Use is_invalid in OFV #506
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes primarily focus on the Changes
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers
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 (
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 0
🧹 Outside diff range and nitpick comments (1)
prediction_market_agent/agents/ofvchallenger_agent/ofv_resolver.py (1)
105-116: LGTM: Invalid question handling addedThe new code block effectively handles invalid questions by checking early and returning an
Invalidresolution. This improves the function's robustness and efficiency.Consider setting
factuality=Factuality.INVALIDinstead ofNonein the returnedFactCheckAnswerobject for consistency, assumingINVALIDis a validFactualityenum value. If not, consider adding it to theFactualityenum.
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (2)
poetry.lockis excluded by!**/*.lock,!**/*.lockpyproject.tomlis excluded by!**/*.toml
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
- prediction_market_agent/agents/ofvchallenger_agent/ofv_resolver.py (2 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🔇 Additional comments (4)
prediction_market_agent/agents/ofvchallenger_agent/ofv_resolver.py (4)
5-5: LGTM: New import added correctlyThe new import for
is_invalidis appropriately placed and aligns with its intended usage in theofv_answer_binary_questionfunction.
105-116: LGTM: Function signature updated with return typeThe addition of the return type
FactCheckAnswer | Noneto theofv_answer_binary_questionfunction signature improves type hinting and code clarity. This change accurately reflects the function's behavior.
118-119: LGTM: Variable renamed for clarityThe renaming of
is_answerabletoquestion_is_answerableimproves code readability by more clearly indicating what is being checked.
Line range hint
1-148: Summary: Improved input validation and code clarityThe changes in this file enhance the
ofv_answer_binary_questionfunction by:
- Adding early validation for invalid questions.
- Improving type hinting with a return type annotation.
- Enhancing readability through variable renaming.
These modifications make the code more robust, easier to understand, and maintain. The only suggestion is to consider using a specific
Factualityvalue for invalid questions instead ofNone.To ensure these changes don't introduce any unintended side effects, please run the following verification script:
| return FactCheckAnswer( | ||
| factuality=None, | ||
| chosen_results=[], | ||
| all_considered_results=[], | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I understand correctly, 'factuality=None' triggers OFVChallengerAgent::challenge_market::omen_submit_invalid_answer_market_tx, i.e. it will answer the market as invalid. To me, factualityin general is not clear - can we somehow handle the Outcomes we are picking as Answers, for ex, returning Resolution as a property? That would avoid someif elselogic insidechallenge_market`.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
factuality is what OFV is returning internally, so the if-else conversion into Resolution needs to be done somewhere by us.
Anyway this PR just fixes the logic, if you have an idea how to refactor, feel free to propose something.
No description provided.