./chunk-G2777DKL.js";
 import {
   classifyTrend
-} from "./chunk-4NKGNMEA.js";
+} from "./chunk-UU4RXOZO.js";
 import {
   renderIssueMarkdown
 } from "./chunk-YPVBX3QA.js";

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "next-leak",
-  "version": "0.12.0",
+  "version": "0.12.1",
   "description": "Find out whether your Next.js app actually leaks memory — how much, on which route, and whose fault it is.",
   "keywords": [
     "nextjs",