OSS Assistant example

[simjak]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

PR Analysis

• 🎯 Main theme: Enhancements to the function calling assistant
• 📝 PR summary: This PR introduces several enhancements to the function calling assistant. It includes changes to the execution count, modifications to the temperature and num_beams parameters, and the addition of a num_return_sequences parameter. It also introduces a new function to validate the configuration, and another to validate parameters. The PR also includes changes to the generate_route and extract_parameters functions, and introduces a new function to validate parameters.
• 📌 Type of PR: Enhancement
• 🧪 Relevant tests added: No
• ⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5]: 4, because the PR includes several changes to the code, including the addition of new functions and modifications to existing ones. It also involves changes to the logic of the code, which requires a thorough understanding of the existing codebase.
• 🔒 Security concerns: No security concerns found

PR Feedback

• 💡 General suggestions: The PR introduces several enhancements to the function calling assistant, which are likely to improve its performance. However, it would be beneficial to include tests to verify the functionality of the new and modified code. Additionally, it would be helpful to include comments in the code to explain the purpose and functionality of the new functions and any complex or important parts of the code.

• 🤖 Code feedback:

  ---

  relevant file	docs/examples/function_calling.ipynb
  suggestion	Consider adding error handling for the case where the llm_mistral function fails. This will ensure that the program doesn't crash and can continue to function, possibly by falling back to another method or providing a useful error message to the user. [important]
  relevant line	"+ \"ai_message = llm_mistral(prompt)\""

  ---

  relevant file	docs/examples/function_calling.ipynb
  suggestion	The function 'is_valid_config' could be improved by providing more specific error messages. Instead of just returning False when the config is not valid, consider returning a message that indicates what exactly is wrong with the config. This would make it easier to debug issues with the config. [medium]
  relevant line	"+ \"def is_valid_config(route_config_str: str) -> bool:\""

  ---

  relevant file	docs/examples/function_calling.ipynb
  suggestion	The 'generate_route' function could be improved by adding error handling for the case where the 'json.loads' function throws a 'json.JSONDecodeError'. This would prevent the program from crashing if the AI message is not valid JSON. [important]
  relevant line	"+ \"route_config = json.loads(ai_message)\""

  ---

  relevant file	docs/examples/function_calling.ipynb
  suggestion	The 'extract_parameters' function could be improved by adding error handling for the case where the 'json.loads' function throws a 'json.JSONDecodeError'. This would prevent the program from crashing if the AI message is not valid JSON. [important]
  relevant line	"+ \"parameters = json.loads(ai_message)\""

  ---

How to use

Instructions

To invoke the PR-Agent, add a comment using one of the following commands:
/review: Request a review of your Pull Request.
/describe: Update the PR title and description based on the contents of the PR.
/improve [--extended]: Suggest code improvements. Extended mode provides a higher quality feedback.
/ask <QUESTION>: Ask a question about the PR.
/update_changelog: Update the changelog based on the PR's contents.
/add_docs: Generate docstring for new components introduced in the PR.
/generate_labels: Generate labels for the PR based on the PR's contents.
see the tools guide for more details.

To edit any configuration parameter from the configuration.toml, add --config_path=new_value.
For example: /review --pr_reviewer.extra_instructions="focus on the file: ..."
To list the possible configuration parameters, add a /config comment.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (bfbf10b) 100.00% compared to head (53bb6be) 100.00%.

❗ Current head 53bb6be differs from pull request most recent head 16fc325. Consider uploading reports for the commit 16fc325 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main       #32   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           11        11           
  Lines          344       344           
=========================================
  Hits           344       344           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.