llm logs fix

[maheshsattala]

excluded data while fetching the llm logs.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Enhanced log retrieval by excluding unnecessary data from the results, improving performance.

• Tests

  • Added an assertion to validate the absence of the data field in the response key of log entries, ensuring data integrity in tests.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The pull request introduces a modification to the get_logs method in the LLMProcessor class, specifically adding an exclude('response.data') method call to the log retrieval query. This change ensures that the response.data field is excluded from the returned log entries. Additionally, an assertion has been added to the integration test to verify that the response key in the first log entry does not contain a "data" field.

Changes

File	Change Summary
kairon/shared/llm/processor.py	Modified get_logs method to exclude response.data from log query results
tests/integration_test/services_test.py	Added assertion to check for absence of "data" field in response key of log entries

Poem

🐰 A rabbit's tale of logs so bright,
Excluding data with all my might
Query trimmed, test refined
Efficiency carefully designed
Code hops forward with delight! 🔍

---

📜 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 6bff606 and 0082b1f.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• tests/integration_test/services_test.py (2 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• tests/integration_test/services_test.py

---

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

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 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.

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 0

🧹 Nitpick comments (1)

tests/integration_test/services_test.py (1)

28681-28681: Consider verifying response contents, not just existence.

Checking that the 'response' key is present is good, but it might be more robust to also validate that the value is in the expected format or not empty, ensuring full coverage of potential issues.

📜 Review details

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

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d214b3d and 6bff606.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• kairon/shared/llm/processor.py (1 hunks)
• tests/integration_test/services_test.py (1 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (1)

kairon/shared/llm/processor.py (1)

366-366: Ensure correct and intended field exclusion in logs.

It’s great that you’ve used .exclude('response.data') to avoid retrieving potentially large or sensitive data. Verify that only the 'response.data' field is excluded, and confirm whether additional fields like 'response' or other nested fields should also be excluded to further limit sensitive or unnecessary data.

[sushantpatade]

Approved