LLM Debloating PRs

[stephanlukasczyk]

trafficstars

Hi @PNejr10 ,

Thank you for the PRs #85, #86, and #87. Could you please elaborate a bit on the changes, their rationale, etc. because none of the PRs does provide any description, nor is there an issue for them.

I've only briefely scrolled over the changes and I have some doubts accepting them, to be honest. I understand that some changes would probably make the code a bit more compact. However, I argue that it is sometimes written the way it was written because the original author wanted it that way. For example, removing comments is IMHO almost never a good thing to do.

Looking forward to your reply.

Best, Stephan

[PNejr10]

Hi Stephan,

Thank you for your response and for reviewing the PRs. I understand your concerns regarding the lack of descriptions and the removal of comments. The purpose of these changes is part of a class project my team and I are working on, where we're exploring whether LLMs like GPT-4 or Claude can effectively debloat code while maintaining its functionality. Your repository is one of several we chose for our dataset.

The PRs help us track changes made to the files. We completely understand if you choose not to accept them; as you mentioned, removing comments may not be considered good practice, and it’s entirely your decision. We just need this information for the paper we’ll be writing, and I apologize for any concern this may have caused.

I wish you the best of luck and success with your project.

Best, Paiman

On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 11:21 PM Stephan Lukasczyk @.***> wrote:

Hi @PNejr10 https://github.com/PNejr10 ,

Thank you for the PRs #85 https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/pull/85, #86 https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/pull/86, and #87 https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/pull/87. Could you please elaborate a bit on the changes, their rationale, etc. because none of the PRs does provide any description, nor is there an issue for them.

I've only briefely scrolled over the changes and I have some doubts accepting them, to be honest. I understand that some changes would probably make the code a bit more compact. However, I argue that it is sometimes written the way it was written because the original author wanted it that way. For example, removing comments is IMHO almost never a good thing to do.

Looking forward to your reply.

Best, Stephan

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/issues/88, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AYHJSFXWZN2PP2NOR5ZS3Y32PWKPXAVCNFSM6AAAAABXD7BLDKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSHA2TEOBXG42DKMA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***> [image: stephanlukasczyk]stephanlukasczyk created an issue (se2p/pynguin#88) https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/issues/88

Hi @PNejr10 https://github.com/PNejr10 ,

Thank you for the PRs #85 https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/pull/85, #86 https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/pull/86, and #87 https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/pull/87. Could you please elaborate a bit on the changes, their rationale, etc. because none of the PRs does provide any description, nor is there an issue for them.

I've only briefely scrolled over the changes and I have some doubts accepting them, to be honest. I understand that some changes would probably make the code a bit more compact. However, I argue that it is sometimes written the way it was written because the original author wanted it that way. For example, removing comments is IMHO almost never a good thing to do.

Looking forward to your reply.

Best, Stephan

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/issues/88, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AYHJSFXWZN2PP2NOR5ZS3Y32PWKPXAVCNFSM6AAAAABXD7BLDKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSHA2TEOBXG42DKMA . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

[stephanlukasczyk]

Hi Paiman,

Thanks for the clarification. It would have been great if you could have provided some description to the PRs or if you would have opened an issue, describing the purpose of the PRs before filing them.

To be honest, I am willing to discuss about some of the changes, however, I will not accept the PRs as is 😉

May I additionally ask what the goal of your class project is? Because, if you want, e.g., investigate whether maintainers are willing to accept PRs for debloating generated by LLMs, it would have been good to talk to them before 😉

Best, Stephan

[stephanlukasczyk]

By the way, @PNejr10 , while some of the changes proposed by the LLMs can be debatable, there are also two instances of actually incorrect syntax:

https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/pull/87/files#diff-420ac864e2c1d69c03cc4a2f2681f97d71863b6b8cdbb2e1371bde9bcbba3645R112

https://github.com/se2p/pynguin/pull/86/files#diff-420ac864e2c1d69c03cc4a2f2681f97d71863b6b8cdbb2e1371bde9bcbba3645R112

Thanks to @Wooza for pointing this out to me, I totally missed it by briefly scrolling over the PRs.

@PNejr10 depending on what the goal and scope of your class project is, if you want to have some dedicated feedback from a maintainer, please drop me a note, and we'll figure out, how I can help.