fix: preserve mock data when regenerating component render

[anubra266]

No description provided.

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 07cc2f5

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[vercel]

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

Project	Deployment	Review	Updated (UTC)
agents-manage-api	Building	Preview, Comment	Jan 5, 2026 9:51pm
agents-manage-ui	Building	Preview, Comment	Jan 5, 2026 9:51pm
agents-run-api	Building	Preview, Comment	Jan 5, 2026 9:51pm

1 Skipped Deployment

Project	Deployment	Review	Updated (UTC)
agents-docs	Skipped		Jan 5, 2026 9:51pm

[claude]

Claude finished @anubra266's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

As a TypeScript Staff Engineer and System Architect, I've conducted a comprehensive review of this PR.

Review Tasks:

• Analyze the modified file and understand the change
• Research related patterns and system architecture
• Evaluate engineering design and potential issues
• Check for common pitfalls and architectural considerations
• Provide comprehensive feedback

Summary

This PR addresses a specific user experience issue where mock data gets lost when users regenerate component renders with instructions. The fix preserves existing mock data when the AI regeneration doesn't include mock data or returns empty mock data.

Engineering Analysis

🟢 What Works Well

1. Problem Understanding: The fix addresses a legitimate UX issue where users lose their carefully crafted mock data when making component modifications.

2. Defensive Programming: The implementation includes proper null checks and handles edge cases gracefully.

3. Clear Intent: The added comments clearly explain the purpose of the preservation logic.

🟡 Areas for Consideration

System Design & Architecture

1. Dual Mock Data Sources (Medium Priority)

   • The system now has two potential sources of mock data preservation: the API route (route.ts:98-101) and this client-side component (component-render-generator.tsx:118-123)
   • Issue: These could conflict or produce inconsistent behavior if both attempt preservation
   • Recommendation: Clarify the division of responsibilities. Consider whether preservation should be purely server-side or client-side, not both.

2. API Contract Ambiguity (High Priority)

   • The API route comments state "DO NOT regenerate sample data - keep the same data structure" (route.ts:175) but the actual implementation may still return empty/partial mock data
   • Issue: Client-side code now needs to compensate for inconsistent API behavior
   • Recommendation: Either fix the API to consistently preserve data or document this as expected behavior

Implementation Quality

3. Empty Object Detection Logic (Low Priority)

   (!lastValidObject.mockData || Object.keys(lastValidObject.mockData).length === 0)

   • Issue: This doesn't detect objects with only undefined/null values or deeply nested empty objects
   • Consideration: For most use cases this is sufficient, but consider if stricter empty detection is needed

4. State Management Race Conditions (Medium Priority)

   • The existingMockData capture happens before state clearing, but there's a potential timing issue if multiple rapid regenerations occur
   • Current behavior: Likely safe due to React's batching, but worth monitoring

User Experience

5. Silent Data Preservation (Low Priority)
   • Users aren't notified when mock data is preserved vs. regenerated
   • Consideration: This might be intentional for seamless UX, but power users might want to know when preservation occurs

Testing & Reliability

6. Missing Test Coverage (Medium Priority)
   • No tests found for this component or the preservation logic
   • Recommendation: Add tests for:
     • Mock data preservation during regeneration with instructions
     • Proper mock data replacement when new data is provided
     • Edge cases (empty objects, null values)

🔍 Code Quality Observations

Positive Patterns

• Consistent error handling with toast notifications
• Proper cleanup in finally blocks
• Memoization to prevent unnecessary re-renders
• Clear separation of concerns between rendering and state management

Architecture Consistency

• Follows existing patterns in the codebase for API communication
• Maintains the established error boundary and streaming patterns
• Uses the same UI components and styling patterns

🚀 Future Considerations

1. Extensibility: The current fix is specific to mock data preservation. Consider if this pattern might apply to other regeneration scenarios.

2. Configuration: Advanced users might want control over when data is preserved vs. regenerated. Consider if this should be configurable.

3. Audit Trail: For debugging purposes, consider logging when preservation occurs vs. when new data is generated.

Recommendation

✅ Approve with Minor Follow-up

This is a solid fix for a real user problem. The implementation is safe and follows good practices. The main concern is the potential duplication of preservation logic between client and server, but this doesn't block the PR.

Suggested Follow-up Actions:

1. Clarify the division of responsibilities between server-side and client-side mock data preservation
2. Add test coverage for the preservation scenarios
3. Consider adding a debug log when preservation occurs to aid future troubleshooting

The fix effectively solves the immediate UX issue without introducing breaking changes or significant architectural concerns.

---