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

Pass n to find_resolution_on_manifold #605

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 5, 2025
Merged

Pass n to find_resolution_on_manifold #605

merged 2 commits into from
Feb 5, 2025

Conversation

kongzii
Copy link
Contributor

@kongzii kongzii commented Feb 4, 2025

deploy please

Copy link

coderabbitai bot commented Feb 4, 2025

Walkthrough

The pull request updates the find_resolution_on_manifold function in the module responsible for handling market data. The change introduces a new optional parameter n (defaulting to 100) that replaces the previous hardcoded value of 10 for the number of markets to retrieve. Additionally, an inline comment clarifies that increasing n may help in retrieving markets that are not returned as the first result during an exact-match search. The core logic of the function remains unchanged.

Changes

File Change Summary
prediction_market_agent_tooling/.../utils.py Modified the function signature of find_resolution_on_manifold to include an optional parameter n (default 100) and updated inline documentation.

Tip

🌐 Web search-backed reviews and chat
  • We have enabled web search-based reviews and chat for all users. This feature allows CodeRabbit to access the latest documentation and information on the web.
  • You can disable this feature by setting web_search: false in the knowledge_base settings.
  • Please share any feedback in the Discord discussion.

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 939fa84 and af219c8.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • pyproject.toml is excluded by !**/*.toml
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • prediction_market_agent_tooling/markets/manifold/utils.py (1 hunks)
⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms (6)
  • GitHub Check: pytest - Python 3.12.x - Integration with Local Chain
  • GitHub Check: pytest - Python 3.12.x - Unit Tests
  • GitHub Check: pytest - Python 3.11.x - Integration with Local Chain
  • GitHub Check: pytest - Python 3.11.x - Unit Tests
  • GitHub Check: pytest - Python 3.10.x - Integration with Local Chain
  • GitHub Check: pytest - Python 3.10.x - Unit Tests
🔇 Additional comments (2)
prediction_market_agent_tooling/markets/manifold/utils.py (2)

7-8: LGTM! Good improvement in configurability and documentation.

The addition of the n parameter with a sensible default value improves the function's flexibility. The explanatory comment provides valuable context about when to adjust this parameter.


9-11: Verify the impact of increased default value.

The default value has been increased from 10 to 100 markets. While this might improve market discovery, it could impact performance or rate limits.

Let's check if there are any rate limits or performance considerations in the API documentation:

Additionally, let's check for any performance-related comments in the codebase:

✅ Verification successful

Impact of the Increased Default Market Value

  • The Manifold Markets API has no explicit per-key or per-application rate limits beyond general anti-DoS measures, as confirmed by the public API documentation.
  • Our search for performance- or throttle-related comments in the codebase did not reveal any dedicated handling, which indicates that no additional safeguards were implemented for handling larger operation sizes.
  • Although fetching 100 markets instead of 10 may introduce higher payload sizes and could potentially slow down response times in high-frequency scenarios, there is no evidence of direct rate limit violations or performance bottlenecks in the current implementation.

Overall, the increased default value is unlikely to affect API rate limiting; however, it is advisable to monitor and test the performance impact under production load.

🏁 Scripts executed

The following scripts were executed for the analysis:

Script:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for any performance-related comments or rate limit handling in the API implementation
rg -i "rate.?limit|performance|throttle" --type py

Length of output: 52


Web query:

What are the rate limits for the Manifold Markets API?

Length of output: 4105

✨ Finishing Touches
  • 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

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?

❤️ Share
🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

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)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

  • You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
  • Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
  • If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

@kongzii kongzii merged commit 5828397 into main Feb 5, 2025
14 of 17 checks passed
@kongzii kongzii deleted the peter/n branch February 5, 2025 14:04
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants