Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Nov 21, 2024
Merged

examples: Burr + Hamilton #428

merged 4 commits into from
Nov 21, 2024

Conversation

zilto
Copy link
Collaborator

@zilto zilto commented Nov 20, 2024

Narrative example which presents the 2-layer approach and shows the typical progression of a RAG or LLM-agent application

@zilto zilto added the examples Relates to `/examples` label Nov 20, 2024
Copy link

@ellipsis-dev ellipsis-dev bot left a 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 in 5 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:
    Use if_not_exists=True instead of exist_ok=True in create_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 if if_not_exists is a valid parameter or if it provides any additional clarity or correctness over exist_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 whether if_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 that if_not_exists is a valid and better parameter, the comment seems speculative. The current parameter exist_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 of exist_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.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 20, 2024

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 draft: true will not be rendered. The source is here: https://github.com/DAGWorks-Inc/burr/tree/gh-pages/pull/428/

Copy link

@ellipsis-dev ellipsis-dev bot left a 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 in 2 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.

Copy link

@ellipsis-dev ellipsis-dev bot left a 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.

Copy link
Contributor

@skrawcz skrawcz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:shipit:

@skrawcz skrawcz merged commit 7a3c9e7 into main Nov 21, 2024
11 checks passed
@skrawcz skrawcz deleted the examples/burr-and-hamilton branch November 21, 2024 06:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
examples Relates to `/examples`
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants