Skip to content
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

dev -> main #1058

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 14, 2025
Merged

dev -> main #1058

merged 4 commits into from
Jan 14, 2025

Conversation

HamadaSalhab
Copy link
Contributor

@HamadaSalhab HamadaSalhab commented Jan 14, 2025

PR Type

Bug fix, Enhancement


Description

  • Added support for patching instructions and canonical_name in the patch_agent query.

  • Enhanced query logic to handle instructions as a list or string.

  • Improved SQL query structure for better data handling.


Changes walkthrough 📝

Relevant files
Enhancement
patch_agent.py
Support patching instructions and canonical name                 

agents-api/agents_api/queries/agents/patch_agent.py

  • Added logic to update instructions and canonical_name in SQL query.
  • Enhanced handling of instructions to support both strings and lists.
  • Updated query parameters to include new fields.
  • +10/-0   

    💡 PR-Agent usage: Comment /help "your question" on any pull request to receive relevant information


    Important

    Add instructions and canonical_name fields to SQL update query and parameters in patch_agent.py.

    • Behavior:
      • Update SQL query in patch_agent.py to include instructions and canonical_name fields.
      • Modify params in patch_agent() to handle instructions as a list and include canonical_name.
    • Misc:
      • No changes to existing functionality, only additions to handle new fields.

    This description was created by Ellipsis for cd1004c. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.

    Copy link
    Contributor

    PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

    Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

    ⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 2 🔵🔵⚪⚪⚪
    🧪 No relevant tests
    🔒 Security concerns

    SQL Injection:
    The query uses parameterized inputs which is good practice, but additional validation should be added to ensure that data.instructions and data.canonical_name are properly sanitized before being used in the query, especially since canonical_name is cast to citext type which could potentially be exploited if not properly validated.

    ⚡ Recommended focus areas for review

    Data Validation

    The conversion of instructions to list when it's a string should validate that the string is not empty or None before wrapping it in a list

    [data.instructions] if isinstance(data.instructions, str) else data.instructions,
    SQL Injection

    The SQL query uses string concatenation with user input. While parameters are used, verify that all user inputs are properly sanitized

        instructions = CASE
    		WHEN $8::text[] IS NOT NULL THEN $8
    		ELSE instructions
    	END,
        canonical_name = CASE
            WHEN $9::citext IS NOT NULL THEN $9
            ELSE canonical_name
        END

    Copy link
    Contributor

    @ellipsis-dev ellipsis-dev bot left a comment

    Choose a reason for hiding this comment

    The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

    👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to cd1004c in 15 seconds

    More details
    • Looked at 28 lines of code in 1 files
    • Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
    • Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.
    1. agents-api/agents_api/queries/agents/patch_agent.py:44
    • Draft comment:
      Ensure that canonical_name has a uniqueness constraint in the database if it is intended to be unique, as citext is case-insensitive.
    • Reason this comment was not posted:
      Confidence changes required: 50%
      The SQL query uses the citext type for canonical_name, which is case-insensitive. This is a good choice for names that should be unique regardless of case. However, the PR does not mention any constraints or checks for uniqueness, which might be important for canonical_name. If this is intended to be unique, a uniqueness constraint should be ensured at the database level.

    Workflow ID: wflow_knEyNdQC100aBb0Z


    You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

    Copy link
    Contributor

    PR Code Suggestions ✨

    Explore these optional code suggestions:

    CategorySuggestion                                                                                                                                    Score
    Possible issue
    Add type validation and conversion for array elements to prevent database type mismatch errors

    Add input validation to ensure instructions array elements are strings before
    executing the SQL query, as the database expects text[] type.

    agents-api/agents_api/queries/agents/patch_agent.py [83]

    -[data.instructions] if isinstance(data.instructions, str) else data.instructions,
    +[str(data.instructions)] if isinstance(data.instructions, str) else [str(i) for i in data.instructions] if data.instructions else None,
    • Apply this suggestion
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 8

    Why: The suggestion addresses a critical type safety issue by ensuring all elements in the instructions array are properly converted to strings before database insertion, preventing potential runtime errors or data corruption.

    8
    General
    Add array length validation in SQL to prevent empty array issues

    Handle the case where instructions is None explicitly in the SQL query to avoid
    potential null pointer issues.

    agents-api/agents_api/queries/agents/patch_agent.py [39-42]

     instructions = CASE
    -    WHEN $8::text[] IS NOT NULL THEN $8
    +    WHEN $8::text[] IS NOT NULL AND array_length($8, 1) > 0 THEN $8
         ELSE instructions
     END,
    • Apply this suggestion
    Suggestion importance[1-10]: 4

    Why: While the suggestion adds an extra validation check for empty arrays, it's not strictly necessary as NULL and empty arrays are typically handled similarly in PostgreSQL. The current implementation is already safe.

    4

    @HamadaSalhab HamadaSalhab merged commit 07ce391 into main Jan 14, 2025
    13 of 15 checks passed
    Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
    Projects
    None yet
    Development

    Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

    2 participants