tqdm 8 #15
tqdm 8 #15
Conversation
WalkthroughThe changes adjust the logic for formatting the progress bar in the Changes
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches
🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. 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 (
|
blar-app
bot
added
size S
|
This PR addresses a bug fix in the tqdm progress bar implementation, specifically correcting variable references in the formatting function, and refines a test case by adjusting the 'ncols' parameter to better validate the progress bar rendering. The changes enhance the accuracy and robustness of the tqdm progress bar functionality and its associated tests, without altering the core behavior of the library. Pull Request Impact: 8 🔄 File Changes Overview
📊 Impact SummaryThis tables shows the impact of the changes in the codebase
📜 Blar InstructionsBlar Commands
Tags Explanation
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 2
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
tqdm_8/tqdm/_tqdm.py(1 hunks)tqdm_8/tqdm/tests/tests_tqdm.py(1 hunks)
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (1)
tqdm_8/tqdm/tests/tests_tqdm.py (1)
tqdm_8/tqdm/_tqdm.py (1)
format_meter(104-265)
| l_bar_user, r_bar_user = bar_format.split('{bar}') | ||
| l_bar, r_bar = l_bar_user.format(**bar_args), r_bar_user.format(**bar_args) | ||
| l_bar, r_bar = l_bar.format(**bar_args), r_bar.format(**bar_args) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Critical Issue: Custom bar format is being ignored
The code splits the custom bar_format into l_bar_user and r_bar_user on line 224, but then formats the default l_bar and r_bar strings instead. This completely ignores the user's custom format specification.
The correct implementation should format the user-provided strings:
l_bar_user, r_bar_user = bar_format.split('{bar}')
- l_bar, r_bar = l_bar.format(**bar_args), r_bar.format(**bar_args)
+ l_bar, r_bar = l_bar_user.format(**bar_args), r_bar_user.format(**bar_args)This change breaks custom bar formatting functionality where users specify their own left and right bar components.
📝 Committable suggestion
‼️ IMPORTANT
Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation. Thoroughly test & benchmark the code to ensure it meets the requirements.
| l_bar_user, r_bar_user = bar_format.split('{bar}') | |
| l_bar, r_bar = l_bar_user.format(**bar_args), r_bar_user.format(**bar_args) | |
| l_bar, r_bar = l_bar.format(**bar_args), r_bar.format(**bar_args) | |
| l_bar_user, r_bar_user = bar_format.split('{bar}') | |
| l_bar, r_bar = l_bar_user.format(**bar_args), r_bar_user.format(**bar_args) |
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In tqdm_8/tqdm/_tqdm.py around lines 224 to 225, the code splits the custom
bar_format into l_bar_user and r_bar_user but mistakenly formats the default
l_bar and r_bar instead, ignoring the user's custom format. To fix this, replace
the formatting calls to apply to l_bar_user and r_bar_user using the bar_args,
ensuring the user's custom bar format is correctly processed and displayed.
| assert format_meter(20, 100, 12, ncols=30, rate=8.1, | ||
| bar_format=r'{l_bar}{bar}|{n_fmt}/{total_fmt}') == \ | ||
| " 20%|" + unich(0x258f) + "|20/100" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Test change may be masking the underlying issue
This test was modified to use ncols=30 instead of the previous value, likely to accommodate the changed behavior in the format_meter method. However, given the critical issue identified in _tqdm.py where custom bar formats are being ignored, this test change may be validating incorrect behavior.
Consider reverting this test change after fixing the core formatting issue in _tqdm.py. The test should validate that custom bar_format strings work as expected, not adapt to broken behavior.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for other tests that might be affected by the custom bar_format bug
# Expected: Find tests that use custom bar_format to ensure they still work correctly
rg -A 5 -B 5 "bar_format.*\{.*bar.*\}" --type pyLength of output: 66055
Restore and validate custom bar_format tests after fixing the split-variable bug
The change to use ncols=30 simply masks a typo in _tqdm.py’s split-branch (using undefined l_bar/r_bar instead of l_bar_user/r_bar_user). Once you correct that, revert the test to its original assertions and re-enable the removed variants.
• Fix in tqdm_8/tqdm/_tqdm.py
# before
l_bar_user, r_bar_user = bar_format.split('{bar}')
l_bar, r_bar = l_bar.format(**bar_args), r_bar.format(**bar_args)
# after
l_bar_user, r_bar_user = bar_format.split('{bar}')
l_bar, r_bar = l_bar_user.format(**bar_args), r_bar_user.format(**bar_args)• Restore original test assertions in tqdm_8/tqdm/tests/tests_tqdm.py around line 217:
- assert format_meter(20, 100, 12, ncols=30, rate=8.1,
- bar_format=r'{l_bar}{bar}|{n_fmt}/{total_fmt}') == \
- " 20%|" + unich(0x258f) + "|20/100"
+ assert format_meter(20, 100, 12, ncols=13, rate=8.1,
+ bar_format=r'{l_bar}{bar}|{n_fmt}/{total_fmt}') == \
+ " 20%|" + unich(0x258f) + "|20/100"
+ assert format_meter(20, 100, 12, ncols=14, rate=8.1,
+ bar_format=r'{l_bar}{bar}|{n_fmt}/{total_fmt}') == \
+ " 20%|" + unich(0x258d) + " |20/100"Also review other bar_format tests in the suite (e.g. the ncols=2/6/7 cases) to ensure they pass once the core bug is fixed.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In tqdm_8/tqdm/tests/tests_tqdm.py around lines 217 to 219, the test was
modified to use ncols=30, which masks a core bug in _tqdm.py where the variables
l_bar and r_bar are incorrectly used instead of l_bar_user and r_bar_user when
formatting the bar. First, fix the bug in _tqdm.py by replacing l_bar and r_bar
with l_bar_user and r_bar_user after splitting the bar_format string. Then,
revert the test in tests_tqdm.py to its original assertions before the ncols=30
change and re-enable any removed variants. Finally, review other tests using
custom bar_format to ensure they pass with the corrected implementation.
![blar-app[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/940296?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
| # later in the remaining space (avoid breaking display) | ||
| l_bar_user, r_bar_user = bar_format.split('{bar}') | ||
| l_bar, r_bar = l_bar_user.format(**bar_args), r_bar_user.format(**bar_args) | ||
| l_bar, r_bar = l_bar.format(**bar_args), r_bar.format(**bar_args) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟠 Warning 🐛 Bug
Use of undefined variables 'l_bar' and 'r_bar' after splitting bar_format into 'l_bar_user' and 'r_bar_user'.
Issue Explanation
- The code splits 'bar_format' by '{bar}' into 'l_bar_user' and 'r_bar_user'.
- The original line used 'l_bar_user.format(**bar_args)' and 'r_bar_user.format(**bar_args)'.
- The change replaced this with 'l_bar.format(**bar_args)' and 'r_bar.format(**bar_args)'.
- 'l_bar' and 'r_bar' are undefined variables at this point, causing a NameError at runtime.
- This will break the progress bar formatting logic where partial formatting is done before inserting the progress bar itself.
Reply if you have any questions or let me know if I missed something.
Don't forget to react with a 👍 or 👎 to the comments made by Blar to help us improve.
| " 10% 100/1000 [00:12<02:02, 7.33it/s]" | ||
| # Check that bar_format correctly adapts {bar} size to the rest | ||
| assert format_meter(20, 100, 12, ncols=13, rate=8.1, | ||
| assert format_meter(20, 100, 12, ncols=30, rate=8.1, | ||
| bar_format=r'{l_bar}{bar}|{n_fmt}/{total_fmt}') == \ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟠 Warning 🐛 Bug
Removed narrow-width tests for ncols=13 and ncols=14 in test_format_meter remove coverage of compact bar sizing edge cases.
Issue Explanation
- The test_format_meter test previously included assertions for ncols=13 and ncols=14 narrow bar rendering.
- These assertions were removed in the current PR, leaving no coverage for narrow-width bar cases.
- Remaining tests use wider ncols values (e.g., ncols=30), which do not cover potential bugs in fractional/full block calculations for narrow bars.
- This removal risks regressions in bar sizing logic when displayed in very narrow terminals or limited-width UIs.
Reply if you have any questions or let me know if I missed something.
Don't forget to react with a 👍 or 👎 to the comments made by Blar to help us improve.
| assert format_meter(20, 100, 12, ncols=30, rate=8.1, | ||
| bar_format=r'{l_bar}{bar}|{n_fmt}/{total_fmt}') == \ | ||
| " 20%|" + unich(0x258f) + "|20/100" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🟡 Info 🐛 Bug
Test expectation mismatch for progress bar rendering with ncols=30 at 20% progress
Issue Explanation
- Test in
tests_tqdm.pyupdatedncolsfrom 13 to 30 forformat_metercall. - The assertion still expects only a single fractional block (unich(0x258f)) in the progress bar.
- With
ncols=30and 20% progress, the bar should generate multiple full blocks and possibly a fractional block, not just a single fractional block. - This results in the expected output string not matching actual bar rendering output.
- The test expectation needs to be corrected to align with the wider bar's actual output.
Reply if you have any questions or let me know if I missed something.
Don't forget to react with a 👍 or 👎 to the comments made by Blar to help us improve.
|
❕ It looks like we couldn't find any design patterns in the Wiki for this repository. Let's add some at: app.blar.io/wiki Review's done! 🚀 Check out the feedback and let me know if you need anything! – Blar |
|
If your code were a hairstyle, it’d be a disaster—totally undefined and desperately in need of a curly fix. Maybe next time, try debugging before you send your leftovers to production, genius. |
|
TIE |
Summary by CodeRabbit
Bug Fixes
Tests