Recommended code patch file is missed / not understood

[kgilpin]

The solver is not able to interpret this Sonnet output:

2024-10-28 00:26:50,931 - INFO - [choose-code-file] (django__django-11848) Found no existing code files in Based on the problem statement and code context, I'll identify the 3 most relevant files for fixing the incorrect two-digit year handling in parse_http_date:

django/utils/http.py
django/views/decorators/http.py
django/utils/http.py

The primary file is django/utils/http.py since it contains the parse_http_date function with the problematic year handling logic. The issue is specifically in the code block that handles two-digit years:

if year < 100:
    if year < 70:
        year += 2000
    else:
        year += 1900

The other files are relevant because:

1. django/views/decorators/http.py uses the parse_http_date functionality for HTTP request handling and conditional responses

2. django/db/models/functions/datetime.py contains related date/time handling functionality that may need to be considered when fixing the year handling logic

The fix would need to be implemented in django/utils/http.py to compare against the current year rather than using hardcoded values of 70, as specified in RFC 7231.

This results in the correct code patch file (django/utils/http.py) not being considered, and no solution being attempted.

[github-actions[bot]]

Title: Update Sonnet Parsing Logic to Accurately Identify Code Patch Files

Problem

The solver is unable to accurately interpret Sonnet outputs, particularly in recognizing the recommended code patch file, django/utils/http.py. This results in the relevant file being overlooked, and no solution being applied for the issue related to the incorrect handling of two-digit years in the parse_http_date function.

Analysis

The core issue lies in the parsing logic, which cannot effectively interpret or prioritize the outputs generated by Sonnet. The output provided includes information about relevant files (django/utils/http.py, django/views/decorators/http.py, and django/db/models/functions/datetime.py). However, the parsing logic fails to determine that django/utils/http.py should be the primary focus for implementing the fix. This is because the problematic logic that needs to be addressed exists in this file. The condition that deals with two-digit years is inaccurate, as it uses hardcoded values to adjust the year, contrary to the RFC 7231 specifications.

To address this, the system should be designed to identify the primary code patch file more accurately based on the contextual information and problem statement provided by Sonnet. Specifically, the logic should identify django/utils/http.py as the key file, given that it contains the parse_http_date function where the issue is present.

Proposed Changes

1. Extend Parsing Logic:

   • Enhance the existing Sonnet parsing logic within the solver to better interpret output strings and accurately extract priority information based on supplied context and problem statements.

2. Configure Parsing Prioritization:

   • Implement logic to weigh certain keywords or phrases, such as "primary file" or "contains [specific function]" to prioritize files mentioned first in solution responses, particularly if a file directly contains the function or code responsible for the issue.

3. Sonnet Output Handling:

   • Build a feature that allows the parsing mechanism to interpret multiple mentions of a file in Sonnet outputs and identify patterns or instructions that stress the importance of changes in a specific file, such as django/utils/http.py in this case.

4. Clarify Contextual Relevance:

   • Enhance the output processing function to relate the function parse_http_date directly to django/utils/http.py and to recognize the role of other files as supplementary rather than primary in the resolution process.

By implementing these changes, the solver should be capable of recognizing django/utils/http.py as the essential file to address when applying fixes for the incorrect two-digit year handling, as recommended. This will ensure that the solutions intended to correct the bug are identified and attempted correctly.

[kgilpin]

Test case checks out OK. Was this from an earlier run that predates the fix in 6088d7b656a10f5781c0e052a54da39f047b3626 ?

[dividedmind]

Test case checks out OK. Was this from an earlier run that predates the fix in 6088d7b ?

I dunno, you opened this :) 🤷🏼