Closed LiyanJin closed 3 months ago
I've updated lines 35, 36 and 41.
Hi @LiyanJin Could you please rebase the commits with the latest master branch so I can merge this PR?
Hi @LiyanJin Could you please rebase the commits with the latest master branch so I can merge this PR?
Thx for reminding me. I'm going to close this PR and open one new PR based on the latest master branch.
Hi @LiyanJin Could you please rebase the commits with the latest master branch so I can merge this PR?
I‘v seen you have moved wasmedge-ggml-llama-interactive example to wasmedge-ggml. And you have replaced unwrap() with expect() in /src/main.rs. So you don't need to merge my PR.
Hello, I am a code review bot on flows.network. Here are my reviews of code commits in this PR.
Overall Summary:
The pull request replaces the use of
unwrap()
withexpect()
in theset_input()
andcompute()
methods, and also provides error messages. This improves error handling by providing more meaningful error messages when an error occurs.There are no significant problems with this patch. However, it is recommended to provide more specific error messages to further enhance troubleshooting. Additionally, the usage of the
is_empty()
method in the if statement should be reviewed to ensure it is appropriate for the context and logic of the code. Overall, these changes promote good coding practices and improve error handling.Details
Commit 6e54dd77ff37cdc5ca9b21f29c3d20233b766711
Key Changes:
unwrap()
method calls on theset_input()
andcompute()
methods have been replaced withexpect()
methods.expect()
methods.Potential Problems:
unwrap()
withexpect()
and providing error messages are considered good coding practices. These changes improve error handling by providing meaningful error messages when an error occurs.Commit 8eff7d6b706c4e699f6c7187f8b7d84f7200b89f
Key changes:
unwrap()
method calls onset_input()
andcompute()
have been replaced withexpect()
calls and error messages.Potential problems:
is_empty()
method onsaved_prompt
in the if statement might be incorrect. It would be best to review the context and logic of the code to determine if this is the correct condition.