-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 74
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
examples: Burr + Hamilton #428
Conversation
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.
❌ Changes requested. Reviewed everything up to 7b9287b in 46 seconds
More details
- Looked at
166
lines of code in5
files - Skipped
4
files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
1
drafted comments based on config settings.
1. examples/hamilton-integration/actions/ingest_blog.py:50
- Draft comment:
Useif_not_exists=True
instead ofexist_ok=True
increate_table
for clarity and correctness. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
The comment suggests a change in parameter naming for clarity and correctness. However, without documentation or knowledge of the LanceDB API, it's unclear ifif_not_exists
is a valid parameter or if it provides any additional clarity or correctness overexist_ok
. The comment lacks strong evidence or context to support its claim, and it might be speculative.
I might be missing specific knowledge about the LanceDB API and whetherif_not_exists
is a valid parameter. The comment could be based on a misunderstanding or a different version of the API.
Without specific documentation or evidence thatif_not_exists
is a valid and better parameter, the comment seems speculative. The current parameterexist_ok
is a common pattern in Python for indicating that an operation should not fail if the target already exists.
The comment should be deleted as it lacks strong evidence and may be speculative. The current use ofexist_ok=True
is a common pattern and likely correct.
Workflow ID: wflow_96GklXY98RIjtvBH
Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev
in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet
mode, and more.
A preview of 9ba7679 is uploaded and can be seen here: ✨ https://burr.dagworks.io/pull/428 ✨ Changes may take a few minutes to propagate. Since this is a preview of production, content with |
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.
👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 04a64f4 in 9 seconds
More details
- Looked at
30
lines of code in2
files - Skipped
1
files when reviewing. - Skipped posting
1
drafted comments based on config settings.
1. examples/hamilton-integration/README.md:3
- Draft comment:
Typo: Change "examples" to "example" for grammatical correctness. - Reason this comment was not posted:
Confidence changes required:10%
The README file contains a minor typo that should be corrected for clarity.
Workflow ID: wflow_ISMCo2jvPcad3OF5
You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet
mode, and more.
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.
Skipped PR review on 9ba7679 because no changed files had a supported extension. If you think this was in error, please contact us and we'll fix it right away.
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.
Narrative example which presents the 2-layer approach and shows the typical progression of a RAG or LLM-agent application