feat: fast enum cache updates

[tushar-composio]

Important

This PR introduces fast enum cache updates by implementing ETag-based cache validation and refresh mechanisms for actions, apps, and triggers.

• Behavior:
  • Introduces fast enum cache updates by adding get_etag() and list_enums() methods in collections.py for AppModel and ActionModel.
  • Adds check_cache_refresh() in utils.py to handle cache validation and refresh.
  • Updates generate_type_stubs() in apps.py to support forceful updates with a --force option.
• Caching:
  • Implements _is_update_is_required() in utils.py to determine if cache updates are needed based on ETag comparison.
  • Adds _check_and_refresh_actions() and _check_and_refresh_apps() in utils.py for selective cache refreshing.
• Misc:
  • Adds COMPOSIO_NO_CACHE_REFRESH environment variable in examples.yml to control cache refresh behavior.
  • Updates HttpClient in http.py to support head and options HTTP methods.
  • Minor dependency updates in tool.py and tox.ini.

^{This description was created by for 2360aeb. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Comments	Updated (UTC)
composio	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	💬 Add feedback	Feb 13, 2025 8:02am

[shreysingla11]

The TODO comment about page size limit is important. Consider adding a maximum batch size for actions_to_update and implementing pagination to avoid potential memory issues with large sets of actions.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 6c30c56 in 1 minute and 41 seconds

More details

• Looked at 251 lines of code in 5 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. python/composio/client/collections.py:1084

• Draft comment:
  The change from t.Sequence to t.Collection for the actions, apps, and tags parameters is appropriate as it allows for more flexible input types. t.Collection is a more general type than t.Sequence.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The change from t.Sequence to t.Collection is appropriate for the get method parameters since t.Collection is more general and includes t.Sequence. This change allows for more flexibility in the types of collections that can be passed to the method.

2. python/composio/client/collections.py:1395

• Draft comment:
  The list_enums method is a good addition for fetching a list of enums from the server, ensuring up-to-date data is retrieved.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The list_enums method in Actions class is a new addition that fetches a list of enums from the server. This method is used in the Enum.iter method to replace the local cache reading logic, which is a good change for fetching up-to-date data.

3. python/composio/client/enums/base.py:127

• Draft comment:
  The create_action function centralizes the creation of ActionData objects, reducing code duplication and improving maintainability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The create_action function centralizes the creation of ActionData objects, which is a good refactoring step. It reduces code duplication and makes the codebase easier to maintain.

4. python/composio/client/enums/enum.py:93

• Draft comment:
  The iter method now uses list_enums from the Actions class to fetch enum names from the server, ensuring up-to-date information.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The iter method in the Enum class has been updated to use the list_enums method from the Actions class. This change ensures that the enum names are fetched from the server, providing more up-to-date information compared to relying solely on local cache.

5. python/composio/client/utils.py:215

• Draft comment:
  The check_cache_refresh function now ensures local cache consistency with server data by updating or deleting actions as necessary, which is a good practice for data integrity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The check_cache_refresh function now includes logic to compare local and API actions, updating or deleting as necessary. This ensures the local cache is consistent with the server data, which is a good practice for maintaining data integrity.

Workflow ID: wflow_XZhCV0jv5aZDVc00

---

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

[shreysingla11]

Code Review Summary

Overall, this PR introduces good improvements to the enum caching system with selective updates and better performance monitoring. Here's a breakdown:

Strengths:

✅ Improved caching mechanism with selective updates
✅ Good use of type hints and better parameter types
✅ Performance monitoring with timing measurements
✅ Clean code organization with centralized action creation logic

Areas for Improvement:

1. Error Handling:

   • Add error handling for file operations
   • Consider handling API failures during cache updates

2. Documentation:

   • Add docstrings to new methods
   • Document potential exceptions

3. Performance:

   • Implement pagination for large action sets
   • Consider adding cache invalidation strategy

The changes look solid and improve the system's efficiency. Once the suggested improvements are addressed, this PR will be ready for merge.

