0.1.6 #3
0.1.6 #3
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedReview was skipped due to path filters ⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
CodeRabbit blocks several paths by default. You can override this behavior by explicitly including those paths in the path filters. For example, including You can disable this status message by setting the WalkthroughThe pull request includes updates to three files. The Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant LanguageModel
participant Tool
User->>LanguageModel: Request user registration
LanguageModel->>Tool: Generate tool call for registration
Tool-->>LanguageModel: Return registration result
LanguageModel-->>User: Respond with registration confirmation
User->>LanguageModel: Request weather for Boston
User->>LanguageModel: Request weather for New York
LanguageModel->>Tool: Generate tool call for get_weather (Boston)
LanguageModel->>Tool: Generate tool call for get_weather (New York)
Tool-->>LanguageModel: Return weather for Boston
Tool-->>LanguageModel: Return weather for New York
LanguageModel-->>User: Respond with weather for Boston and New York
🪧 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 (3)
javascript/src/utils/stream.utils.ts (1)
Line range hint
1-180: Consider enhancing error messages for tool call handling.Given the change in tool call matching logic, it would be helpful to improve error messages in the
addChunksmethod when handling tool calls. This would make it easier to diagnose issues when tool calls are incorrectly accumulated.Consider enhancing the error message in the tool-call branch of
addChunks:} else if ( existingDelta.part.type === "tool-call" && incomingDelta.part.type === "tool-call" ) { + // Log detailed information about the tool calls being merged + console.debug( + `Merging tool calls: existing=${existingDelta.part.toolName} incoming=${incomingDelta.part.toolName}` + ); if (incomingDelta.part.toolName) { existingDelta.part.toolName = (existingDelta.part.toolName || "") + incomingDelta.part.toolName;Consider adding telemetry or debug logging around tool call handling to help monitor the impact of this change in production. This would help identify any potential issues with the new matching behavior.
javascript/test/test-language-model.ts (2)
387-387: Enhance test assertions for complex schema validation.While the test prompt now covers all fields in the complex schema, the assertions only verify the tool call ID and name. Consider adding assertions to validate that the arguments are correctly parsed according to the schema requirements.
Add assertions to verify the parsed arguments:
t.assert.equal(toolCallPart?.toolName, "register_user"); + // Verify parsed arguments match input + const args = toolCallPart?.args; + t.assert.equal(args?.["id"], "a1b2c3"); + t.assert.equal(args?.["name"], "John Doe"); + t.assert.equal(args?.["email"], "[email protected]"); + t.assert.equal(args?.["birthDate"], "1990-05-15"); + t.assert.equal(args?.["age"], 34); + t.assert.equal(args?.["isActive"], true); + t.assert.equal(args?.["role"], "user"); + t.assert.equal(args?.["accountBalance"], 500.75); + t.assert.equal(args?.["phoneNumber"], "+1234567890123"); + t.assert.deepEqual(args?.["tags"], ["developer", "gamer"]); + t.assert.equal(args?.["lastLogin"], "2024-11-09T10:30:00Z");
522-564: LGTM! Consider adding additional test coverage.The test case effectively validates parallel tool calls of the same name with different arguments. The assertions are thorough and type-safe.
Consider adding these test cases to improve coverage:
- Verify unique tool call IDs:
t.assert.notEqual(weatherCall1?.toolCallId, weatherCall2?.toolCallId);
- Add a test case for invalid locations to verify error handling:
test("stream parallel tool calls with invalid location", async (t) => { const response = languageModel.stream({ messages: [{ role: "user", content: [{ type: "text", text: "Get me the weather in InvalidCity1 and InvalidCity2." }] }], tools, }); // ... verify error handling });
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (3)
javascript/package.json(1 hunks)javascript/src/utils/stream.utils.ts(1 hunks)javascript/test/test-language-model.ts(2 hunks)
✅ Files skipped from review due to trivial changes (1)
- javascript/package.json
🔇 Additional comments (1)
javascript/src/utils/stream.utils.ts (1)
167-167: Verify the impact of disabling tool call matching.
The change to always return false for tool calls appears to be addressing a potential issue with matching multiple tool calls that have the same name. While this fix prevents incorrect matching, we should verify its impact on existing tool call handling.
Let's verify the tool call usage patterns in the codebase:
Consider adding a comment explaining why tool calls can't be reliably matched, for example:
- // we won't be able to reliably match tool calls
- // because there can be multiple tool calls with the same tool name
+ // Tool calls cannot be reliably matched by name since multiple calls
+ // can share the same tool name but represent different operations.
+ // Each tool call should be treated as a distinct entity.
return false;✅ Verification successful
The change to disable tool call matching is correct and necessary
The verification confirms this change is correct for several reasons:
- Tests show multiple scenarios with parallel tool calls and tool calls of the same name, indicating the need to handle each tool call as a distinct entity
- The test
stream parallel tool calls of same namespecifically validates the case where multiple tool calls share the same name - The implementation across different providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.) shows that tool call deltas are handled independently
The change to return false ensures proper handling of multiple tool calls, especially in streaming scenarios where tool calls with the same name need to be treated as separate entities.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check tool call handling patterns to verify the safety of this change
# Search for tool call related tests and usage
echo "Searching for tool call related tests..."
rg -l "tool-call" --type ts
# Look for potential tool call matching patterns that might be affected
echo "Checking for potential tool call matching patterns..."
ast-grep --pattern 'toolName === $_'
Length of output: 624
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Let's examine the actual implementation and usage of guessDeltaIndex
# First, check the full context of the guessDeltaIndex function
echo "Checking guessDeltaIndex implementation..."
rg -B 10 -A 10 "guessDeltaIndex" javascript/src/utils/stream.utils.ts
# Check test files for tool call related test cases
echo "Checking test cases..."
rg "tool.*call" javascript/test/test-language-model.ts -C 5
# Check actual usage of stream utilities with tool calls
echo "Checking tool call usage in main implementation..."
rg "tool.*call.*delta" javascript/src/{openai,anthropic,google,mistral,cohere}/*.ts
Length of output: 5523
What does this PR do?
Fix https://fireflies.sentry.io/issues/6052582757/?referrer=slack¬ification_uuid=e1c886ce-dfea-4803-a716-8305fe4f218e&alert_rule_id=15510789&alert_type=issue
Type of change
This pull request is a
Which introduces
How should this be manually tested?
xxx
What are the requirements to deploy to production?
Any background context you want to provide beyond Shortcut?
xxx
Screenshots (if appropriate)
Without this fix:
With this fix:
all tests pass:
![Uploading image.png…]()
Loom Video (if appropriate)
xxx
Any Security implications
xxx