proposed fix: handle missing target_node_uuid in edge operations

[paul-paliychuk]

Important

Fix handling of missing target_node_uuid in resolve_extracted_edges in edge_operations.py by setting target_node_labels to an empty list.

• Behavior:
  • In resolve_extracted_edges in edge_operations.py, handle missing target_node_uuid by setting target_node_labels to an empty list if target_node_uuid is None.

^{This description was created by for 12786fe. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 12786fe in 2 minutes and 13 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 13 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. graphiti_core/utils/maintenance/edge_operations.py:280

• Draft comment:
  Good fix to avoid errors when target_node_uuid is missing. However, consider also checking whether the UUID exists in 'uuid_entity_map' to avoid a KeyError if a non-falsy value isn’t mapped. For example, use something like: uuid_entity_map.get(extracted_edge.target_node_uuid, default_node).labels or at least log a warning when a missing key is encountered.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 80% vs. threshold = 80% The code accesses uuid_entity_map[extracted_edge.target_node_uuid] without checking if the key exists. While there is a null check (if target_node_uuid), this doesn't protect against the case where target_node_uuid has a value but isn't in the map. This could cause a KeyError. The suggestion to add an additional check is valid and would improve robustness. The code may have guarantees elsewhere that ensure target_node_uuid is always valid when non-null. The comment assumes implementation details without full context. Even if there are guarantees elsewhere, defensive programming is good practice. The cost of adding the check is minimal and makes the code more robust. Keep the comment as it identifies a real potential issue and provides a clear, actionable solution that would improve code robustness.

Workflow ID: wflow_QPpdf54aMfErui0q

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}