-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 490
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
ref: replace if-else chain with dict lookup for response computation #32
Conversation
Hi @iw4p! Thank you for your pull request and welcome to our community. Action RequiredIn order to merge any pull request (code, docs, etc.), we require contributors to sign our Contributor License Agreement, and we don't seem to have one on file for you. ProcessIn order for us to review and merge your suggested changes, please sign at https://code.facebook.com/cla. If you are contributing on behalf of someone else (eg your employer), the individual CLA may not be sufficient and your employer may need to sign the corporate CLA. Once the CLA is signed, our tooling will perform checks and validations. Afterwards, the pull request will be tagged with If you have received this in error or have any questions, please contact us at cla@meta.com. Thanks! |
Thank you for signing our Contributor License Agreement. We can now accept your code for this (and any) Meta Open Source project. Thanks! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This change does not serve exactly the same purpose because we check llms_under_test
in addition to args.llm_under_test
.
It would be appropriate to extend the if condition to check both.
If you decide to update the commit, please also skip the middle commit in this chain, as it appears mergeable with this one. Thank you for your proposal!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Actually I also just published the change for this format, so you can skip both base commits and then focus on the if condition udpate.
Hi SimonWan! Sure, I will ignore the black reformatting commits and just change the if statement. Thank you. |
Hey Simon! Both raise ValueErrors for |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please address my comments as the current version may still raise unexpected errors. Thank you.
Hi Simon! Thank you. I skipped the old commits and handled the error checking/controlling as you asked. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the update! LGTM
@SimonWan has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
The new code won't waste time creating LLMs if none were specified, and can raise a ValueError right away.