Enhance instruction validation and model management #8
Conversation
…tions and integrate instruction validation
…and refining grammar validation. Update template instructions for clarity.
WalkthroughThis pull request introduces extensive modifications across several files, primarily focusing on enhancing the structure, content organization, and functionality of the documentation and validation processes. Key changes include the addition of new sections and properties in the Markdown JSON, updates to the package version and scripts, asynchronous handling in validation functions, and the introduction of new utility functions for managing temporary directories. These adjustments aim to improve the clarity, usability, and validation capabilities of the documentation framework. Changes
Possibly related PRs
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot reviewed 7 out of 15 changed files in this pull request and generated 1 suggestion.
Files not reviewed (8)
- package.json: Language not supported
- src/rules/instructionValidator.js: Evaluated as low risk
- src/rules/subsectionValidator.test.js: Evaluated as low risk
- src/rules/structureValidator.test.js: Evaluated as low risk
- src/index.js: Evaluated as low risk
- src/rules/structureValidator.js: Evaluated as low risk
- src/rules/subsectionValidator.js: Evaluated as low risk
- templates.yaml: Evaluated as low risk
Comments skipped due to low confidence (2)
src/rules/instructionValidator.test.js:0
- Add tests to cover cases where the llama instance or model preparation fails.
import { expect } from "chai";
src/util/tempDir.js:1
- The shebang line is unnecessary for a module file and should be removed.
#!/usr/bin/env node
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (13)
src/rules/structureValidator.js (1)
31-31: Consider parallelizing section validations for improved performanceCurrently, the
validateSectioncalls within the loop are awaited sequentially, which may lead to performance bottlenecks if there are many sections to validate. Consider usingPromise.allto run these validations in parallel.Apply this diff to modify the loop:
- for (let i = 0; i < Object.keys(template.sections).length; i++) { - const templateKey = Object.keys(template.sections)[i]; - const templateSection = template.sections[templateKey]; - const structureSection = structure.sections[i]; - errors = errors.concat( - await validateSection(structureSection, templateSection) - ); - } + const sectionPromises = Object.keys(template.sections).map(async (templateKey, i) => { + const templateSection = template.sections[templateKey]; + const structureSection = structure.sections[i]; + return validateSection(structureSection, templateSection); + }); + const results = await Promise.all(sectionPromises); + results.forEach(result => { + errors = errors.concat(result); + });src/rules/instructionValidator.js (1)
98-98: Address the TODO to silence terminal output when initializing LlamaThe TODO comment indicates a need to figure out how to silence the terminal output from
getLlama(). Resolving this will allow you to move thellamainitialization to the top of the file, enhancing code organization.Would you like assistance in implementing a solution to silence the terminal output?
src/rules/subsectionValidator.js (1)
Line range hint
79-98: Ensure proper handling of asynchronous calls invalidateAdditionalSectionsThe function
validateAdditionalSectionsis now asynchronous, and you're awaitingvalidateSection, which is good. However, consider refactoring to improve readability and maintainability. Also, ensure that all potential errors are properly handled.Apply this diff to refactor the loop:
async function validateAdditionalSections(structureSection, templateSection) { const errors = []; const sectionMap = {}; - for (let j = 0; j < Object.keys(templateSection.sections).length; j++) { - const templateKey = Object.keys(templateSection.sections)[j]; + const templateKeys = Object.keys(templateSection.sections); + for (const templateKey of templateKeys) { const templateSubsection = templateSection.sections[templateKey]; let sectionFound = false; // Iterate through each subsection in the structure section for (let k = 0; k < structureSection.sections.length; k++) { // Validate the current subsection against the template subsection const structureSubsection = structureSection.sections[k]; const sectionErrors = await validateSection(structureSubsection, templateSubsection); if (sectionErrors.length === 0) { // If the subsection is valid, add it to the section map if (!sectionMap[templateKey]) sectionMap[templateKey] = []; sectionMap[templateKey].push(k); sectionFound = true; } } if (!sectionFound && templateSubsection.required) { errors.push( new ValidationError( "missing_section", structureSection.heading?.content, `Missing section ${templateKey}`, structureSection.position ) ); } } return errors; }src/rules/instructionValidator.test.js (2)
16-16: Consider reducing test timeouts and adding edge casesThe 20-second timeout seems excessive for unit tests. Consider:
- Reducing the timeout to a more reasonable value (e.g., 5s)
- Adding edge cases such as:
- Empty or malformed instructions
- Multiple instructions with mixed results
- Unicode content validation
Also applies to: 31-31, 45-45
19-26: Enhance test data with realistic validation scenariosThe current test uses a simplified instruction that may not reflect real-world validation complexity.
Consider using more realistic test data:
const section = { rawContent: "Invalid content that will fail validation", heading: { content: "Test heading" }, position: { start: { line: 1, column: 1 } } }; const template = { - instructions: ["Content must mention all three primary colors"] + instructions: [ + "Content must include a code example", + "Must have at least one reference link", + "Should explain the purpose of the feature" + ] };src/rules/subsectionValidator.test.js (2)
28-31: Enhance error message validationThe test verifies the error instance but doesn't thoroughly validate the error message content.
Consider adding specific error message assertions:
const result = await validateSubsections(structureSection, templateSection); expect(result).to.be.an("array").that.is.not.empty; expect(result[0]).to.be.instanceOf(ValidationError); -expect(result[0].message).to.include("Expected between"); +expect(result[0].message).to.equal( + "Expected between 2 and 2 sections, but found 3 in section 'Heading' at line 1" +);
34-40: Improve test data with meaningful section contentThe test uses empty objects for sections, which doesn't represent real-world scenarios.
Consider using more realistic test data:
-const structureSection = { sections: [{}, {}, {}], heading: { content: "Heading" }, position: { line: 1, column: 1 } }; +const structureSection = { + sections: [ + { heading: { content: "Installation" }, content: "Installation steps..." }, + { heading: { content: "Usage" }, content: "Usage instructions..." }, + { heading: { content: "API" }, content: "API documentation..." } + ], + heading: { content: "Getting Started" }, + position: { line: 1, column: 1 } +};templates.yaml (1)
40-41: Consider expanding author instructions with examplesWhile the instruction "Mention the intent of the guide" is clear, providing an example of a good intent statement would help authors better understand the expectation.
Consider expanding the instructions like this:
instructions: - Mention the intent of the guide + - Example: "This guide helps you set up continuous integration for your Python project"src/index.js (1)
Line range hint
13-23: Clean up commented AsciiDoc-related codeSince AsciiDoc support is commented out, it should either be removed entirely or tracked as a TODO for future implementation.
Apply this diff to clean up the code:
const inferFileType = (filePath, content) => { const extension = path.extname(filePath).toLowerCase(); if ([".md", ".markdown"].includes(extension)) { return "markdown"; - // } else if ([".adoc", ".asciidoc"].includes(extension)) { - // return "asciidoc"; } - // If extension is not conclusive, check content - // if (content.trim().startsWith("= ")) { - // return "asciidoc"; - // } // Default to markdown if unable to determine return "markdown"; };artifacts/sample_markdown.json (2)
441-441: Standardize line endings in rawContentThe rawContent strings contain inconsistent line endings. Some sections use
\nwhile others have\r\n.Standardize all line endings to use Unix-style
\nfor consistency.Also applies to: 919-919, 1351-1351, 1720-1720, 2074-2074, 2430-2430
Line range hint
485-505: Clean up Prerequisites list itemsThe Prerequisites section contains some placeholder-like items (foo, bar, x, y) that should be replaced with meaningful requirements.
Replace placeholder items with actual prerequisites that users need to know about.
src/parsers/markdown.js (2)
70-70: Initialize rawContent properly.The rawContent property is initialized in both processSection and createDefaultSection, but there's potential for undefined behavior.
Consider these improvements:
const processSection = (node) => { const newSection = { id: uuid(), position: node.position, content: [], - rawContent: getNodeRawContent(node), + rawContent: getNodeRawContent(node) || '', // ... rest of the properties }; return newSection; }; const createDefaultSection = (node) => { return { id: uuid(), position: node.position, content: [], - rawContent: getNodeRawContent(node), + rawContent: getNodeRawContent(node) || '', // ... rest of the properties }; return newSection; };Also applies to: 135-135
Line range hint
1-229: Consider performance implications.The current implementation rebuilds raw content strings frequently, which could impact performance with large documents.
Consider these optimizations:
- Use a string buffer or array to accumulate content
- Defer raw content generation until needed
- Cache generated raw content
Would you like me to provide a detailed implementation for any of these optimizations?
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
package-lock.jsonis excluded by!**/package-lock.json
📒 Files selected for processing (14)
artifacts/sample_markdown.json(112 hunks)package.json(2 hunks)src/index.js(1 hunks)src/parsers/markdown.js(4 hunks)src/rules/instructionValidator.js(1 hunks)src/rules/instructionValidator.test.js(1 hunks)src/rules/structureValidator.js(5 hunks)src/rules/structureValidator.test.js(8 hunks)src/rules/subsectionValidator.js(5 hunks)src/rules/subsectionValidator.test.js(1 hunks)src/schema.js(1 hunks)src/util/preloadModel.js(1 hunks)src/util/tempDir.js(1 hunks)templates.yaml(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
📓 Learnings (2)
src/rules/structureValidator.test.js (1)
Learnt from: hawkeyexl
PR: hawkeyexl/doc-structure-lint#3
File: src/rules/structureValidator.js:23-33
Timestamp: 2024-12-05T22:42:48.443Z
Learning: In the `validateStructure` function in `src/rules/structureValidator.js`, the sections are expected to be in the same order between `template.sections` and `structure.sections`.
src/rules/structureValidator.js (1)
Learnt from: hawkeyexl
PR: hawkeyexl/doc-structure-lint#3
File: src/rules/structureValidator.js:23-33
Timestamp: 2024-12-05T22:42:48.443Z
Learning: In the `validateStructure` function in `src/rules/structureValidator.js`, the sections are expected to be in the same order between `template.sections` and `structure.sections`.
🔇 Additional comments (13)
src/rules/structureValidator.js (5)
6-6: LGTM!
The import statement correctly brings in validateInstructions for instruction validation.
18-18: Function validateStructure correctly updated to be asynchronous
Changing validateStructure to an async function allows the use of await inside the function, which is necessary for awaiting asynchronous validation steps.
46-46: Function validateSection correctly updated to be asynchronous
Updating validateSection to be an async function allows it to perform asynchronous operations, such as awaiting the results of validateInstructions.
78-84: LGTM!
The addition of instruction validation is correctly integrated. The code checks if templateSection.instructions exist and, if so, awaits the result of validateInstructions, concatenating any errors returned.
88-88: Awaiting validateSubsections appropriately
The call to validateSubsections is correctly updated to use await, ensuring any asynchronous operations within are properly handled.
src/rules/instructionValidator.js (1)
123-123:
Ensure the model is properly disposed to free resources
Consider disposing of the model instance after you are done using it, to prevent potential memory leaks or resource issues.
Apply this diff to dispose of the model:
llama.dispose(); // Free up resources
+ await model.dispose();
return errors;Likely invalid or redundant comment.
src/rules/subsectionValidator.js (2)
125-132: Await asynchronous validation in validateRequiredSubsections
In validateRequiredSubsections, you're correctly awaiting validateSection, but ensure that any potential errors are properly caught and handled.
Line range hint 145-174: Consistent use of await in validateSubsections
The function validateSubsections correctly awaits the results of validateAdditionalSections and validateRequiredSubsections. Ensure that any errors from these functions are appropriately managed.
package.json (2)
3-3: LGTM: Version bump and new scripts align with feature additions
The version bump and new scripts (postinstall and clean) appropriately reflect the addition of model management features.
Also applies to: 10-11
23-23: Verify node-llama-cpp compatibility and requirements
The addition of node-llama-cpp is a significant dependency that may have system-level requirements.
Let's verify the dependency's requirements and compatibility:
✅ Verification successful
Node-llama-cpp integration appears well-implemented with proper resource management
The dependency is used appropriately with:
- Proper model loading and cleanup through
prepareModel - Resource management via
dispose()calls - Environment variable control (
DOC_STRUCTURE_LINT_PRELOAD) - Graceful model downloading and temporary directory handling
- Clear error handling and validation logic
The implementation follows best practices and includes necessary safeguards. The package is used for its intended purpose of running LLM inference with proper resource management.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check package.json files in the repository for potential conflicts
rg -l "node-llama-cpp"
# Check for system requirements in README or documentation
rg -i "requirement|prerequisite|depend" README.md
Length of output: 344
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check how node-llama-cpp is being used in the codebase
rg -A 5 "node-llama-cpp" src/
# Check for any setup or installation instructions in the repository
fd -t f -e md | xargs rg -i "setup|install|build"
# Look for any configuration files that might contain system requirements
fd -g "*config*" -t f | xargs cat
# Check the actual implementation files for any system-specific code
cat src/rules/instructionValidator.js
cat src/util/preloadModel.js
Length of output: 6549
src/index.js (1)
70-70: Verify async operation handling
The change to async operation for validateStructure suggests integration with a language model. Ensure proper error handling for potential model-related failures.
src/schema.js (1)
136-142: Verify language model integration
The schema indicates that instructions will be evaluated by a local language model. This is a significant architectural decision.
Consider the following aspects:
- Model deployment and versioning strategy
- Performance impact of local model evaluation
- Fallback mechanisms for model failures
Run this script to check for model-related configurations:
✅ Verification successful
Let me check the content of the instruction validator to better understand the implementation.
Local language model integration is properly implemented
The implementation shows a well-structured local language model integration using node-llama-cpp with:
- Proper model deployment using a quantized 3B Llama model (Q4_K_M)
- Efficient resource management with temp directory cleanup and context disposal
- Clear fallback handling through ValidationError
- Structured response parsing with JSON grammar
- Performance optimization through model reuse across multiple instruction validations
The architectural concerns mentioned in the review comment are already addressed in the implementation:
- Model deployment: Uses HuggingFace hosted model with automatic downloading
- Performance: Uses quantized model and efficient context management
- Error handling: Implements proper error reporting and resource cleanup
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Look for model configuration files and integration points
# Search for model configuration files
fd -e yml -e yaml -e json | rg -i "model|llm|language"
# Search for model integration code
rg -l "model.*validate|validate.*model"
Length of output: 132
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation of instruction validation
cat src/rules/instructionValidator.js
Length of output: 4546
src/rules/structureValidator.test.js (1)
Line range hint 5-149: LGTM! Async/await changes are consistently applied.
The conversion of test cases to use async/await is thorough and correctly implemented across all test scenarios.
However, I notice that instruction validation tests are missing, which should be added to align with the PR objectives.
Let's check if instruction validation tests exist elsewhere:
… validator, and temporary directory management
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (6)
src/rules/instructionValidator.js (5)
22-28: Consider making model configuration more flexible.The model name and path are currently hardcoded. Consider extracting these values to a configuration file for better maintainability and flexibility.
+import config from '../config/model.js'; + export async function prepareModel(llama) { try { const dir = getTempDir(); - const expectedFiles = ["Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct-Q4_K_M.gguf"]; + const expectedFiles = [config.modelFileName]; cleanTempDir(expectedFiles); await resolveModelFile( - "hf:bartowski/Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct-GGUF/Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct-Q4_K_M.gguf", - { directory: dir, fileName: "Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct-Q4_K_M.gguf" } + config.modelPath, + { directory: dir, fileName: config.modelFileName } );
49-64: Enhance JSON schema validation.Consider adding additional validation constraints to ensure better data quality:
return await llama.createGrammarForJsonSchema({ type: "object", required: ["assessment"], properties: { assessment: { description: "The result of the evaluation", type: "string", enum: ["pass", "fail"], }, explanation: { description: "Suggestions for improvement, if any.", type: "string", + minLength: 1, maxLength: 500, + pattern: "^[A-Z].*[.]$" // Ensure starts with capital letter and ends with period }, }, });
80-81: Enhance system prompt for more specific guidance.The current system prompt could be more specific about evaluation criteria and expected output format.
systemPrompt: - "You are a technical editor who evaluates instructions against sections of a document. Evaluate if the supplied content follows the specified instruction. Output your results as JSON.", + "You are a technical editor who evaluates if document sections follow specific instructions. Assess: 1) Does the content implement the instruction completely? 2) Is the implementation correct? 3) Are there any inconsistencies? Output your assessment as JSON with 'pass' or 'fail' and detailed explanation if failing.",
103-103: Address TODO comment regarding terminal output.The TODO comment indicates a need to silence terminal output from the Llama model.
Would you like me to help implement a solution for silencing the terminal output or create an issue to track this task?
107-127: Consider batch processing for better performance.Processing instructions sequentially might not be optimal for large documents. Consider implementing batch processing.
- for (const index in template.instructions) { - const instruction = template.instructions[index]; - const error = await validateInstruction( - model, - grammar, - instruction, - section.rawContent - ); + const BATCH_SIZE = 5; + const instructions = template.instructions; + for (let i = 0; i < instructions.length; i += BATCH_SIZE) { + const batch = instructions.slice(i, i + BATCH_SIZE); + const batchErrors = await Promise.all( + batch.map(instruction => + validateInstruction(model, grammar, instruction, section.rawContent) + ) + ); + batchErrors.forEach((error, index) => { if (error) { errors.push( new ValidationError( "instruction_error", section.heading.content, - `Instruction: ${instruction}${ - !instruction.endsWith(".") ? "." : "" + `Instruction: ${batch[index]}${ + !batch[index].endsWith(".") ? "." : "" } Explanation: ${error.explanation}`, section.position ) ); } - } + }); + }src/parsers/markdown.js (1)
224-237: Ensure consistent newline handling.The content accumulation adds newlines consistently, but consider extracting the logic to a helper function to maintain consistency.
+ const appendRawContent = (section, node) => { + if (!section.rawContent) return; + const content = getNodeRawContent(node); + if (!content) return; + section.rawContent += section.rawContent.endsWith('\n') ? content : '\n' + content; + }; + // In processNode function: - currentSection.rawContent += '\n' + getNodeRawContent(node); + appendRawContent(currentSection, node);
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (5)
src/parsers/markdown.js(4 hunks)src/rules/instructionValidator.js(1 hunks)src/schema.js(1 hunks)src/util/preloadModel.js(1 hunks)src/util/tempDir.js(1 hunks)
🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (3)
- src/schema.js
- src/util/preloadModel.js
- src/util/tempDir.js
🔇 Additional comments (1)
src/parsers/markdown.js (1)
148-176: LGTM! Well-implemented node content extraction.
The implementation handles edge cases well and follows the suggestions from previous reviews:
- Proper null checks
- Handles nested content in lists
- Handles empty nodes
- Uses optional chaining
…template definitions and usage instructions
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (3)
templates.yaml (2)
38-66: Consider requiring error examplesThe API operation template is well-structured. However, consider making the error response section required to ensure comprehensive API documentation.
error: - required: false + required: true heading: const: "Error Response"
120-128: Fix YAML formatting issuesThe parameters component is well-structured, but there are formatting issues to address:
- Add a newline at the end of file
- Remove trailing spaces on line 128
items: - min: 1 - + min: 1 +🧰 Tools
🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)
[error] 128-128: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
[error] 128-128: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
README.md (1)
44-44: Consider adding JSON output exampleWhile the --json option is documented, consider adding an example of the JSON output format to help users understand the structure.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
README.md(2 hunks)templates.yaml(2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 yamllint (1.35.1)
templates.yaml
[error] 128-128: no new line character at the end of file
(new-line-at-end-of-file)
[error] 128-128: trailing spaces
(trailing-spaces)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
templates.yaml (2)
7-37: LGTM! Case consistency improvements
The conversion to lowercase keys and addition of instructions improves template consistency and validation capabilities.
71-72: LGTM! Clear author guidance
The addition of instructions provides clear guidance for authors to specify document intent.
README.md (2)
33-37: LGTM! Clear model management documentation
The documentation clearly explains model requirements, storage needs, and configuration options.
70-245: LGTM! Comprehensive template documentation
The documentation provides clear explanations of template structure, properties, and validation rules with matching examples.
Improve instruction validation by modularizing model preparation, enhancing error reporting, and adding author guidance. Implement temporary directory management for model handling and refine markdown parsing for better content extraction.
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
New Features
api-operationadded with detailed sections for better API documentation.Improvements
--jsonoutput flag.Bug Fixes
Documentation