Skip to content

Conversation

@mivehk
Copy link
Contributor

@mivehk mivehk commented Dec 11, 2025

Purpose

This pull request adds a test case to strengthen the control flow of the parse_raw_prmpts test case#4 for invalid input. The new test verifies that a nested mixed-type that passes prompt[0] check will raise a TypeError.

Test Plan

pytest tests/test_input.py
pre-commit run --all-files

Test Result

The new case confirms that invalid nested inputs are rejected by parse_raw_prompts.

Essential Elements of an Effective PR Description Checklist
  • The purpose of the PR, such as "Fix some issue (link existing issues this PR will resolve)".
  • The test plan, such as providing test command.
  • The test results, such as pasting the results comparison before and after, or e2e results
  • (Optional) The necessary documentation update, such as updating supported_models.md and examples for a new model.
  • (Optional) Release notes update. If your change is user facing, please update the release notes draft in the Google Doc.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request adds a test case for parse_raw_prompts to handle invalid nested mixed-type inputs. While the intent to strengthen testing is good, the PR has two issues. First, the comment for the new test is contradictory to the test's implementation and should be corrected for clarity. Second, and more critically, the new test will fail against the current codebase due to an existing bug in parse_raw_prompts. Pull requests should not introduce failing tests. The test should either be accompanied by a fix for the function it tests or be marked as an expected failure (xfail).

Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

@DarkLight1337 DarkLight1337 enabled auto-merge (squash) December 12, 2025 03:51
@github-actions github-actions bot added the ready ONLY add when PR is ready to merge/full CI is needed label Dec 12, 2025
auto-merge was automatically disabled December 12, 2025 19:09

Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access

@mivehk mivehk force-pushed the improve-parse-tests-v2 branch from 2efa5a9 to fae6f0d Compare December 12, 2025 19:09
@mivehk
Copy link
Contributor Author

mivehk commented Dec 13, 2025

Hi ywang96,
All checks including one review have passed for this PR. Could you please review and approve it when you have a chance.
Regards,

@DarkLight1337 DarkLight1337 merged commit 29f7d97 into vllm-project:main Dec 14, 2025
47 checks passed
majiayu000 pushed a commit to majiayu000/vllm that referenced this pull request Dec 14, 2025
@mergify
Copy link

mergify bot commented Dec 14, 2025

⚠️ The sha of the head commit of this PR conflicts with #30652. Mergify cannot evaluate rules on this PR. ⚠️

Lucaskabela pushed a commit to Lucaskabela/vllm that referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2025
joa-stdn pushed a commit to joa-stdn/vllm that referenced this pull request Dec 15, 2025
weiyu0824 pushed a commit to weiyu0824/vllm that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

ready ONLY add when PR is ready to merge/full CI is needed

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants