refactor: audit batch 3 (I-3 capability verdict, I-4 policy merge)
- I-3: new models.evaluate_capability returning a CapabilityVerdict (ok/missing/unknown from check, known/unknown_missing from split, status/verb derivations); decide_routing, worker gateway check, worker persisted recheck, dry-run tier+gateway checks and server shadow endpoint all call it. Blocking rules stay at the call sites (gateway has no worker-default fallback, recheck blocks only on known, dry-run/shadow never block); all user-visible audit details, dry-run notes and shadow notes are byte-identical. - I-4: new models.merge_policy_documents shared by load_routing_policy and dry_run_from_env; the old tiers-update block is kept verbatim (it was a no-op after update(): JSON tiers replace the whole map, file tiers absent from JSON are dropped -- preserved, not fixed, as that would be a behaviour change). dropped_tiers/partial_failures remain load-time records, not merge products. - Tests: test_audit_batch3.py, 13 tests (verdict matrix + parity with check/split, decide/dry-run wording, merge boundaries + 300 seeded random pairs + loader/dry-run agreement). Full suite: 1694 OK (skipped=11), baseline 1681 + 13, 0 failures.
This commit is contained in:
1 parent
a7f77c8a98
commit
06e4e16bbb
5 files changed
+485
-68
No files matched your search
+117
-17
@@ -289,6 +289,115 @@ def split_model_capability_missing(capabilities, model, requires):
|
||||
return sorted(known), sorted(unknown)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
class CapabilityVerdict:
|
||||
"""Structured result of one capability check (audit batch 3, I-3).
|
||||
|
||||
One call replaces the previous check+split pair at the five
|
||||
capability sites (decide_routing, worker gateway check, worker
|
||||
persisted-model recheck, dry-run tier/gateway checks, server
|
||||
shadow endpoint). The fields are exactly what those sites used
|
||||
before, so no site changes behaviour by adopting it:
|
||||
|
||||
- ``ok`` / ``missing`` / ``unknown`` are the total-check fields
|
||||
from check_model_capabilities (decide/dry-run/shadow wording);
|
||||
- ``known_missing`` / ``unknown_missing`` are the split fields
|
||||
from split_model_capability_missing (gateway explicit split,
|
||||
persisted recheck);
|
||||
- ``status`` is "ok", or "unknown" when not ok and any part is
|
||||
unverifiable, else "fail" (the dry-run/shadow status rule);
|
||||
- ``verb`` is "cannot verify" when unknown else "lacks" (the
|
||||
dry-run/gateway note wording); it is only meaningful when
|
||||
not ok.
|
||||
|
||||
Edge preserved, not fixed: for a model absent from the
|
||||
directory, ``missing`` lists every requires key (the total
|
||||
check's rule) while ``unknown_missing`` lists only recognised
|
||||
requirement keys (the split's rule). Callers that previously
|
||||
used one function keep getting that function's values; the
|
||||
blocking rules themselves stay at the call sites (gateway has
|
||||
no worker-default fallback, recheck blocks only on known,
|
||||
dry-run/shadow never block), they are not folded into this
|
||||
verdict.
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
def __init__(self, ok, missing, unknown, known_missing,
|
||||
unknown_missing):
|
||||
self.ok = bool(ok)
|
||||
self.missing = list(missing)
|
||||
self.unknown = bool(unknown)
|
||||
self.known_missing = list(known_missing)
|
||||
self.unknown_missing = list(unknown_missing)
|
||||
|
||||
@property
|
||||
def status(self):
|
||||
if self.ok:
|
||||
return "ok"
|
||||
return "unknown" if self.unknown else "fail"
|
||||
|
||||
@property
|
||||
def verb(self):
|
||||
return "cannot verify" if self.unknown else "lacks"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def evaluate_capability(capabilities, model, requires):
|
||||
"""Check one model against requires, returning a CapabilityVerdict.
|
||||
|
||||
Pure: it only calls check_model_capabilities and
|
||||
split_model_capability_missing, so its fields are definitionally
|
||||
identical to what the five call sites computed before with two
|
||||
calls. ``requires`` is expected to be already cleaned by
|
||||
parse_tier_requires (all five sites pass tier_requirements);
|
||||
uncleaned keys behave exactly as the two underlying functions
|
||||
behave (see CapabilityVerdict).
