-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Refactor Xassist, Test Framework #161
Conversation
ce69831
to
23e4ff7
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #161 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 81.83% 80.67% -1.17%
==========================================
Files 19 19
Lines 837 864 +27
Branches 91 93 +2
==========================================
+ Hits 685 697 +12
- Misses 152 167 +15
... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
clang-tidy made some suggestions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
clang-tidy made some suggestions
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
Just curious as to what exactly the refactor is doing here ? Maybe explain through a simple example ? |
I was going through whatever code I wrote and checked for possible bugs. This PR takes care of scenarios when the prompt has special characters or anything involving disrupting the JSON to call the LLM. |
} | ||
return escaped; | ||
} | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This PR takes care of scenarios when the prompt has special characters or anything involving disrupting the JSON to call the LLM.
Hmm, so should there be a test required in this PR to check this claim ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, so should there be a test required in this PR to check this claim ?
I did try but got in a predicament where escape_special_cases("""{}") == "\"\"{}"
yields false but works in the kernel. So I tested them manually and pushed the code
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM!
Description
Type of change
Please tick all options which are relevant.