Replacement parser inverse #172
Conversation
Inverse test refactors to prevent duplication. File edits are compared instead of llm messages.
jakethekoenig
force-pushed
the
reversible-replacement-parsing
branch
from
b05f781
to
2f6679f
Compare
|
Impressively mentat almost wrote a correct replacement inverse on it's first try with the |
jakethekoenig
force-pushed
the
reversible-replacement-parsing
branch
from
725a768
to
52a796a
Compare
Love this! I'll let @PCSwingle do a closer review, looks good though! |
mentat/parsers/replacement_parser.py
Outdated
| @@ -119,3 +120,47 @@ def _add_code_block( | |||
| ) | |||
| ) | |||
| return "" | |||
|
|
|||
| def file_edits_to_llm_message( | |||
| self, parsedLLMResponse: ParsedLLMResponse, git_root: Path | None = None | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I should have mentioned this in the last PR as well, but why are we passing in the git_root here? Why not always just use GIT_ROOT.get()? With mock_git_root the context variable should always exist in tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I originally added it because I wanted to pass it in the translation script but then I ended up mocking it there too. I'll remove it.
| elif file_edit.is_deletion: | ||
| action_indicator = "-" | ||
| elif file_edit.rename_file_path is not None: | ||
| action_indicator = file_edit.rename_file_path.as_posix() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I could be wrong, but isn't the rename_file_path also absolute? I think we also need to get it relative to the git root here too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No actually. For both this parser and the block parser it ends up as a relative path. Maybe a bug in the parser if that's not what you intended.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, that is a bug in the parser that could actually have some problems; I'll have to fix that (in a separate pr)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, that is a bug in the parser that could actually have some problems; I'll have to fix that (in a separate pr)
can you make an issue for this @PCSwingle unless you are going ahead and doing it now
mentat/parsers/replacement_parser.py
Outdated
| ans += f"@ {file_rel_path} {action_indicator}\n" | ||
|
|
||
| for replacement in file_edit.replacements: | ||
| if len(replacement.new_lines) == 0: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could be simplified; just do the insert if starting == ending and len(new_lines) != 0 (although the second part shouldn't even be necessary, since if len(new_lines) is 0 and starting == ending then the replacement isn't doing anything) instead of having if else if else
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That is better. To be honest I was so happy with my test that when mentat's output worked I barely read it.
| from mentat.utils import convert_string_to_asyncgen | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| async def verify_inverse(parser): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is really nice, thanks for making this!
Inverse test refactors to prevent duplication. File edits are compared instead of llm messages.
Sorry I keep saying "X isn't worth doing right now" and the immediately doing it in the next PR.
attrandpythonmade is easier to compare the equality of theFileEdits than I realized. Strictly speaking we're still testing more than we care about because the test woudl fail if the inverse changed the order of theFileEdits. We could sort or add to a set before comparing but it seems hacky to have attr implement an order or hash method just for this test.