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 1bb796b in 1 minute and 5 seconds

More details

• Looked at 122 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. python/composio/client/collections.py:357

• Draft comment:
  The list_enums method is duplicated in collections.py and enums/base.py. Consider refactoring to avoid code duplication.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment points out potential code duplication, but I can only see the new code in collections.py, not the supposedly duplicated code in enums/base.py. Without seeing both files, I cannot verify if there is actually problematic duplication. The two list_enums() methods in collections.py serve different purposes - one gets app names and one gets action names.
  I could be wrong about the two list_enums() methods serving different purposes - they have very similar implementations. Maybe the duplication is actually between these two methods within the same file?
  While the implementations are similar, they hit different endpoints (/apps/list/enums vs /actions/list/enums) and return different data (app names vs action names). This appears to be an appropriate separation of concerns between the Apps and Actions classes.
  The comment should be deleted because 1) I cannot verify the claimed duplication with enums/base.py since it's not in the diff, and 2) the two list_enums() methods in collections.py appropriately serve different purposes despite similar implementations.

2. python/composio/client/collections.py:1402

• Draft comment:
  The list_enums method is duplicated in collections.py and enums/base.py. Consider refactoring to avoid code duplication.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_5Gx7bUxnl1XQsapL

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[entelligence-ai-pr-reviews]

Typo in enum value FOURSQAURE_V2 should be FOURSQUARE_V2 to maintain consistency with the FOURSQUARE_V1 naming

📝 Committable Code Suggestion

‼️ Ensure you review the code suggestion before committing it to the branch. Make sure it replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.

Suggested change

	FOURSQAURE_V2: "App"
	FOURSQUARE_V1: "App"
	FOURSQUARE_V2: "App"
	FOURSQUARE_V1: "App"

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on ee6863d in 2 minutes and 10 seconds

More details

• Looked at 280 lines of code in 4 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 9 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. python/composio/client/enums/app.pyi:129

• Draft comment:
  Check the spelling of 'FOURSQAURE_V2' – it appears inconsistent with 'FOURSQUARE_V1' and may be a typo.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

2. python/composio/client/enums/trigger.pyi:21

• Draft comment:
  The triggers 'DISCORDBOT_DISCORD_NEW_MESSAGE_TRIGGER' and 'DISCORD_DISCORD_NEW_MESSAGE_TRIGGER' are very similar. Confirm that both are needed and clearly differentiated.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

3. python/composio/client/enums/action.pyi:1

• Draft comment:
  Changed import from 'replacement_action_name' to 'create_action'. Confirm that all references were updated accordingly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm that all references were updated accordingly, which violates the rule against asking the author to confirm or double-check things. It doesn't provide a specific suggestion or point out a specific issue.

4. python/composio/client/enums/action.pyi:3125

• Draft comment:
  Possible typo: 'FOURSQAURE_V2_PLACE_SEARCH' may be intended as 'FOURSQUARE_V2_PLACE_SEARCH'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

5. python/composio/client/enums/app.pyi:126

• Draft comment:
  Check spelling of 'FOURSQAURE_V2'; likely should be 'FOURSQUARE_V2' for consistency with V1 naming.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

6. python/composio/client/enums/tag.pyi:533

• Draft comment:
  Potential typo: 'FOURSQAURE_V2_SEARCH___DATA' uses 'FOURSQAURE' instead of 'FOURSQUARE'.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

7. python/composio/client/enums/tag.pyi:1271

• Draft comment:
  Review naming for similar fields: 'WEBTOOL_WEBBROWSER' vs 'WEBTOOL_WEB_BROWSER'. Ensure both are needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

8. python/composio/client/enums/tag.pyi:793

• Draft comment:
  File size is growing large with many enum fields. Consider auto-generation or splitting for maintainability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

9. python/composio/client/enums/trigger.pyi:21

• Draft comment:
  New trigger names like 'DISCORDBOT_DISCORD_NEW_MESSAGE_TRIGGER' and 'DISCORD_DISCORD_NEW_MESSAGE_TRIGGER' appear similar. Verify that both are necessary.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_gZf0GqUwgR27Mhpa

