Skip to content

Conversation

Abbas-Asad
Copy link
Contributor

Summary

Fixed a bug where redundant and logically impossible code was present in the function tool call processing logic, which could never be executed.

Problem

The code contained a redundant type check that was logically impossible to reach:

elif not isinstance(output, ResponseFunctionToolCall):
    logger.warning(f"Unexpected output type, ignoring: {type(output)}")
    continue

# At this point we know it's a function tool call
if not isinstance(output, ResponseFunctionToolCall):  # This check can never be reached
    continue

The second type check (lines 495-497) could never be executed because:

  • If output is NOT a ResponseFunctionToolCall, the first check would have already caused a continue and skipped the rest of the loop
  • If output is a ResponseFunctionToolCall, the second check would always be false

Changes Made

Removed the redundant and unreachable type check, leaving only the necessary logic:

elif not isinstance(output, ResponseFunctionToolCall):
    logger.warning(f"Unexpected output type, ignoring: {type(output)}")
    continue

# At this point we know it's a function tool call
tools_used.append(output.name)

This improves code clarity and eliminates dead code that could confuse developers and static analysis tools.

## Summary

Fixed a bug where redundant and logically impossible code was present in the function tool call processing logic, which could never be executed.

## Problem

The code contained a redundant type check that was logically impossible to reach:

```python
elif not isinstance(output, ResponseFunctionToolCall):
    logger.warning(f"Unexpected output type, ignoring: {type(output)}")
    continue

# At this point we know it's a function tool call
if not isinstance(output, ResponseFunctionToolCall):  # This check can never be reached
    continue
```

The second type check (lines 495-497) could never be executed because:
- If `output` is NOT a `ResponseFunctionToolCall`, the first check would have already caused a `continue` and skipped the rest of the loop
- If `output` is a `ResponseFunctionToolCall`, the second check would always be false

## Changes Made

Removed the redundant and unreachable type check, leaving only the necessary logic:

```python
elif not isinstance(output, ResponseFunctionToolCall):
    logger.warning(f"Unexpected output type, ignoring: {type(output)}")
    continue

# At this point we know it's a function tool call
tools_used.append(output.name)
```

This improves code clarity and eliminates dead code that could confuse developers and static analysis tools.
@seratch
Copy link
Member

seratch commented Aug 14, 2025

At a glance, it may look so. But removing the lines of code actually changes the behavior. So, we won't accept this.

@seratch seratch closed this Aug 14, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants