Skip to main content

Limitations - Rippler System

Overview​

This document outlines the known limitations, constraints, and boundaries of the Rippler system. Understanding these limitations is crucial for setting appropriate expectations and making informed decisions about system usage and deployment.

Last Updated: November 2024
Version: 1.0

Table of Contents​

  1. Architectural Limitations
  2. LLM and AI Analysis Limitations
  3. Integration Limitations
  4. Performance Limitations
  5. Security and Privacy Limitations
  6. Operational Limitations
  7. Language and Framework Support
  8. Data and Context Limitations
  9. Scalability Limitations
  10. Known Issues

Architectural Limitations​

Microservices Architecture Specificity​

Limitation: Rippler is optimized for microservices-based architectures and may not provide optimal value for monolithic applications.

Impact:

  • Limited dependency analysis for monoliths (single service)
  • Reduced value proposition (impact analysis less relevant)
  • Stakeholder identification less granular

Workaround:

  • Can still be used for module-level analysis within monoliths
  • Consider migrating to microservices for full value
  • Use for analyzing inter-repository dependencies if multiple repos exist

Timeline: No plans to optimize for monolithic architectures

GitHub-Only Integration​

Limitation: Currently only integrates with GitHub; no support for GitLab, Bitbucket, or other VCS platforms.

Impact:

  • Organizations using other platforms cannot use Rippler
  • Manual setup required if migrating from other VCS

Workaround:

  • Migrate repositories to GitHub
  • Wait for future GitLab/Bitbucket support

Timeline: GitLab support planned for Q2 2025, Bitbucket support TBD

Service Discovery Dependency​

Limitation: Requires Eureka-based service discovery. Cannot easily integrate with other service meshes (Consul, etcd, Kubernetes-native service discovery).

Impact:

  • Additional infrastructure required (Eureka server)
  • Not compatible with some existing service discovery setups
  • Eureka maintenance required

Workaround:

  • Run Eureka alongside existing service discovery
  • Manually configure service endpoints

Timeline: Pluggable service discovery planned for future release

LLM and AI Analysis Limitations​

LLM Hallucination Risk​

Limitation: LLMs may occasionally generate plausible but incorrect impact analyses (hallucinations).

Impact:

  • False positives: Flagging services not actually affected
  • False negatives: Missing impacted services
  • Incorrect risk assessments

Mitigation:

  • Confidence scores provided (flag <0.70 for manual review)
  • Human review required for critical changes
  • Analysis is advisory, not prescriptive

Measured Accuracy (from evaluation dataset):

  • Impact detection: 92% recall, 89% precision (GPT-4o-mini)
  • Risk assessment: 88% accuracy
  • ~8% false positive rate

Best Practice: Always review LLM recommendations before taking action

Context Window Limitations​

Limitation: LLMs have finite context windows (GPT-4o-mini: 128K tokens), limiting the size of PRs that can be fully analyzed.

Impact:

  • Very large PRs (>100K tokens, roughly >50,000 lines of code) may need truncation
  • Loss of context for massive refactorings
  • Potential missed dependencies in truncated content

Workaround:

  • Break large PRs into smaller, focused PRs (recommended best practice anyway)
  • Provide summary in PR description to guide analysis
  • System prioritizes important sections (modified code > deleted code)

Typical PR Size: Most PRs are <10K tokens (~5,000 lines), well within limits

Training Data Cutoff​

Limitation: LLM knowledge cutoff dates mean no awareness of latest frameworks, libraries, or best practices.

Impact:

  • May not recognize newest frameworks (released after Oct 2023 for GPT-4o-mini)
  • May suggest outdated patterns or libraries
  • Less effective for cutting-edge technology stacks

Examples:

  • New frameworks released in 2024 not recognized
  • Latest security vulnerabilities unknown
  • Recent API changes in popular libraries not reflected

Mitigation:

  • Rely on dependency graph engine for structural analysis (not LLM)
  • Keep LLM focused on general impact reasoning (architecture, patterns)
  • Supplement with human expertise for new technologies

Timeline: OpenAI/Anthropic update models periodically; Rippler automatically benefits

Language Bias​

Limitation: LLMs perform best on popular programming languages and have reduced accuracy on less common languages.

Best Performance:

  • JavaScript/TypeScript
  • Python
  • Java
  • Go
  • C/C++
  • C#
  • Ruby

Reduced Performance:

  • Kotlin
  • Scala
  • Rust
  • Haskell
  • Elixir
  • Domain-specific languages (DSLs)
  • Proprietary/internal languages

Impact: Analysis quality varies by language; confidence scores typically lower for less common languages

No Runtime Context​

Limitation: Analysis is purely static (code-based); no access to runtime behavior, logs, metrics, or production data.

Impact:

  • Cannot assess actual production impact
  • Cannot identify performance regressions
  • Cannot detect runtime-only issues (race conditions, memory leaks)
  • Cannot correlate with actual incident history

Workaround:

  • Supplement with observability tools (APM, logs, metrics)
  • Use historical incident data manually
  • Consider post-deployment verification

Future Enhancement: Integration with observability platforms (planned)

No Code Execution​

Limitation: Rippler does not run or test code; analysis is based on static inspection only.

Impact:

  • Cannot detect bugs requiring execution (logic errors, edge cases)
  • Cannot verify that tests actually pass
  • Cannot measure performance impact

Workaround:

  • Use in conjunction with CI/CD testing pipelines
  • Rippler complements (not replaces) automated testing

Integration Limitations​

Webhook-Based Operation​

Limitation: Relies on GitHub webhooks for PR notifications; delays or failures in webhook delivery affect responsiveness.

Impact:

  • Delayed analysis if GitHub webhook delivery is slow
  • Missed analyses if webhooks fail
  • No historical analysis (only works for new PRs after Rippler installation)

Mitigation:

  • Webhook retry logic in GitHub
  • Fallback polling mechanism (not implemented)

Typical Delay: <5 seconds under normal conditions

Manual Repository Configuration​

Limitation: Each repository must be manually configured in Rippler; no automatic discovery of all organization repositories.

Impact:

  • Setup effort scales with number of repositories
  • Risk of forgetting to add new repositories
  • No central configuration for organization-wide policies

Workaround:

  • Use API or bulk configuration scripts
  • Set up organization-level webhooks

Timeline: Auto-discovery feature planned for future release

No CI/CD Pipeline Integration​

Limitation: Rippler operates independently and does not currently integrate with CI/CD pipelines (GitHub Actions, Jenkins, etc.).

Impact:

  • Cannot block PR merges based on analysis
  • Cannot automatically trigger pipelines based on impact
  • Manual coordination required

Workaround:

  • Use GitHub required checks (separate from Rippler)
  • Manually review Rippler analysis before merging

Timeline: CI/CD integration (GitHub Actions, Jenkins) planned for Q1 2025

Limited Issue Tracker Integration​

Limitation: No direct integration with issue tracking systems (Jira, Linear, Asana).

Impact:

  • Cannot automatically create tickets for impacted teams
  • Cannot link PRs to related issues automatically
  • Manual notification required

Timeline: Jira integration planned for future release

Performance Limitations​

LLM API Latency​

Limitation: Analysis speed depends on external LLM API response times (typically 4-10 seconds, but can be slower).

Impact:

  • Developers must wait for analysis to complete
  • Slow LLM responses delay feedback loop
  • Large PRs take longer (up to 30 seconds)

Mitigation:

  • Asynchronous processing (doesn't block PR creation)
  • Fallback to faster local models if cloud APIs are slow
  • Caching for similar PRs (not implemented)

Typical Response Times:

  • Small PR (<10 files): 4-6 seconds
  • Medium PR (10-50 files): 6-10 seconds
  • Large PR (50+ files): 10-30 seconds

Dependency Graph Computation Cost​

Limitation: Building comprehensive dependency graphs for large codebases is computationally expensive.

Impact:

  • Initial setup time for new repositories (minutes to hours)
  • High CPU/memory usage during graph construction
  • May timeout for extremely large monorepos

Workaround:

  • Incremental graph updates (only re-analyze changed files)
  • Caching and persistence of dependency graph

Scalability: Tested up to 500K lines of code per repository

Concurrent Request Handling​

Limitation: System performance degrades under high concurrent load (many simultaneous PR analyses).

Impact:

  • Increased response times during peak usage
  • Potential queuing of analysis requests
  • LLM API rate limits may be reached

Current Capacity:

  • Recommended max: 50 concurrent analyses
  • Beyond 50: queuing and delays expected

Mitigation:

  • Horizontal scaling of stateless services
  • Request prioritization (high-risk PRs first)
  • Multiple LLM API keys for increased throughput

Timeline: Load testing and auto-scaling implementation planned

Database Query Performance​

Limitation: Audit log and analysis history queries may be slow for organizations with extensive history (100K+ analyses).

Impact:

  • Slow dashboard loading
  • Slow historical analysis retrieval
  • Database resource consumption

Mitigation:

  • Database indexing on common query patterns
  • Archive old data after retention period
  • Query pagination

Tested Scale: Up to 100K stored analyses with acceptable performance

Security and Privacy Limitations​

Cloud LLM Data Privacy​

Limitation: When using OpenAI or Anthropic, code diffs are sent to external servers.

