Skip to content

Conversation

@nb0309
Copy link
Contributor

@nb0309 nb0309 commented Apr 8, 2025

In newer versions of the Pinecone client, the fetch() method returns a FetchResponse object, not a simple dictionary. And this object is not subscriptable.

But in newer versions of the Pinecone client, the fetch() method returns a FetchResponse object, not a simple dictionary. And this object is not subscriptable
@nb0309
Copy link
Contributor Author

nb0309 commented Apr 8, 2025

image
After overriding the change, it works

Copy link

@llamapreview llamapreview bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Auto Pull Request Review from LlamaPReview

1. Overview

1.1 Core Changes

  • Addresses incompatibility with newer Pinecone client library versions.
  • Modifies _check_if_embedding_exists method in pinecone_vector.py to use attribute access for fetch_response.vectors.
  • No significant cross-component impacts.
  • Ensures continued functionality for users using newer Pinecone client libraries, preventing potential application errors.

1.2 Technical Architecture

2. Critical Findings

2.1 Must Fix (P0🔴)

[No critical issues identified]

2.2 Should Fix (P1🟡)

[No issues identified]

2.3 Consider (P2🟢)

Area: Code Readability and Maintainability in _check_if_embedding_exists

  • Analysis Confidence: High
  • Improvement Opportunity: Adding a comment to explain the change from dictionary access to attribute access for fetch_response.vectors will improve code understanding and future maintainability.

2.4 Summary of Action Items

  • P2🟢 Consider: Add a comment to _check_if_embedding_exists explaining the change for Pinecone client compatibility. Timeline: Before merging.

3. Technical Analysis

3.1 Code Logic Analysis

📁 src/vanna/pinecone/pinecone_vector.py - PineconeVectorDB._check_if_embedding_exists

  • Submitted PR Code:
    def _check_if_embedding_exists(self, id: str, namespace: str) -> bool:
        fetch_response = self.Index.fetch(ids=[id], namespace=namespace)
        if fetch_response.vectors == {}:
            return False
        return True
  • Analysis:
    • The code checks if an embedding exists in Pinecone by fetching vectors and verifying if the vectors attribute of the FetchResponse object is empty.
    • This change adapts to newer Pinecone client libraries where fetch() returns a FetchResponse object with vectors accessible as an attribute (fetch_response.vectors) instead of a dictionary key (fetch_response["vectors"]).
    • It correctly addresses the incompatibility issue caused by the Pinecone client library update.
  • LlamaPReview Suggested Improvements:
    def _check_if_embedding_exists(self, id: str, namespace: str) -> bool:
        fetch_response = self.Index.fetch(ids=[id], namespace=namespace)
        # In newer Pinecone client versions, fetch() returns a FetchResponse object,
        # and vectors are accessed as an attribute, not a dictionary key.
        if fetch_response.vectors == {}:
            return False
        return True
  • Improvement rationale:
    • Technical benefits: Improves code readability and maintainability by providing context for the change, making it easier for developers to understand the code's purpose and the reason for attribute access.
    • Business value: Reduces potential debugging time and maintenance costs in the future by making the code more self-explanatory.

3.2 Key Quality Aspects

4. Overall Evaluation

  • Technical assessment: The PR provides a necessary bug fix to maintain compatibility with newer Pinecone client libraries. The code change is minimal and correct.
  • Business impact: High. Resolves a compatibility issue that could break functionality for users on newer Pinecone client versions, ensuring continued service and preventing potential errors.
  • Risk evaluation: Low. The change is localized and directly addresses the identified issue.
  • Notable positive aspects and good practices: Quick response to dependency update, targeted fix addressing the root cause.
  • Implementation quality: Good. The code change is simple and effective. Adding the suggested comment will further improve quality.
  • Final recommendation: Approve with the suggestion to add the comment for improved code clarity.

💡 LlamaPReview Community
Have feedback on this AI Code review tool? Join our GitHub Discussions to share your thoughts and help shape the future of LlamaPReview.

@zainhoda zainhoda merged commit 79374bd into vanna-ai:main Apr 8, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants