fix: PythonCodeSplitter secondary-split pieces missing qualified name context#11875
Open
GovindhKishore wants to merge 4 commits into
Open
Conversation
Contributor
Coverage reportClick to see where and how coverage changed
This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
dc9ac34 to
ea9f6cb
Compare
|
@GovindhKishore is attempting to deploy a commit to the deepset Team on Vercel. A member of the Team first needs to authorize it. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Related Issues
Proposed Changes:
PythonCodeSplitter._secondary_split()falls back to a plain line-based split for oversized functions/methods/classes. Only the first resulting piece naturally contains thedef/classsignature line, so every piece after that has no identifying text at all, which hurts retrieval ranking for those pieces.Fixed by reusing the
qualified_namevalue already computed in_secondary_split()(currently only used in thelogger.warning(...)call) and prepending it as a# qualified_namecomment line to every piece after the first.How did you test it?
Manually verified locally with a reproduction script: created a
Documentwith a single function exceeding the oversized threshold, ran it throughPythonCodeSplitter().run(...), and confirmed:def function_name(...):line (unchanged).# function_namebefore the body content (previously had no identifying text at all).Notes for the reviewer
Open to feedback on the prepended format (comment style, placement) before I finalize with tests and a release note.
Checklist
fix:,feat:,build:,chore:,ci:,docs:,style:,refactor:,perf:,test:and added!in case the PR includes breaking changes.