|
||||
"""
|
||||
ok, missing, unknown = check_model_capabilities(
|
||||
capabilities, model, requires)
|
||||
known, unknown_missing = split_model_capability_missing(
|
||||
capabilities, model, requires)
|
||||
return CapabilityVerdict(ok, missing, unknown, known,
|
||||
unknown_missing)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def merge_policy_documents(base, override):
|
||||
"""Merge a file policy document with a JSON override document.
|
||||
|
||||
This is the merge load_routing_policy and dry_run_from_env
|
||||
always shared line-for-line, now in one place (audit batch 3,
|
||||
I-4). ``base`` is the file document (or None when unread/absent),
|
||||
``override`` is the JSON document (or None when absent/unparsed).
|
||||
Rules, exactly as before:
|
||||
|
||||
- override not a dict: base unchanged;
|
||||
- base not a dict: override;
|
||||
- otherwise: a shallow copy of base updated with override, so
|
||||
JSON replaces whole keys — including the whole "tiers" map.
|
||||
Per-tier merging does NOT happen: the old tiers-update block
|
||||
after update() copied override's tiers back onto themselves
|
||||
(merged["tiers"] already WAS override's tiers), i.e. it was
|
||||
a no-op, and it is kept verbatim below so this function stays
|
||||
a line-for-line move, not a semantic "fix". File tiers absent
|
||||
from the JSON document are therefore dropped, not preserved;
|
||||
changing that would be a behaviour change for another batch.
|
||||
|
||||
Source-level failure records (dropped_tiers/partial_failures
|
||||
from batch 2) are NOT a product of this merge: they are filled
|
||||
in by parse/load afterwards, and this function neither reads
|
||||
nor writes them.
|
||||
"""
|
||||
if not isinstance(override, dict):
|
||||
return base
|
||||
if not isinstance(base, dict):
|
||||
return override
|
||||
merged = dict(base)
|
||||
merged.update(override)
|
||||
if isinstance(merged.get("tiers"), dict) and \
|
||||
isinstance(override.get("tiers"), dict):
|
||||
tiers = dict(merged["tiers"])
|
||||
tiers.update(override["tiers"])
|
||||
merged["tiers"] = tiers
|
||||
return merged
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def prompt_len_bucket(prompt) -> str:
|
||||
"""Bucket a prompt by length for logging only, never for routing.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -578,16 +687,7 @@ def load_routing_policy(env=None):
|
||||
failures.append("CLOUD_ROUTING_POLICY_JSON: %s" % exc)
|
||||
override = None
|
||||
if isinstance(override, dict):
|
||||
if not isinstance(merged, dict):
|
||||
merged = override
|
||||
else:
|
||||
merged = dict(merged)
|
||||
merged.update(override)
|
||||
if isinstance(merged.get("tiers"), dict) and \
|
||||
isinstance(override.get("tiers"), dict):
|
||||
tiers = dict(merged["tiers"])
|
||||
tiers.update(override["tiers"])
|
||||
merged["tiers"] = tiers
|
||||
merged = merge_policy_documents(merged, override)
|
||||
policy = parse_routing_policy(merged)
|
||||
if policy is None:
|
||||
if configured:
|
||||
@@ -741,13 +841,13 @@ def decide_routing(task, worker_model, policy=None,
|
||||
policy_version=policy.version, applied=True,
|
||||
reason="%s tier mode is off" % tier, signals=signals)
|
||||
requires = policy.tier_requirements.get(tier) or {}
|
||||
cap_ok, cap_missing, cap_unknown = check_model_capabilities(
|
||||
cap = evaluate_capability(
|
||||
policy.model_capabilities, tier_model, requires)
|
||||
cap_note = ""
|
||||
if requires and not cap_ok:
|
||||
if requires and not cap.ok:
|
||||
cap_note = " (capability %s: %s)" % (
|
||||
"unknown" if cap_unknown else "lacks",
|
||||
", ".join(cap_missing))
|
||||
"unknown" if cap.unknown else "lacks",
|
||||
", ".join(cap.missing))
|
||||
if effective_mode == "shadow":
|
||||
return RoutingDecision(
|
||||
task_id=task.get("id"), tier=tier, chosen_model=worker_model,
|
||||
@@ -756,7 +856,7 @@ def decide_routing(task, worker_model, policy=None,
|
||||
reason="%s tier suggests %s (shadow, not applied)%s"
|
||||
% (tier, tier_model, cap_note), signals=signals)
|
||||
# effective_mode == "active"
|
||||
if cap_ok:
|
||||
if cap.ok:
