moving kg construction to enrich-graph

[shreyaspimpalgaonkar]

🚀	This description was created by Ellipsis for commit 48a441d

Summary:

Moved KG construction to enrich-graph pipeline, updated configurations, improved logging, and optimized document and vector operations.

Key points:

• Changed default confirmation in py/cli/utils/docker_utils.py to True.
• Removed unused sections from py/core/configs/neo4j_kg.toml.
• Updated py/core/examples/scripts/advanced_kg_cookbook.py to use string literals for entity types and relations.
• Removed KG pipes from ingestion pipeline in py/core/main/assembly/factory.py.
• Added KG pipes to enrichment pipeline in py/core/main/assembly/factory.py.
• Used input generator in py/core/main/services/restructure_service.py for enrichment.
• Corrected API base URLs in py/core/parsers/media/audio_parser.py and py/core/parsers/media/openai_helpers.py.
• Improved logging and fragment handling in py/core/pipes/ingestion/kg_extraction_pipe.py and py/core/pipes/kg/extraction.py.
• Enhanced processing and storage in py/core/pipes/kg/node_extraction.py and py/core/pipes/kg/storage.py.
• Optimized document and vector operations in py/core/providers/database/document.py and py/core/providers/database/vector.py.
• Enhanced Neo4j operations in py/core/providers/kg/neo4j/provider.py.

---

Generated with ❤️ by ellipsis.dev

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 48a441d in 52 seconds

More details

• Looked at 539 lines of code in 14 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. py/cli/utils/docker_utils.py:124

• Draft comment:
  Changing the default value of click.confirm from False to True alters the user interaction flow, making it more likely for users to proceed without explicit confirmation. Ensure this change aligns with the intended user experience.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment is about a change made in the diff, specifically the change in the default value of click.confirm. However, the comment is speculative, asking to ensure the change aligns with the intended user experience, which violates the rule against speculative comments. The change itself is clear and does not require further confirmation or explanation from the PR author.
  I might be overlooking the potential impact of the change on user experience, but the comment does not provide a clear, actionable code change suggestion.
  The rules clearly state not to make speculative comments or ask for confirmation of intentions. The change is straightforward, and the comment does not suggest a specific code change.
  The comment should be removed because it is speculative and does not suggest a specific code change.

2. py/core/providers/database/vector.py:470

• Draft comment:
  The get_document_chunks method now allows unlimited results by setting limit to -1. Ensure that the calling code can handle large result sets appropriately to avoid performance issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The get_document_chunks method in vector.py has been modified to allow unlimited results by setting limit to -1. This change is reflected in the SQL query construction, where the LIMIT clause is conditionally included. This is a good practice for flexibility, but it should be ensured that the calling code handles potentially large result sets appropriately.

3. py/core/parsers/media/openai_helpers.py:43

• Draft comment:
  Consider using an asynchronous HTTP client for process_audio_with_openai to improve performance, especially if this function is called frequently or if network latency is high.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment is relevant to the function that was changed in the diff, as it suggests a potential improvement in performance. The suggestion is actionable and clear, focusing on code quality and performance enhancement. It does not violate any of the rules for review comments.
  The comment does not directly address the specific change made in the diff, which was the URL update. However, it is still relevant to the function's performance, which is a valid concern.
  While the comment does not address the URL change, it provides a valuable suggestion for improving the function's performance, which is within the scope of code quality refactors.
  Keep the comment as it provides a useful suggestion for improving the performance of the function, which is relevant to the changes made in the diff.

4. py/core/providers/kg/neo4j/provider.py:203

• Draft comment:
  The upsert_nodes_and_relationships method now returns a tuple of lengths of nodes and relationships upserted. Ensure that any calling code is updated to handle this return type appropriately.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment is about a change made in the diff, specifically the return type of a method. However, it asks the author to ensure that calling code is updated, which is speculative and not actionable. The comment does not suggest a specific code change within the diff itself.
  I might be overlooking the importance of ensuring that calling code is updated, but the comment does not provide a specific action to take within the diff.
  The rules specify not to ask the author to ensure behavior is intended or to double-check things, which this comment does.
  The comment should be removed because it asks the author to ensure something outside the scope of the diff and does not suggest a specific code change.

Workflow ID: wflow_1wqBv2RATZ1HLSPk

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.