Skip to content

Conversation

@shaohuzhang1
Copy link
Contributor

fix: Allow problem be blank

@f2c-ci-robot
Copy link

f2c-ci-robot bot commented Nov 21, 2025

Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it.

Details

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

@f2c-ci-robot
Copy link

f2c-ci-robot bot commented Nov 21, 2025

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

'status': self.status,
'err_message': self.err_message
}
}
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

There seem to be a couple of potential issues in your code that could be addressed:

  1. Problem List Field: The problem_list field should allow blank entries if it's supposed to represent multiple problems or tasks associated with a paragraph.

    problem_list = serializers.ListField(
        required=False, 
        child=serializers.CharField(required=False, allow_blank=True)
    )
  2. Empty Return Statement in get_paragraph_problem_model Function: There might be an unhandled case that results in no data being returned from get_paragraph_problem_model.

  3. Return Statements in Class Methods:

    • Some methods may not have been executed correctly due to return statements that do not align with their expected use (e.g., within loops).

Here’s how you can address these points with corrections:

Code Corrections

def get_paragraph_problem_model(knowledge_id: str, document_id: str, instance: Dict):
    # Placeholder implementation; adjust based on actual requirements
    paragraphs = []
    for paragraph in instance['paragraphs']:
        print(f"Creating paragraph model for {knowledge_id}, {document_id}")
        paragraphs.append({
            "title": paragraph.get('title'),
            "problem_list": [
                task.strip() for task in paragraph.get('task', '').split(',') if task.strip()
            ],
            # Add additional fields as needed
        })
    
    return paragraphs

# Adjust other methods similarly if necessary

class ParagraphInstanceSerializer(serializers.Serializer):
    ...
    problem_list = serializers.ListField(
        required=False, 
        child=serializers.CharField(required=False, allow_blank=True)
    )

# Ensure all methods call super().__init__() and handle exceptions appropriately

def execute(self, documents, **kwargs) -> NodeResult:
    try:
        ...
        result_content = {
               'write_content': write_content_list,
               # Add more keys/values as appropriate
           }
        
        self.add_to_write_context(result_content)  # Assuming this method exists somewhere
        
        return NodeResult(result_content, {})  # This assumes NodeResult takes two parameters (success/data/error)

    except Exception as e:
        self.err_message(str(e))
        return NodeResult({}, {"error": str(e)})

Additional Suggestion

  1. Exception Handling: Implement robust exception handling throughout your code to catch unexpected errors and ensure proper cleanup when something goes wrong.

  2. Validation Logic: Consider adding validation logic before saving changes to ensure that the input meets expectations.

  3. Code Structure: Simplify complex operations in functions like execute or save_by_doc_ids_if_needed by breaking down these responsibilities into smaller, focused functions.

By addressing these areas, your code becomes more robust, maintainable, and likely performs better under real-world conditions.

@zhanweizhang7 zhanweizhang7 merged commit 820b680 into knowledge_workflow Nov 21, 2025
3 of 6 checks passed
@zhanweizhang7 zhanweizhang7 deleted the pr@knowledge_workflow@fix_allow branch November 21, 2025 05:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants