Hey everyone! I've been working on a system for distributing tasks to consumers, and I developed a function to find a suitable consumer for new tasks. The function checks if there are any consumers with unassigned tasks, then it finds the first consumer that is working on a different task than the target and returns that consumer. If it can't find any suitable consumer, it returns `None`.
Here's the implementation of the function:
```python
def modify_assignments(consumer_to_task: Dict[str, str], consumers_order: List[str], target: str, skip_keys: List[str]) -> Optional[str]:
# Check for unassigned first
for k in consumers_order:
if k in skip_keys:
continue
if k not in consumer_to_task:
return k
# Then select the first with different value
for k in consumers_order:
if k in skip_keys:
continue
if consumer_to_task.get(k) != target:
return k
return None
```
I wrote a unit test with 11 test cases for this function. The odd part is, when I sought code reviews from various LLMs, they all suggested combining the two loops into a single one. However, their proposed solutions failed some test cases because they overlooked the necessity of iterating through all consumers first to check for unassigned ones. I'm puzzled as to why LLMs consistently miss this simple detail. I can share more details on the alternatives and unit tests if anyone's interested!
4 Answers
I get the frustration! The LLMs work on patterns they're trained on, which often leads them to suggest combining loops without seeing the bigger picture. Sometimes, you have to be explicit with them about your requirements, or else they might suggest something that doesn’t suit your needs.
I think their suggestions stem from a general optimization perspective, but they often overlook the specific needs of the code at hand. In this case, they need a better understanding of your logic flow to avoid suggesting poor optimizations.
Right? Sometimes more context helps. It's like they see something that could be faster but don't realize why the current structure is designed that way.
Honestly, I think the LLMs might just be going off pattern recognition. You can technically combine the loops, but it usually leads to problems like what you're experiencing. Their responses sound like they're trying to suggest a shortcut without fully grasping the underlying logic that your function requires.
Exactly! The LLMs don’t seem to account for the specific logic you need. It's not just about combining loops—it’s about the business logic that your unit tests are hitting.
In theory, they are correct that you _can_ do this in one loop if structured properly, but your specific use case just doesn’t lend itself to that without losing functionality. It’s all about what you want to achieve in your function!
Exactly, especially when iterating twice allows for clearer handling of different cases, as you're doing.
Totally agree! It's like they miss the context sometimes. Providing test cases can help clarify things for them.