Minor code refactoring, including None checks and argument name changes.

[weizhang25]

Updated None check statements. Optimised the execution sequence of some statements. Some variable name changes.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @weizhang25, 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 introduces minor but impactful code refactoring aimed at enhancing the overall quality, readability, and maintainability of the codebase. The changes primarily standardize None checks to a more Pythonic style, clarify argument names in core aggregation logic, and refine initialization patterns in grader components. These adjustments contribute to a cleaner and more robust system without altering core functionality.

Highlights

• Pythonic None Checks: Updated numerous is not None checks to the more concise and Pythonic if not variable: syntax across various files, improving readability and consistency.
• Argument Name Clarification: Renamed the results argument to grader_results in aggregator classes (base_aggregator.py, weighted_sum_aggregator.py) for better clarity on the expected input.
• Code Optimization and Readability: Optimized the calculation of total_training_steps in trainer.py and streamlined template assignment logic in several grader __init__ methods.
• Improved Progress Bar Descriptions: Updated progress bar descriptions in grading_runner.py to be more informative, changing 'Grading' to 'Evaluating a dataset' and 'Grading Datasets' to 'Evaluating {count} datasets'.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation 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.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays 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 found here.

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 up here.

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

Footnotes

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

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces a number of refactorings across the codebase, primarily focused on updating None checks to use implicit boolean checks (e.g., if not var: instead of if var is None:), renaming variables for clarity, and optimizing some execution sequences.

Overall, the changes improve code consistency and readability in many places. For instance, the refactoring in cookbooks/training_judge_model/bradley-terry/trainer.py to determine total_training_steps is cleaner, and renaming results to grader_results in the aggregator classes improves clarity.

However, I've identified a few areas where the changes might introduce unintended side effects or where an underlying logical issue remains:

• In openjudge/analyzer/statistical/consistency_analyzer.py, there's a pre-existing logical flaw that makes a block of code unreachable. While not introduced by this PR, it's worth addressing.
• In openjudge/graders/multimodal/_internal/criteria_utils.py, changing is None checks to not ... alters the return type for empty lists from [] or "" to None, which could be an unexpected breaking change for callers.

I've left specific comments with suggestions on these points. The rest of the changes look good.

[jc200808]

template_arg = template or DEFAULT_ACTION_ALIGNMENT_TEMPLATE

[weizhang25]

Done. Applied to other locations too.