Graphtia documentation · workflow
Impact analysis
Build a reviewable assessment of a proposed change.
Turn a proposed change into a review scope
Impact analysis identifies source entities that may be affected by a change to the selected subject. The result supports investigation and planning. It does not predict every runtime effect or decide whether the change is safe.
A validation change can affect its checkout consumer and the tests associated with that consumer. Reachability identifies candidates for review; it does not prove a defect.
Investigate a validation change
Describe the intended change before opening an impact view: for example, reject orders with non-positive totals.
Select validation.ts, open the inspector’s Impact tab and choose “Explore impact”.
Inspect the returned consumers and the relationships that connect them to the subject.
Read relevant tests and add checks for assumptions that the graph cannot establish.
Record the revision, selected scope and unresolved questions with the proposed change.
Review the explanation behind a candidate
A candidate can be structurally reachable without needing an edit. For example, a consumer that already handles the validation error might remain correct. Conversely, an external or dynamically registered consumer may not appear in the static result. Both observations affect the review plan.
After implementation
Refresh the source/index relationship and revisit the investigation when the revision changes. Run the chosen checks. The evidence supporting the final result should describe the implemented state, not only the state that existed before editing.
The example starts with validation.ts. Its consumers are review candidates because they depend on that source. Open a candidate and inspect how it uses the changed contract before deciding whether the behavior is affected.
Start from selected source code
Use the available impact action on selected source code and check the resolved symbol. Automatic navigation requires a unique target backed by complete static evidence at the exact revision; ambiguous or unsupported selections offer candidate search instead. Comments and strings do not become semantic references because their text matches a symbol. Read the scope and source evidence before deciding what to change.