HelpersTask702_Describe_use_and_architecture_of_llm_transform.py_flow

[gpsaggese]

#702

[sameer617]

FYI @gpsaggese,

Modified Reference and How to guide of llm_transform.py

Checklist

• [x] The branch is named following the format RelatedIssueTag_Normalized_issue_title
  • E.g., HelpersTask123_Provide_branch_name_example, if the branch is for working on the issue #123 in the helpers repo with the title "Provide branch name example"
• [x] Commit messages are short and informative
  • Ideally, they follow the format RelatedIssueTag: High-level commit description
  • E.g., HelpersTask123: Add example
  • They do not mention the name of the file that has been changed by the commit
• [x] The title of the PR matches the name of the branch
• [x] The starting post of the PR briefly describes the content of the PR on a high level
• [x] The issue related to the PR is mentioned in the starting post of the PR
• [ ] The PR is not linked to any issues under the Development section
• [x] At least one reviewer is assigned under Reviewers
• [x] The PR author is listed under Assignees
• [ ] All the checks performed by GitHub Actions pass
  • None of the markdown files are referenced in Readme.md
• [x] The branch is up to date with the master branch
• [x] There are no conflicts with the master branch
• [x] There are no files checked in by mistake (such as tmp and log files)
• [x] All checked in files are checked and formatted by Linter in the latest commit
• [x] No files larger than 500 KB are checked in
• [x] Screenshots are not used in PR posts to describe the situation or report an error (if needed, copy-and-paste is used instead)
• [x] Label PR_for_reviewers is present if a review is requested
• [ ] Fixes addressing a review comment are applied everywhere, not just where the reviewer pointed out the issue
• [ ] After addressing review comments, all corresponding conversations are marked as resolved
• [ ] After all review comments are resolved, re-request review button is used to request another round of review

[indrayudd]

While writing the reference, I came up with the following discrepancies and doubts:

• review_llm doesn't work because this line file_name = hgit.find_file("all.llm_style_review_guidelines.reference.md") points to a nonexistent file
• ⁠ code_apply_cfile ⁠ and ⁠ code_fix_from_imports ⁠ seem to be doing the same thing
• code_fix_comments ⁠ example generates a bad comment, mentioning the variables.
• ⁠ code_fix_logging_statements ⁠ generates a bad logging statement by not using a ⁠ _LOG ⁠ convention and using f strings
• code_transform_apply_csfy_style ⁠ doesn’t apply all Causify rules
• code_transform_apply_linter_instructions - I couldn’t get this working, possibly because there are some preprocessing steps and files it refers to internally for instructions, which I couldn't expose manually through the terminal
• review_linter refers to an obsolete non-existent file. I pointed it to all.coding_style_guidelines.reference.md
• code_transform_remove_redundancy - Adds the response to the fixed code as well.
• difference between md_create_bullets and md_convert_text_to_bullet_points not clear, they seem to produce the same type of output
• md_remove_formatting did not remove backticks

@gpsaggese should I create an issue for these? I'm not sure if these are bugs actively being worked on.