feat(api): user caches

[didinele]

No description provided.

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
chatsift-website	Ready	Preview	Aug 8, 2026 4:26pm

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@didinele, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 27 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: f5389ce4-27ef-4229-a666-571a250691bf

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 0a46178 and 9284bf4.

📒 Files selected for processing (14)

• packages/private/backend-core/src/index.ts
• packages/private/backend-core/src/lib/data/users.ts
• packages/private/bot-core/src/index.ts
• packages/private/bot-core/src/lib/client.ts
• packages/private/bot-core/src/lib/users.ts
• services/ama-bot/src/components/markDuplicateSelect.ts
• services/ama-bot/src/components/modApprove.ts
• services/api/src/routes/ama/questions/util.ts
• services/api/src/routes/guilds/getGrants.ts
• services/api/src/routes/modmail/blocks/listBlocks.ts
• services/api/src/routes/modmail/threads/util.ts
• services/api/src/util/me.ts
• services/api/src/util/users.ts
• services/modmail-bot/src/lib/referencedUserEmbed.ts

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[claude]

Code review

Checked for bugs and CLAUDE.md compliance. One issue found:

• Missing milestone/issue reference in PR description. docs/workflow.md (incorporated by CLAUDE.md's "Follow docs/workflow.md for branching/commits/verification") states: "Reference the relevant milestone/issue in the PR description (Closes #123)." This PR's description is currently empty, with no linked issue/milestone. Since this repo is mid-rebirth with active milestone tracking in docs/roadmap/, that linkage helps reviewers place the change (e.g. is this part of M4/M5, or a standalone reliability fix?).

No bugs found in the diff itself — the new shared Redis-backed Discord user cache (packages/private/backend-core/src/lib/data/users.ts), its bot-core/API integration, and the /me single-flight de-dup in services/api/src/util/me.ts all checked out, including the security boundary that keeps the OAuth-scoped /users/@me response out of the shared cache. A potential cachedAt: number vs DataType.Date recipe-encoding mismatch was raised by two independent reviewers but couldn't be confirmed with reasonable confidence in this environment (no bin-rw source available to inspect, and the file compiling cleanly under tsc is actual counter-evidence against it being a real bug) — flagging here for awareness in case it's worth a quick manual check, but not filing it as a confirmed defect.