Skip to content
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

fix: big refactor of patch.py #493

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Mar 7, 2024
Merged

fix: big refactor of patch.py #493

merged 7 commits into from
Mar 7, 2024

Conversation

jxnl
Copy link
Collaborator

@jxnl jxnl commented Mar 7, 2024

Ellipsis 🚀 This PR description was created by Ellipsis for commit 9cda64f.

Summary:

This PR involves a major refactor of patch.py, moving several functions and the Mode enum to separate files, and simplifying the process_response and process_response_async functions.

Key points:

  • Major refactor of patch.py.
  • Moved Mode enum to mode.py.
  • Moved handle_response_model function to process_response.py.
  • Moved retry_sync and retry_async functions to retry.py.
  • Moved is_async function to utils.py.
  • Simplified process_response and process_response_async functions in patch.py.
  • Updated import statements in several files.

Generated with ❤️ by ellipsis.dev

@jxnl jxnl marked this pull request as ready for review March 7, 2024 07:07
@jxnl jxnl merged commit 8ced667 into main Mar 7, 2024
10 of 11 checks passed
@jxnl jxnl deleted the big-refactor branch March 7, 2024 07:07
Copy link
Contributor

@ellipsis-dev ellipsis-dev bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍 Looks good to me!

  • Reviewed the entire pull request up to 9cda64f
  • Looked at 1203 lines of code in 12 files
  • Took 1 minute and 51 seconds to review
More info
  • Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
  • Skipped posting 2 additional comments because they didn't meet confidence threshold of 85%.
1. instructor/process_response.py:1:
  • Assessed confidence : 100%
  • Grade: 0%
  • Comment:
    Please add docstrings to the functions in this file to explain their purpose and usage. This will improve code readability and maintainability.
  • Reasoning:
    The PR seems to be a major refactor of the patch.py file, breaking it down into smaller, more manageable files. This is a good practice as it improves code readability and maintainability. The code changes seem to be logically correct and follow best practices. However, I noticed that the docstrings for some functions are missing. It's important to have docstrings for all public modules, functions, classes, and methods.
2. instructor/retry.py:1:
  • Assessed confidence : 100%
  • Grade: 0%
  • Comment:
    Please add docstrings to the functions in this file to explain their purpose and usage. This will improve code readability and maintainability.
  • Reasoning:
    The same issue of missing docstrings is present in the retry.py file. Docstrings are important for understanding the purpose and usage of functions.

Workflow ID: wflow_JzmutZ9JUOu71b3Y


Not what you expected? You can customize the content of the reviews using rules. Learn more here.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant