Fix resource dict in interactive jobs #482
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes in this pull request focus on the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
executorlib/interactive/shared.py (1)
596-596: Consider adding docstring for _execute_task_with_cache.The function lacks a docstring that would document the optional nature of
resource_dict. Consider adding one to improve code maintainability.Add this docstring above the function:
def _execute_task_with_cache( interface: SocketInterface, task_dict: dict, future_queue: queue.Queue, cache_directory: str, ): """ Execute the task with caching support. Args: interface (SocketInterface): Socket interface for zmq communication task_dict (dict): Task dictionary containing: - fn (callable): Function to execute - args (tuple): Function arguments - kwargs (dict): Function keyword arguments - resource_dict (dict, optional): Resource configuration. Defaults to {}. future_queue (queue.Queue): Queue for receiving new tasks cache_directory (str): Directory to store cache files """
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
executorlib/interactive/shared.py(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (2)
executorlib/interactive/shared.py (2)
596-596: LGTM! Safer dictionary access pattern.
The change to use dict.get() with a default empty dictionary is a good defensive programming practice. This prevents potential KeyError exceptions when resource_dict is not present in task_dict.
596-596: Verify consistent handling of resource_dict across the codebase.
Let's ensure this change maintains consistency with how resource_dict is handled in other parts of the codebase.
✅ Verification successful
Based on the search results, I can now generate the final response:
Making resource_dict optional is safe and consistent with codebase usage
The codebase shows a clear pattern of safe resource dictionary handling:
- All direct dictionary access (
resource_dict[key]) occurs after proper validation throughcheck_resource_dict()or in contexts where the dictionary is explicitly populated - The codebase includes dedicated validation functions (
check_resource_dict,check_resource_dict_is_empty) to ensure proper dictionary state - No unsafe
.get()patterns were found, indicating careful dictionary access
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check how resource_dict is accessed across the codebase
# Test 1: Find all direct dictionary access patterns for resource_dict
echo "Test 1: Direct dictionary access patterns:"
rg "resource_dict\[" --type py
# Test 2: Find all dict.get() access patterns for resource_dict
echo "Test 2: Safe dictionary access patterns:"
rg "resource_dict\.get\(" --type py
# Test 3: Find all places where resource_dict is validated or checked
echo "Test 3: Resource dict validation:"
rg "check_resource_dict" --type py
Length of output: 4169
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
resource_dict, preventing potential errors when it is missing.Chores