Refactor parse_script function for readability and maintainability #90

adev3141 · 2024-05-03T12:59:49Z

This commit refactors the parse_script function to enhance readability and maintainability. Changes include:

Improved documentation with detailed explanations of the function's behavior, input, and output.
Renamed variable 'n_delimiters' to 'delimiter_count' for clarity.
Used specific exception handling instead of catching generic 'Exception'.
Combined two try-except blocks into one for better code organization.
Added comments to clarify complex logic and edge cases.
Enhanced function signature by specifying types of exceptions raised.

These changes aim to make the codebase more understandable and easier to maintain, without altering its functionality.

This commit refactors the parse_script function to enhance readability and maintainability. Changes include: - Improved documentation with detailed explanations of the function's behavior, input, and output. - Renamed variable 'n_delimiters' to 'delimiter_count' for clarity. - Used specific exception handling instead of catching generic 'Exception'. - Combined two try-except blocks into one for better code organization. - Added comments to clarify complex logic and edge cases. - Enhanced function signature by specifying types of exceptions raised. These changes aim to make the codebase more understandable and easier to maintain, without altering its functionality.

mentatai

The refactoring effort has improved the structure and readability of the code. However, there are specific areas like error handling after JSON decoding and message construction logic, where the functionality might be prone to errors given certain inputs. It would be beneficial to add more diverse test cases to cover such scenarios comprehensively.

Butler is in closed beta. Reply with feedback or to ask Butler to review other parts of the PR. Please give feedback with emoji reacts.

mentatai · 2024-05-03T13:00:26Z

src/rawdog/parsing.py

-    try:  # Make sure it's valid python
+
+    # Validate the script as valid Python code
+    try:


Given that the script variable may have been transformed into a JSON object at line 33, this call to ast.parse(script) might raise an error since ast.parse expects a string as an input, not a Python object like a dictionary or list. We should ensure that ast.parse is only called if script is a string. Consider adding a check to verify the type of script before parsing it as Python code, and adjust the error handling accordingly.

mentatai · 2024-05-03T13:00:26Z

src/rawdog/parsing.py

        return response, ""
+


This line attempts to concatenate a message with the last segment after splitting, which might not necessarily be always the part of the original message, especially if there are an uneven number of ''. Ensure that relevant test cases are checking for varying counts of '' to avoid potential errors in message reconstruction.

mentatai · 2024-05-03T13:00:26Z

src/rawdog/parsing.py

+    if script.startswith("python"):
+        script = script[len("python"):]  # Remove 'python' prefix
+
+    # Attempt to parse script as JSON


The transformation from the prefix 'python' might not handle additional whitespace or characters that could follow the prefix, such as 'python3'. Consider using a more robust method to strip out not just 'python' but also variations to cater for possible user inputs. We could use regex for this purpose to ensure a standard and safe removal of the prefix.

Refined the `parse_script` function by streamlining parsing and validation. Changes include: 1. Consolidated error handling in a single try-except block to improve error management. 2. Enhanced prefix removal using regex for better handling of variations and whitespace. 3. Optimized script handling by decoding and re-encoding JSON, ensuring input to syntax validation is consistently a string. 4. Simplified message and script extraction by improving segment splitting and concatenation. These updates improve the function's adaptability and reliability across different input formats.

adev3141 · 2024-05-06T11:02:42Z

In the latest commit, I've tried to implement all the suggested improvements.

jakethekoenig · 2024-05-09T11:54:19Z

src/rawdog/parsing.py

+        # Attempt to interpret script as JSON, revert if it fails
+        try:
+            parsed_script = json.loads(script)
+            script = json.dumps(parsed_script)  # Convert back to string to validate as Python code


I don't understand why the original code runs json.loads(script) which should fail because script should be python. It doesn't even propagate the error if it occurs. Do you know @granawkins

The use of json.loads(script) in the script parsing logic is indeed a bit confusing initially, but it serves a specific purpose. The idea is to handle cases where the script portion might contain data in JSON format instead of Python code. This can happen if the user intends to send JSON data as part of the response for some reason. By attempting to parse it as JSON, the function can handle more types of input flexibly. If the parsing fails, it indicates the script is actually Python code or some other format that isn't JSON, and the code simply continues to process it as such. It's a case of trying to gracefully handle various input formats that might be encountered.

I think at one point I was getting errors with the script and suspected it had returned json for one reason or another, so I added this just in case. If it raised an exception that just meant it wasn't json after all, and we'd be fine.

I think we ought to take this out - I expect I was mistake about it being a json error. Anyway adding json.dumps here is a mistake.

Thanks for clarifying, Gran. Since you suggest that the json.loads and the subsequent json.dumps might be superfluous and potentially error-prone for our typical use cases, I'll proceed with removing these parts. This simplification should avoid unnecessary confusion and make the function's intent clearer, focusing only on handling python code.

Suggested change

script = json.dumps(parsed_script) # Convert back to string to validate as Python code

# Validate as Python code

ast.parse(script)

return message, script

By removing the JSON parsing, the function aligns more directly with its primary purpose of handling Python code. Thanks for your insights!

jakethekoenig

Sorry for the delay in reviewing. I'm not sure I agree it's an improvement. For instance the doc string is expanded but does it really make the purpose of the function any clearer than "Split the response into a message and a script."?

jakethekoenig · 2024-05-09T11:57:12Z

src/rawdog/parsing.py

+        script = '```'.join(parts[1:-1]).strip()  # Join any inner parts as the script
+
+        # Remove 'python' or similar prefixes from the script
+        script = re.sub(r"^\s*python[0-9]*\s*", "", script, flags=re.IGNORECASE)


Sorry I should have said something sooner about how it's fine to ignore the bot. In my experience markdown is always prepended with just python by the llm. I think the extra complexity to handle python3 is unnecessary.

I appreciate your insights, Jake. Based on your experience that markdown is typically accompanied with just the 'python' prefix by the LLM, I agree that it simplifies the implementation. Nevertheless, given that the current implementation now already includes regex to handle potential variations like 'python3', would you prefer to keep this aspect for potential extensibility and robustness? This can ideally prepare the function to handle less typical cases without immediate rework in the future. Please let me know your preference.

jakethekoenig · 2024-05-09T12:02:52Z

src/rawdog/parsing.py

-    return message, script
+        return message, script
+    except SyntaxError as e:
+        return f"Error in Python syntax: {e}", ""


I'd rather return the response than e. e will just be another variation of "synax error" but the prefix already says that and the user would presumably rather see the errored code to find the syntax error.

That's a valid point concerning returning the original response with the syntax error message to assist users in locating and correcting the error directly in their code. Implementing this could enhance the error handling experience by providing more context about the issue. Would integrating a portion of the problematic script into the error message be an acceptable solution? For instance, including the first few lines of the syntax-error-containing script might provide immediate clarity without overwhelming the user with the entire script. Here's an example suggestion:

Suggested change

return f"Error in Python syntax: {e}", ""

return f"Error in Python syntax: {e}. Problematic part: {script[:50]}...", ""

This modification would give users a quick look at where the error might be without needing to recheck their whole script, assuming it's not shown elsewhere in the interface.

jakethekoenig · 2024-05-09T12:03:54Z

src/rawdog/parsing.py

+    except SyntaxError as e:
+        return f"Error in Python syntax: {e}", ""
+    except Exception as e:
+        return f"Unhandled error: {e}", ""


What other exceptions could we encounter? I can't think of any and if we do I'd rather propagate them and fail.

That's a valid point, Jake. Propagating other exceptions could indeed be beneficial for debugging purposes, especially in a production environment where error tracking and handling specifics help in quickly identifying issues. The current catch-all exception handling might obscure unexpected scenarios. Would it be better to specify the types of exceptions we expect or remove the generic exception block entirely to allow propagation?

jakethekoenig · 2024-05-09T12:04:34Z

src/rawdog/parsing.py

+            return response, ""  # Not enough parts, return original message and empty script
+
+        # Clean and identify parts
+        message = parts[0] + parts[-1]  # Consider the first and last parts as the message


I preferred joining with a newline.

Thanks for the feedback, Jake. Given that the primary way markdown is added by the LLM is with just python, the additional complexity to handle variations may indeed be unnecessary for most scenarios. I'll make the adjustment to accommodate the more common case and simplify the code as suggested.

jakethekoenig · 2024-05-09T12:06:43Z

src/rawdog/parsing.py



 def parse_script(response: str) -> tuple[str, str]:
-    """Split the response into a message and a script.
+    """Split the response into a message and a script, handling variations of 'python' prefix and JSON content.


I'd remove the added clause.

Understood regarding simplifying the handling of prefix variations. I've noted your experience in this context, which points to a python only prefix by the LLM typically. Yet, considering the possibility of accommodating different user inputs, this refactor aims to provide broader support and resilience against various user input formats. Balanced against the potential overhead, would you agree that maintaining the enhanced input handling via regex provides a more safeguarded approach, or would you still prefer to remove that complexity? Your insights will aid in resolving this conclusively.

granawkins

Frankly I don't think any of this is an improvement, except for maybe reformatting the docstring.

granawkins · 2024-05-11T10:43:48Z

src/rawdog/parsing.py

+        # Attempt to interpret script as JSON, revert if it fails
+        try:
+            parsed_script = json.loads(script)
+            script = json.dumps(parsed_script)  # Convert back to string to validate as Python code


I think at one point I was getting errors with the script and suspected it had returned json for one reason or another, so I added this just in case. If it raised an exception that just meant it wasn't json after all, and we'd be fine.

I think we ought to take this out - I expect I was mistake about it being a json error. Anyway adding json.dumps here is a mistake.

mentatai bot reviewed May 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

jakethekoenig reviewed May 9, 2024

View reviewed changes

granawkins reviewed May 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Refactor parse_script function for readability and maintainability #90

Refactor parse_script function for readability and maintainability #90

adev3141 commented May 3, 2024

mentatai bot left a comment

mentatai bot May 3, 2024

mentatai bot May 3, 2024

mentatai bot May 3, 2024

adev3141 commented May 6, 2024

jakethekoenig May 9, 2024

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

granawkins May 11, 2024

mentatai bot May 11, 2024

jakethekoenig left a comment

jakethekoenig May 9, 2024

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

jakethekoenig May 9, 2024

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

jakethekoenig May 9, 2024

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

jakethekoenig May 9, 2024

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

jakethekoenig May 9, 2024

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

granawkins left a comment

granawkins May 11, 2024

	return f"Error in Python syntax: {e}", ""
	return f"Error in Python syntax: {e}. Problematic part: {script[:50]}...", ""

Refactor parse_script function for readability and maintainability #90

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Refactor parse_script function for readability and maintainability #90

Conversation

adev3141 commented May 3, 2024

mentatai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mentatai bot May 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mentatai bot May 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mentatai bot May 3, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

adev3141 commented May 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mentatai bot May 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jakethekoenig left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mentatai bot May 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

granawkins left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment