Improve Code Quality and Performance by Adding @staticmethod Wrapper

[AndresCdo]

Background

In some cases, methods that do not require access to instance attributes or methods have not been decorated with the @staticmethod wrapper. To address this issue, a pull request has been submitted to add the @staticmethod wrapper to these methods, improving code quality and performance.

Changes

• Identified methods that do not require instance attributes or methods: The pull request identifies methods in the codebase that do not require access to instance attributes or methods.

• Added @staticmethod wrapper: The pull request adds the @staticmethod wrapper to the identified methods. This makes it clear that the methods do not require instance attributes or methods, and improves code quality and performance.

• Reviewed existing code: The pull request also reviews existing code to ensure that methods that do not require instance attributes or methods are properly decorated with the @staticmethod wrapper. This helps maintain the integrity and accuracy of the codebase's documentation over time.

Test Plan

CI workflow.

PR Quality Checklist

• [ ] My pull request is atomic and focuses on a single change.
• [ ] I have thoroughly tested my changes with multiple different prompts.
• [ ] I have considered potential risks and mitigations for my changes.
• [ ] I have documented my changes clearly and comprehensively.
• [ ] I have not snuck in any "extra" small tweaks changes

[hdkiller]

Could you please @BillSchumacher take a look on this?

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 75.00% and project coverage change: +0.36 :tada:

Comparison is base (4a20616) 41.66% compared to head (6cbd351) 42.03%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2803      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   41.66%   42.03%   +0.36%     
==========================================
  Files          65       65              
  Lines        3029     3031       +2     
  Branches      507      509       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits         1262     1274      +12     
+ Misses       1702     1692      -10     
  Partials       65       65              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
autogpt/config/config.py	74.83% <50.00%> (ø)
autogpt/commands/command.py	78.57% <100.00%> (+0.63%)	:arrow_up:

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[github-actions[bot]]

This pull request has conflicts with the base branch, please resolve those so we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions[bot]]

Conflicts have been resolved! 🎉 A maintainer will review the pull request shortly.

[vercel[bot]]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
docs	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Apr 26, 2023 0:56am

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: -7.84 :warning:

Comparison is base (749b1bb) 50.73% compared to head (c2ae098) 42.90%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #2803      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   50.73%   42.90%   -7.84%     
==========================================
  Files          65       65              
  Lines        2935     2937       +2     
  Branches      493      495       +2     
==========================================
- Hits         1489     1260     -229     
- Misses       1326     1615     +289     
+ Partials      120       62      -58     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
autogpt/commands/command.py	78.57% <100.00%> (+0.63%)	:arrow_up:

... and 15 files with indirect coverage changes

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[waynehamadi]

@AndresCdo we want to run our goal oriented tests in the main CI pipeline so we can use code coverage on it.