-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Hotfix for Filterblocks #72
Closed
Closed
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
6406d5e
:ambulance: Making filterblock more robust by introducing valid values
shivchander 507e325
:loud_sound: slightly better logging
shivchander bada90e
:wrench: updating grounded synth skills default flow
shivchander d5fc59d
:white_check_mark: updating test script imports
shivchander 1af5b74
:rotating_light: fixing linter issues
shivchander face918
:loud_sound: chore: Improve robustness of FilterByValueBlock by handl…
shivchander 7d33095
:rotating_light: fixing linter issues + removing unnecessary import i…
shivchander ed7d74b
:rotating_light: fix linter warnings
shivchander File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The filter currently only accepts
judgement=YES
... so adding is a no-op?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We saw that the judgement was sometimes getting populated with values besides "YES" and "NO" and that was breaking the code. Hence it was important to add a set of valid values or expected values from the evaluation.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change for introducing valid_values is not shortsighted for the current scope and flows. This is useful in making the filter blocks more generic. For instance if you need to filter the outputs from a block using the
in
operation to check if the generated output belongs in a list of strings.As a general note and practice, language model output are not deterministic, restricting with these explicit valid_values makes it more generic and robust
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ok, if this is an "we don't need it now, but we think we'll need it later" argument - I'll refer again to the YAGNI principle :)
But my "we don't need it now" conclusion might be a misunderstanding. Here's pseudo-code showing my understanding:
Am I missing something?
(If I'm understanding correctly, I think it's important we avoid adding additional unnecessary complexity like this, because it's confusing enough already)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm with @markmc -- that pseudocode matches my understanding, and so I have the same "can you help me understand why we need it?" question
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will close this PR and reintroduce the retaining valid values as its own block (since we still need it). Thanks for isolating the bug fix
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@russellb it's a bugfix as Aakanksha already explained. Without having a valid_values filter, the code was breaking. I don't know the specifics but clearly it's offered as a bug fix, and Aakanksha tested it independently.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm sorry, @mairin, but I've looked at this long enough that that just isn't correct. I fully believe there may be a use case for it and assume further discussion will help clarify that, but at least as used in the existing pipelines within this PR, the filter part is not fixing anything.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shivchander
Sounds good. It looks like you can keep it one block, but just change the value the current block takes to be a set instead of a single value. Then both use cases can be served by the same block.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shivchander here's what I had in mind to just augment the existing block -- 6c1f3ee
though note I've only tested via that unit test so far