feat: validate bounds for --llm-rate, --cull-keep, --image-long-side#3
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
Adds range validation for three numeric CLI flags that previously accepted nonsensical values and silently produced degenerate behavior.
--llm-ratemust be in[0.0, 1.0](it's a probability). Out-of-range explicit values now error instead of being passed through.--cull-keepmust be in(0.0, 1.0].0kept no beams eligible for expansion (stalling beam search);> 1.0was meaningless.--image-long-sidemust be> 0. The old check only rejected negatives, so0slipped through into a degenerate downscale. The message is now specific instead of the generic "Configuration values cannot be negative".Tests
Added parametrized cases for each bound (in/out of range) in
test_cli.py. Full suite: 356 passed.