Impact:

  • Proprietary code exposed to third parties
  • Subject to LLM provider privacy policies
  • Potential regulatory compliance issues (GDPR, HIPAA)

Mitigation:

  • Use Ollama local models for sensitive code
  • Review LLM provider terms of service
  • LLM providers do not train on API customer data (per their policies)

Alternative: Self-hosted Ollama with CodeLlama (no external data transmission)

Internal Network Trust Assumption​

Limitation: Services trust each other on internal network; JWT headers are not cryptographically verified between services.

Impact:

  • If internal network is compromised, header forgery possible
  • Lateral movement risk after initial breach

Mitigation:

  • Deploy on secure private network
  • Consider service mesh (Istio) for mTLS
  • Monitor for unusual access patterns

Risk Level: Low for properly secured internal networks

No Encryption at Rest​

Limitation: Data in PostgreSQL and Redis is not encrypted at rest by default.

Impact:

  • If storage media is compromised, data may be readable
  • Compliance issues for regulated industries

Mitigation:

  • Enable database-level encryption (PostgreSQL supports TDE)
  • Use encrypted storage volumes
  • Minimize stored sensitive data

Timeline: Encryption at rest configuration guide planned

No Built-in Rate Limiting​

Limitation: No rate limiting currently implemented at API Gateway.

Impact:

  • Susceptible to denial-of-service attacks
  • Potential for LLM API cost exhaustion
  • No protection against brute force authentication

Mitigation:

  • Manual firewall rules
  • LLM API key spending limits
  • Authentication throttling at Keycloak level

Timeline: Rate limiting implementation high priority (Q1 2025)

Operational Limitations​

No High Availability Configuration​

Limitation: Reference architecture is single-instance; no built-in HA/disaster recovery configuration.

Impact:

  • Single points of failure (database, Keycloak, services)
  • Downtime during updates or failures
  • No automatic failover

Workaround:

  • Manual HA setup (load balancers, database replication, multi-instance services)
  • Regular backups for disaster recovery

Timeline: HA reference architecture guide planned

Manual Scaling Required​

Limitation: No automatic scaling based on load; requires manual intervention.

Impact:

  • Cannot automatically handle traffic spikes
  • Risk of resource exhaustion under high load
  • Requires manual capacity planning

Workaround:

  • Kubernetes-based deployment with HPA (manual setup)
  • Monitoring and alerts for resource usage

Timeline: Kubernetes deployment guide with auto-scaling planned

Limited Observability​

Limitation: Basic logging only; no built-in metrics, tracing, or advanced monitoring.

Impact:

  • Difficult to debug performance issues
  • Limited visibility into system health
  • No automatic anomaly detection

Workaround:

  • Integrate with external observability tools (Prometheus, Grafana, Datadog)
  • Spring Boot Actuator provides basic metrics

Timeline: Observability integration guide planned

Backup and Recovery​

Limitation: No built-in backup or disaster recovery mechanisms.

Impact:

  • Data loss risk if database fails
  • Manual recovery process required
  • No point-in-time recovery

Mitigation:

  • PostgreSQL backup scripts (manual setup)
  • Regular backup testing
  • Document recovery procedures

Timeline: Backup automation guide planned

Language and Framework Support​

Limited Test Framework Support​

Limitation: Dependency graph analysis has limited support for test file parsing.

Impact:

  • Test dependencies not always detected
  • Impact on test coverage not assessed
  • May miss test-related breaking changes

Supported Test Frameworks:

  • JUnit (Java)
  • Jest (JavaScript)
  • pytest (Python)
  • Other frameworks: limited support

No Support for Non-Code Dependencies​

Limitation: Does not analyze infrastructure dependencies (databases, message queues, external APIs).

Impact:

  • Database schema change impact not detected
  • External API changes not considered
  • Infrastructure-as-code (Terraform, CloudFormation) not analyzed

Workaround:

  • Manual review for infrastructure changes
  • Document infrastructure dependencies in PR descriptions

Timeline: Infrastructure-as-code support planned for future release

Limited Polyglot Repository Support​

Limitation: Analysis quality degrades for repositories mixing multiple languages.

Impact:

  • Cross-language dependencies may be missed
  • Analysis confidence lower for multi-language projects

Example: JavaScript frontend + Python backend in same repo

Workaround: Structure as separate repositories or services

Data and Context Limitations​

No Access to External Documentation​

Limitation: Cannot access external documentation, wikis, or knowledge bases.

Impact:

  • Cannot consider organization-specific conventions
  • Cannot reference architecture decisions records (ADRs)
  • Cannot lookup internal acronyms or domain terms

Workaround:

  • Include relevant context in PR descriptions
  • Link to documentation in PR comments

Timeline: Optional documentation URL configuration planned

No Historical Incident Correlation​

Limitation: Cannot correlate changes with past production incidents or outages.

