Skip to content

Add conformance results invariant validator#2205

Open
JelleZijlstra wants to merge 4 commits intopython:mainfrom
JelleZijlstra:codex/conformance-results-validator
Open

Add conformance results invariant validator#2205
JelleZijlstra wants to merge 4 commits intopython:mainfrom
JelleZijlstra:codex/conformance-results-validator

Conversation

@JelleZijlstra
Copy link
Member

The conformance results have some implicit invariants in them, but it's easy to miss them since there's no validation.

Copy link
Member

@carljm carljm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nice, thank you!

issues.append(f"{rel_path}: conformant must be a string when present")
return issues

if conformant_is_pass != automated_is_pass:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is the only one I wonder about. Conformance is human-scored for a reason. In cases where a conformance test accidentally tests something unspecified and unrelated to the topic of the test, is it reasonable for a human scorer to mark conformance as "Pass" even if conformance_automated is "Fail"? (Ideally this would be temporary, pending a PR to improve the conformance suite.) Or do we want to prohibit this, in order to better motivate improving the conformance suite? It seems misleading to mark a test file as "Partial" due to an automated-scoring mismatch not actually related to the topic of the test.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think in that case, we should fix the test so the mismatch goes away.

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