-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 42
Fix: correctly order messages when getting the system prompt one #633
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🎯 Functional Correctness | 🟠 Major | ⚡ Quick win
Order the filtered messages by ID.
getFirstNMessages()must return the first persisted message deterministically.timestampcan be caller-provided or shared by multiple messages, soORDER BY timestamp ASCcan select the wrong system message or produce database-dependent results. UseORDER BY id ASC, consistent with the other message-history queries.Proposed fix
📝 Committable suggestion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
mmh, Id is not guaratneed to be sequential
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
🧩 Analysis chain
🏁 Script executed:
Length of output: 14146
@marcelklehr, correct. The IDs do not need to be sequential.ORDER BY id ASCselects the lowest persisted auto-increment ID. Gaps from deleted rows or rolled-back inserts do not change that order. The migration definesassistant_chat_msgs.idas an auto-increment column, and the insert path does not set the ID.The issue with
timestampremains. Callers can provide the same timestamp for multiple messages, or a timestamp that does not match insertion order. I recommendORDER BY id ASCfor a deterministic persisted-message order.You are interacting with an AI system.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can add the id to the orderBy but I don't think we should remve the timestamp. We might soon move away from autoincrement IDs
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@marcelklehr, agreed.timestampshould remain the primary ordering field.Add
idonly as a deterministic tie-breaker:This does not require sequential IDs. It only requires that
idhas a stable order when two messages have the same timestamp. The primary behavior remains compatible with a future non-auto-increment ID scheme.✏️ Learnings added
You are interacting with an AI system.