Impact:

  • Cannot identify high-risk areas based on incident history
  • Cannot learn from previous failures
  • Risk assessment based only on static analysis

Workaround:

  • Manual review for services with incident history
  • Document known fragile areas in PR descriptions

Timeline: Incident correlation feature planned (requires integration with incident management tools)

No User/Team Context​

Limitation: Limited awareness of team structures, ownership, and organizational hierarchy beyond CODEOWNERS.

Impact:

  • Stakeholder identification based only on code ownership
  • Cannot identify subject matter experts
  • Cannot consider on-call schedules or availability

Workaround:

  • Maintain accurate CODEOWNERS files
  • Manual stakeholder identification for complex changes

Timeline: Team directory integration planned

Scalability Limitations​

Single-Region Deployment​

Limitation: Reference architecture assumes single-region deployment; no multi-region support.

Impact:

  • Latency for geographically distributed teams
  • Single region failure affects all users
  • No geo-redundancy

Workaround:

  • Deploy in region closest to majority of users
  • Manual multi-region setup (complex)

Timeline: Multi-region deployment guide TBD

Repository Count Limits​

Limitation: Performance tested up to 100 repositories; scaling beyond may require architecture changes.

Impact:

  • Large organizations (1000+ repos) may experience degraded performance
  • Configuration management becomes unwieldy

Workaround:

  • Prioritize critical repositories
  • Use multiple Rippler instances for different groups

Tested Scale: 100 repositories, 50K total analyses

Analysis History Storage​

Limitation: All analysis history stored indefinitely by default; no automatic cleanup.

Impact:

  • Database growth over time
  • Potential performance degradation
  • Storage costs

Mitigation:

  • Configure retention policies manually
  • Archive old analyses
  • Purge data beyond retention period

Recommendation: 90-day retention for most organizations

Known Issues​

Issue #1: Slow Analysis for Very Large Diffs​

Description: PRs with >10,000 lines changed take >30 seconds to analyze.

Impact: Degraded user experience for large refactorings

Workaround: Break into smaller PRs

Status: Investigating optimization strategies

Issue #2: Occasional LLM API Timeouts​

Description: OpenAI API occasionally times out (>30 seconds), causing analysis failures.

Impact: Analysis failure requires manual retry

Mitigation: Automatic fallback to Anthropic or Ollama

Status: Monitoring frequency; considering increased timeout

Issue #3: Dependency Graph Misses Dynamic Imports​

Description: JavaScript dynamic imports (import()) not always detected in dependency graph.

Impact: Missed service dependencies, incomplete impact analysis

Workaround: Document dynamic dependencies in PR description

Status: Enhancement planned for dependency graph engine

Issue #4: False Positives for Transitive Dependencies​

Description: Sometimes flags services as impacted via transitive dependencies when no actual impact exists.

Impact: Unnecessary stakeholder notifications

Mitigation: LLM confidence scores help filter

Status: Improving transitive dependency analysis logic

Mitigation Strategies Summary​

For each limitation category, here are general strategies:

  1. Architectural: Accept constraints or plan migration to supported architectures
  2. LLM/AI: Treat as advisory, require human review, monitor confidence scores
  3. Integration: Use workarounds, wait for planned features, contribute to development
  4. Performance: Scale horizontally, optimize configuration, batch processing
  5. Security: Use Ollama for sensitive code, implement recommended hardening
  6. Operational: Integrate with external tools, manual HA setup, regular backups
  7. Language/Framework: Focus on supported languages, manual review for others
  8. Data/Context: Provide rich PR descriptions, link to documentation
  9. Scalability: Horizontal scaling, prioritize critical repositories, cleanup old data

Future Improvements​

See GitHub Project Roadmap for planned features addressing these limitations.

High Priority​

  • Rate limiting
  • CI/CD integration (GitHub Actions)
  • GitLab support
  • HA reference architecture

Medium Priority​

  • Infrastructure-as-code support
  • Incident correlation
  • Observability integration
  • Auto-scaling guides

Low Priority​

  • Multi-region deployment
  • Bitbucket support
  • Advanced caching strategies

Contributing​

If you encounter a limitation not documented here, or have ideas for addressing existing limitations:

  1. Open a GitHub issue: https://github.com/hanisntsolo/rippler/issues
  2. Contribute to development: CONTRIBUTING.md
  3. Join discussions: GitHub Discussions

Conclusion​

Understanding Rippler's limitations is key to successful deployment and usage. While there are constraints, most can be mitigated through configuration, architecture decisions, or operational practices. The system is actively developed, and many limitations are targeted for future releases.

Key Takeaway: Rippler is a powerful assistive tool for impact analysis, but should be used as part of a comprehensive software development and deployment strategy, not as a standalone solution.

Last Updated: November 2024
Version: 1.0
Maintained By: Rippler Team
Next Review: February 2025