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

Inconsistent spelling: 'FOURSQAURE_V2_SEARCH___DATA' is used instead of what appears to be the standard 'FOURSQUARE_V2'.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 649367a in 1 minute and 20 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. .github/workflows/examples.yml:90

• Draft comment:
  Confirm that forcing COMPOSIO_NO_CACHE_REFRESH to 'true' is intentional. It seems to disable cache refresh, which could conflict with the intended 'fast enum cache updates' behavior.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  This comment violates several rules: 1) It asks for confirmation of intention ("Confirm that...") 2) It's speculative about potential conflicts 3) Without more context about the caching system, we can't verify if this is actually an issue 4) The author likely had a specific reason for adding this flag.
  Maybe this is actually a critical configuration that could cause serious issues if set incorrectly. The reviewer might have inside knowledge about the caching system.
  Even if it is important, asking for confirmation is not helpful - the author should know what they're doing. If there's a real issue, it should be stated directly with evidence.
  Delete this comment as it violates our rules by asking for confirmation and making speculative claims without strong evidence.

2. .github/workflows/examples.yml:90

• Draft comment:
  Ensure the new COMPOSIO_NO_CACHE_REFRESH is intentional. Verify that "true" (a string) is the expected value and document its purpose.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_sVakU3iYfCFlFBZi

---

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

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 2f399fe in 11 minutes and 58 seconds

More details

• Looked at 62 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 6 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. python/composio/tools/local/codeanalysis/embedder.py:77

• Draft comment:
  Consider avoiding use of '# type: ignore' by addressing underlying type issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

2. python/composio/tools/local/codeanalysis/embedder.py:153

• Draft comment:
  Avoid using '# type: ignore' if possible; consider addressing type conflict directly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

3. python/composio/tools/local/codeanalysis/embedder.py:11

• Draft comment:
  Using the TYPE_CHECKING block is good for static type checking, but consider adding a brief comment explaining why the inline runtime import is necessary.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. python/composio/tools/local/codeanalysis/embedder.py:33

• Draft comment:
  Inline import of DeepLakeVectorStore inside get_vector_store is acceptable for avoiding circular dependencies. A short inline comment explaining this choice could improve clarity.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

5. python/composio/tools/local/codeanalysis/embedder.py:77

• Draft comment:
  The '# type: ignore' comment suppresses type errors on the tolist() call. Consider adding a comment explaining why it's needed or use an explicit cast to improve maintainability.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  Type: ignore comments without explanation can be confusing for maintainers. However, this seems like a standard numpy array to list conversion where type checkers often have issues with numpy's dynamic types. The suggestion to document it could add noise without much value since this is a common pattern. The type system limitation here is well-known to Python developers.
  I could be underestimating the value of documenting type ignores for future maintainers. Some developers may not be familiar with numpy typing quirks.
  While documentation can be helpful, in this case the type: ignore is addressing a well-known limitation with numpy typing that most Python developers would recognize. Adding a comment would be more noise than signal.
  Delete the comment as it suggests adding documentation for a standard type: ignore use case that most Python developers would understand.

6. python/composio/tools/local/codeanalysis/embedder.py:153

• Draft comment:
  The use of '# type: ignore' on the return value in get_topn_chunks_from_query hides potential type issues. Document why this is acceptable or consider addressing the type mismatch explicitly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_sX7PrOvrWjJvIoTE

---

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

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 0f075b8 in 2 minutes and 20 seconds

More details

• Looked at 44 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 7 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. python/composio/tools/toolset.py:482

• Draft comment:
  New parameter no_auth=True added to ActionModel. Confirm that bypassing auth here is intended.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment violates several rules: 1) It's asking for confirmation rather than pointing out a clear issue 2) It starts with "Confirm that..." which is explicitly called out as not useful 3) The consistent use of no_auth=True in both runtime and local action schemas suggests this is intentional behavior, not a mistake 4) If this was unintended, it would likely cause obvious auth-related failures in testing.
  Perhaps there could be security implications of bypassing auth that warrant discussion? Maybe this is a significant architectural decision that should be documented?
  While security is important, the consistent pattern across both runtime and local actions suggests this is a deliberate architectural choice. If documentation is needed, it should be added as proper code documentation, not as a PR comment asking for confirmation.
  This comment should be deleted as it's asking for confirmation rather than pointing out a clear issue, and the code shows consistent intentional use of no_auth=True.

2. python/composio/tools/toolset.py:508

• Draft comment:
  Added no_auth=True in local action schemas. Verify this is safe for all local actions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

3. python/tox.ini:104

• Draft comment:
  Added 'azure' dependency in tox.ini. Consider pinning its version to ensure consistent builds.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

4. python/composio/tools/local/codeanalysis/tool.py:24

• Draft comment:
  Consider specifying a version constraint for 'azure' to prevent unexpected breaks.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

5. python/composio/tools/toolset.py:482

• Draft comment:
  Please add an inline comment explaining the purpose of 'no_auth=True' in ActionModel instantiation for runtime actions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

6. python/composio/tools/toolset.py:505

• Draft comment:
  Clarify the intent of setting 'no_auth=True' for local action schemas; add inline documentation if needed.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50% <= threshold 50%
  None

7. python/tox.ini:104

• Draft comment:
  Consider pinning the 'azure' dependency in tox.ini with a specific version to avoid future compatibility issues.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_lGBJncYOUcxwApe8

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on bcd0b75 in 59 seconds

More details

• Looked at 26 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. python/composio/tools/local/codeanalysis/tool.py:24

• Draft comment:
  Explicitly constraining the azure version (<5.0.0) avoids potential breaking changes. Ensure this constraint aligns with client requirements.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is related to dependency versioning, which is not allowed according to the rules. It suggests ensuring alignment with client requirements, which is similar to asking for confirmation or verification, which is also not allowed.

2. python/tox.ini:104

• Draft comment:
  Azure dependency now constrained to <5.0.0 for consistency. Verify that all environments and tests work with this version limit.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is asking the PR author to verify that all environments and tests work with the new version limit, which is against the rules. It is not making a specific code suggestion or pointing out a specific issue with the code.

3. python/composio/tools/local/codeanalysis/tool.py:24

• Draft comment:
  Pinning the 'azure' dependency to <5.0.0 helps avoid potential breaking changes in v5; ensure this constraint aligns with your compatibility requirements.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

4. python/tox.ini:104

• Draft comment:
  Updated the 'azure' dependency to <5.0.0 for consistency with tool dependencies; verify that this version cap meets all test env requirements.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0% <= threshold 50%
  None

Workflow ID: wflow_46hqgvUWqZTY60LT

---

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

[ellipsis-dev]

❌ Changes requested. Incremental review on 2360aeb in 2 minutes and 14 seconds

More details

• Looked at 159 lines of code in 6 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 12 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. python/composio/client/__init__.py:70

• Draft comment:
  Adding the new check_cache parameter in the constructor is clear, but consider documenting its performance impact and side effects more explicitly in the docstring.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 30% vs. threshold = 50%
  The comment points out a real documentation gap - a new parameter was added but not documented. However, the comment goes beyond just asking for documentation and specifically requests performance impact details. Without seeing check_cache_refresh()'s implementation, I can't verify if performance impacts are significant enough to warrant special documentation. The comment is somewhat speculative about what kind of documentation is needed.
  I may be being too strict - documenting performance characteristics of new parameters could be valuable for users. The comment is technically about something that changed in the diff.
  While documentation is good, we should avoid speculative requests about what kind of documentation is needed. A simpler comment just requesting parameter documentation would be more actionable.
  The comment should be deleted because it makes assumptions about what kind of documentation is needed without evidence that performance impacts are significant enough to warrant special documentation.

2. python/composio/client/utils.py:278

• Draft comment:
  The debug log now prints a shortened version of the actions set. Consider whether slicing to 64 characters might truncate important details. A summary (e.g. count and first few items) or structured logging might be more robust.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  This is a debug log statement, which is only used for development/troubleshooting. The code already shows the count of actions, which is the most important information. The truncated list is just for additional context. The suggested changes would not materially improve the code quality or functionality.
  The comment does raise a valid point about potential information loss. In some debugging scenarios, seeing the full list could be helpful.
  While true, this is just a debug log and the code already includes the count. The truncation is a reasonable tradeoff to avoid log spam while still providing some context.
  Delete the comment. The suggested changes are not important enough to warrant a code change, especially for a debug log statement.

3. python/composio/tools/toolset.py:1592

• Draft comment:
  The removal of a direct call to check_cache_refresh in the client initialization suggests cache refresh is now handled via the client constructor. Ensure that the caching behavior is clearly documented, so users know when caching occurs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

4. python/tests/test_tools/test_toolset.py:24

• Draft comment:
  Test changes remove the explicit retrieval of the API key from environment; it may be useful to add a comment noting that the default constructor now manages API key retrieval internally.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

5. python/tox.ini:15

• Draft comment:
  The dependency for azure has been tightened to 'azure<5.0.0'. Confirm that this constraint is compatible across the project and document in release notes if necessary.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

6. python/composio/client/__init__.py:67

• Draft comment:
  New 'check_cache' flag triggers a synchronous cache refresh on client init. Consider potential latency; an async refresh might be preferable if cache update is slow.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 20% vs. threshold = 50%
  While the comment correctly identifies that this is a synchronous operation, we don't have enough context to know if latency is actually a problem. The comment is somewhat speculative with "might be preferable". Without seeing the implementation of check_cache_refresh() or having performance data, we can't be confident this suggestion is necessary. The comment also doesn't provide clear guidance on how to implement an async solution.
  I may be too harsh - performance considerations are important and raising awareness early can prevent issues. The suggestion for async is a concrete alternative.
  However, we should avoid speculative performance optimizations without evidence. The current implementation may be perfectly fine, and the comment could send the author on an unnecessary refactoring mission.
  The comment should be removed as it makes speculative claims about performance without clear evidence that it's a problem, and doesn't provide concrete enough guidance to be actionable.

7. python/composio/client/utils.py:278

• Draft comment:
  Improved logging: truncating actions list and handling 414 status is a good defensive measure. Verify that fallback (empty query) always returns valid data.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

8. python/composio/tools/local/codeanalysis/tool.py:24

• Draft comment:
  Pinning dependency to 'azure<5.0.0' avoids unexpected breaking changes in newer azure versions.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative about the dependency pinning and does not provide any actionable feedback or suggestions. It does not align with the rules as it comments on dependency changes without offering a specific suggestion or question.

9. python/composio/tools/toolset.py:1596

• Draft comment:
  Removal of explicit check_cache_refresh call is appropriate, since the client init already calls it. Confirm that cache refresh logic isn’t skipped.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 40% <= threshold 50%
  The comment is asking the PR author to confirm that the cache refresh logic isn't skipped, which violates the rule against asking for confirmation of intentions. However, it also provides a useful observation that the explicit call is redundant because the client init already handles it. The comment could be rephrased to suggest checking the logic without asking for confirmation.

10. python/tests/test_tools/test_toolset.py:49

• Draft comment:
  Test now instantiates ComposioToolSet without relying on env API key (using default constructor). This improves test isolation.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 50%
  This comment is purely informative, explaining a change made in the test setup. It doesn't provide a suggestion, ask for confirmation, or point out a potential issue. It simply states what was done and why, which violates the rule against purely informative comments.

11. python/tox.ini:23

• Draft comment:
  Dependency for 'azure' is now pinned to '<5.0.0', ensuring compatibility and preventing breaking changes from newer releases.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

12. python/tests/test_tools/test_toolset.py:236

• Draft comment:
  Processor tests warn if post-processor returns non-dict. Ensure documentation matches behavior and users are informed about returning the proper type.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_54XYDeHTNXmmIVjt

---

Want Ellipsis to fix these issues? Tag @ellipsis-dev in a comment. You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.