Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Sign in
Appearance settings

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

 Sign up
Appearance settings

FixRepeatPhraseChecker constraints#1044

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 ourterms of service andprivacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub?Sign in to your account

Open
nzw0301 wants to merge3 commits intoallenai:main
base:main
Choose a base branch
Loading
fromnzw0301:fix-repeat-pharase-checker

Conversation

@nzw0301
Copy link

@nzw0301nzw0301 commentedSep 30, 2025•
edited by cursorbot
Loading

The current implementation can returnNone whendifference=0 at last. In addition, the current implementation cannot check the instruction correctly.

Note

FixesRepeatPhraseChecker.check_following to ensure exactlysmall_n phrases each differ by one word and avoids returning None.

  • Checkers:
    • RepeatPhraseChecker.check_following inopen_instruct/IFEvalG/instructions.py:
      • Enforces that all matched phrases each differ by exactly one word and their count equalssmall_n.
      • Removes dead code and replaces premature return with a final aggregated check to preventNone returns.

Written byCursor Bugbot for commit7462f93. This will update automatically on new commits. Configurehere.

@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Contributor

Summary of Changes

Hello@nzw0301, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request refines theRepeatPhraseChecker'scheck_following method to ensure more accurate and robust instruction validation. The changes prevent erroneousNone returns and improve the precision of phrase matching by introducing a dedicated counter for satisfied phrases, ultimately leading to a more reliable check against the expected repetition count.

Highlights

  • CorrectedRepeatPhraseChecker logic: The pull request addresses an issue where thecheck_following method inRepeatPhraseChecker could returnNone incorrectly or fail to properly validate instructions.
  • Improved phrase satisfaction tracking: A new counter,num_satisfied_phrases, has been introduced to accurately track the number of phrases that meet the specified criteria.
  • Refined validation condition: The final validation now explicitly checks if the count of satisfied phrases matches the expected number (self._small_n), replacing a less preciseif differences == 1 condition.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on ourdocumentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either/gemini <command> or@gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

FeatureCommandDescription
Code Review/gemini reviewPerforms a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary/gemini summaryProvides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment@gemini-code-assistResponds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help/gemini helpDisplays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a.gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be foundhere.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on@gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign uphere.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with theGemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review thePrivacy Notices,Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy,Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHubhere. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it anduse code with caution.↩

cursor[bot]

This comment was marked as outdated.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assistgemini-code-assistbot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request addresses a bug in theRepeatPhraseChecker where constraint checking was happening outside the loop, leading to incorrect behavior and potentialNone returns. The changes restructure the logic to correctly iterate and validate each phrase. However, the fix alters the validation logic to allow phrases with zero differences, which might not be the intended behavior if exactly one difference is required. My review provides a suggestion to restore the one-difference constraint while keeping the corrected structure.

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account?Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@cursorcursor[bot]cursor[bot] left review comments

+1 more reviewer

@gemini-code-assistgemini-code-assist[bot]gemini-code-assist[bot] left review comments

Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@nzw0301
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2025 Movatter.jp