LCORE-390: field descriptions for feedback payload #364
Conversation
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
tisnik
force-pushed
the
lcore-390-field-descriptions-for-feedback-payload
branch
from
491101b to
13f65dc
Compare
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
docs/output.md (1)
521-522: Missing type information forsentimentThe Type column is empty. Prefer
integer(orenum(-1, 1)if you intend to restrict the values).docs/openapi.json (1)
1045-1050: Use explicit enum to constrainsentimentRight now
sentimentisinteger | nullwith example values -1/1. Consider tightening the schema:- "anyOf": [{"type": "integer"}, {"type": "null"}], + "type": ["integer","null"], + "enum": [-1, 1],This lets client SDKs generate proper validation code.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
docs/openapi.json(2 hunks)docs/openapi.md(1 hunks)docs/output.md(1 hunks)src/models/requests.py(1 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (5)
docs/output.md (1)
518-521: “Optional” status contradicts earlier “required” statementThe table says
conversation_idis optional, yet the Attributes block above (Lines 496-500) still calls it “required”. Pick one wording and keep it consistent throughout the doc (and with the OpenAPI schema, where it is currently required).docs/openapi.md (1)
536-540: Same required/optional mismatch as in output.mdHere
conversation_idis described as optional while the schema’srequiredlist still contains it. Align the description with the real validation rules to avoid confusing API users.src/models/requests.py (3)
260-263: LGTM!The field description and example are clear and accurately reflect the purpose of the
user_questionfield.
265-270: LGTM!The field description is clear and the example provides a realistic LLM response that aligns with the application's domain.
272-276: LGTM!The field description accurately reflects the validation constraints implemented in the
check_sentimentmethod, and the examples clearly show the valid sentiment values.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 3
🧹 Nitpick comments (2)
docs/output.md (2)
521-521: Document the exact value domain forsentimentThe phrase “must be -1 or 1” implies a closed enum. If
0(neutral) or any other value is allowed in the backend, state that explicitly; otherwise, consider re-wording to:-User sentiment, if provided must be -1 or 1 +User sentiment (allowed values: -1 = negative, 1 = positive)This avoids ambiguity for API consumers.
523-523: Minor wording tweak forcategoriesdescriptionCurrent text is a bit long and parentheses break the sentence flow. A crisper alternative:
-List of feedback categories that describe issues with the LLM response (for negative feedback). +List of categories describing issues with the LLM response (used when sentiment = -1).Optional, but it improves readability and makes the conditional nature explicit.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
docs/openapi.json(2 hunks)docs/openapi.md(1 hunks)docs/output.md(1 hunks)src/models/requests.py(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 markdownlint-cli2 (0.17.2)
docs/output.md
522-522: Code block style
Expected: fenced; Actual: indented
(MD046, code-block-style)
🔇 Additional comments (11)
src/models/requests.py (3)
260-263: LGTM!Good enhancement with clear description and appropriate example for the user question field.
265-270: LGTM!Good enhancement with clear description and appropriate example for the LLM response field. The truncated example is suitable for documentation purposes.
272-276: LGTM!Excellent enhancement with accurate description specifying the valid sentiment values and appropriate examples showing both -1 and 1.
docs/openapi.json (3)
1022-1026: LGTM!Good enhancement with clear description and appropriate example, consistent with the Python model definition.
1030-1034: LGTM!Good enhancement with clear description and appropriate example, consistent with the Python model definition.
1045-1050: LGTM!Excellent enhancement with accurate description and appropriate examples showing the valid sentiment values, consistent with the Python model definition.
docs/openapi.md (4)
537-537: LGTM!Clear and accurate description that's consistent with the model definition.
538-538: LGTM!Clear and accurate description that's consistent with the model definition.
539-539: LGTM!Excellent description that clearly specifies the valid sentiment values and optional nature of the field.
541-541: LGTM!Improved description that provides valuable context about categories being specifically for negative feedback scenarios.
docs/output.md (1)
518-521: Align “required/optional” flag forconversation_idacross the sectionIn the Attributes paragraph above (Lines 496-502)
conversation_idis still described as required, while the changed table row now calls it optional. Readers will be confused which rule applies.- conversation_id: The required conversation ID (UUID). + conversation_id: The optional conversation ID (UUID).Please update one of the two places so they are consistent and reflect the model’s real validation logic.
tisnik
force-pushed
the
lcore-390-field-descriptions-for-feedback-payload
branch
from
13f65dc to
0c17ec4
Compare
|
@coderabbitai full review |
✅ Actions performedFull review triggered. |
1 participant
Description
LCORE-390: field descriptions for feedback payload
Type of change
Related Tickets & Documents
Summary by CodeRabbit