|
||||
return RoutingDecision(
|
||||
task_id=task.get("id"), tier=tier, chosen_model=tier_model,
|
||||
suggested_model=None, source="policy",
|
||||
@@ -767,9 +867,9 @@ def decide_routing(task, worker_model, policy=None,
|
||||
# default against the same requirements before blocking:
|
||||
# a capable worker default keeps the task moving without
|
||||
# violating the requirement.
|
||||
worker_ok, _w_missing, _w_unknown = check_model_capabilities(
|
||||
worker_cap = evaluate_capability(
|
||||
policy.model_capabilities, worker_model, requires)
|
||||
if worker_ok:
|
||||
if worker_cap.ok:
|
||||
return RoutingDecision(
|
||||
task_id=task.get("id"), tier=tier, chosen_model=worker_model,
|
||||
suggested_model=None, source="worker_default",
|
||||
|
||||
+19
-24
@@ -72,14 +72,16 @@ try:
|
||||
from cloud.models import ROUTING_MODES, ROUTING_TIERS
|
||||
from cloud.models import parse_routing_policy
|
||||
from cloud.models import parse_tier_requires
|
||||
from cloud.models import check_model_capabilities
|
||||
from cloud.models import evaluate_capability
|
||||
from cloud.models import merge_policy_documents
|
||||
except ImportError: # run as a script from the repo root
|
||||
sys.path.insert(0, os.path.join(
|
||||
os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)), ".."))
|
||||
from cloud.models import ROUTING_MODES, ROUTING_TIERS
|
||||
from cloud.models import parse_routing_policy
|
||||
from cloud.models import parse_tier_requires
|
||||
from cloud.models import check_model_capabilities
|
||||
from cloud.models import evaluate_capability
|
||||
from cloud.models import merge_policy_documents
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def _tier_dropped_reason(raw_entry):
|
||||
@@ -210,12 +212,11 @@ def dry_run_policy_document(data, env_mode_override=None,
|
||||
cap = {"required": None, "missing": [], "unknown": False,
|
||||
"status": "not_applicable"}
|
||||
else:
|
||||
cap_ok, cap_missing, cap_unknown = check_model_capabilities(
|
||||
cap_verdict = evaluate_capability(
|
||||
policy.model_capabilities, policy.tiers[tier], requires)
|
||||
cap = {"required": requires, "missing": cap_missing,
|
||||
"unknown": cap_unknown,
|
||||
"status": "ok" if cap_ok else (
|
||||
"unknown" if cap_unknown else "fail")}
|
||||
cap = {"required": requires, "missing": cap_verdict.missing,
|
||||
"unknown": cap_verdict.unknown,
|
||||
"status": cap_verdict.status}
|
||||
tiers_report[tier] = {
|
||||
"model": policy.tiers[tier], "mode": mode,
|
||||
"mode_source": mode_source, "status": status,
|
||||
@@ -268,17 +269,18 @@ def dry_run_policy_document(data, env_mode_override=None,
|
||||
" -- cannot verify it against the capability"
|
||||
" directory" % (tier, sorted(_req)))
|
||||
else:
|
||||
_ok, _missing, _unknown = check_model_capabilities(
|
||||
_gw_verdict = evaluate_capability(
|
||||
policy.model_capabilities, gateway_model, _req)
|
||||
_gw["tiers"][tier] = {
|
||||
"status": "ok" if _ok else (
|
||||
"unknown" if _unknown else "fail"),
|
||||
"missing": _missing, "unknown": _unknown,
|
||||
"status": _gw_verdict.status,
|
||||
"missing": _gw_verdict.missing,
|
||||
"unknown": _gw_verdict.unknown,
|
||||
"tier_mode": _tstatus}
|
||||
_note = ("tier %r gateway model %r %s capability:"
|
||||
" %s" % (tier, gateway_model,
|
||||
"cannot verify" if _unknown else "lacks",
|
||||
", ".join(_missing)))
|
||||
"cannot verify"
|
||||
if _gw_verdict.unknown else "lacks",
|
||||
", ".join(_gw_verdict.missing)))
|
||||
if _gw["tiers"][tier]["status"] in ("fail", "unknown"):
|
||||
if _tstatus == "active":
|
||||
_gw_blocked = True
|
||||
@@ -326,7 +328,9 @@ def dry_run_policy_document(data, env_mode_override=None,
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def dry_run_from_env(env=None):
|
||||
"""Dry-run from an env mapping, mirroring load_routing_policy.
|
||||
"""Dry-run from an env mapping, sharing merge_policy_documents
|
||||
with load_routing_policy (audit batch 3, I-4) — the merge is
|
||||
one function now, not a mirrored copy.
|
||||
|
||||
Returns the report dict. File/JSON failures that the loader
|
||||
silently ignores are reported as warnings here.
|
||||
@@ -354,16 +358,7 @@ def dry_run_from_env(env=None):
|
||||
"(%s); the loader would ignore it" % exc)
|
||||
override = None
|
||||
if isinstance(override, dict):
|
||||
if not isinstance(merged, dict):
|
||||
merged = override
|
||||
else:
|
||||
merged = dict(merged)
|
||||
merged.update(override)
|
||||
if isinstance(merged.get("tiers"), dict) and \
|
||||
isinstance(override.get("tiers"), dict):
|
||||
tiers = dict(merged["tiers"])
|
||||
tiers.update(override["tiers"])
|
||||
merged["tiers"] = tiers
|
||||
merged = merge_policy_documents(merged, override)
|
||||
_gw_model = (env.get("CLOUD_SUB2API_DEFAULT_MODEL") or "").strip()
|
||||
report = dry_run_policy_document(
|
||||
merged, env_mode_override=env.get("CLOUD_ROUTING_MODE") or None,
|
||||
|
||||
+6
-6
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ from cloud.auth import AuthStore
|
||||
from cloud.coordinator import parse_parts as _coord_parse_parts
|
||||
from cloud.coordinator import validate_parts as _coord_validate_parts
|
||||
from cloud.cost import CostStore, unpriced_token_cap
|
||||
from cloud.models import check_model_capabilities as _check_caps
|
||||
from cloud.models import evaluate_capability as _evaluate_capability
|
||||
from cloud.models import load_routing_policy as _load_routing_policy
|
||||
from cloud.routing_shadow import evaluate_shadow as _evaluate_shadow
|
||||
from cloud.db import connect as _db_connect
|
||||
@@ -4348,12 +4348,12 @@ class CloudControlPlaneHandler(BaseHTTPRequestHandler):
|
||||
"model": None, "missing": [],
|
||||
"unknown": False}
|
||||
else:
|
||||
_ok, _missing, _unknown = _check_caps(
|
||||
_verdict = _evaluate_capability(
|
||||
_policy.model_capabilities, _model, _req)
|
||||
_cap = {"status": "ok" if _ok else (
|
||||
"unknown" if _unknown else "fail"),
|
||||
"model": _model, "missing": _missing,
|
||||
"unknown": _unknown}
|
||||
_cap = {"status": _verdict.status,
|
||||
"model": _model,
|
||||
"missing": _verdict.missing,
|
||||
"unknown": _verdict.unknown}
|
||||
_bucket["capability"] = _cap
|
||||
if _cap["status"] in ("fail", "unknown"):
|
||||
_cap_flagged.append(
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,326 @@
|
||||
"""Audit batch 3 (I-3, I-4): capability verdict unification and policy
|
||||
merge unification. Pure refactor: no behaviour change.
|
||||
|
||||
Run: python3 -m unittest discover -s cloud/tests -p "test_audit_batch3.py" -v
|
||||
"""
|
||||
|
||||
import copy
|
||||
import json
|
||||
import os
|
||||
import random
|
||||
import sys
|
||||
import tempfile
|
||||
import unittest
|
||||
|
||||
sys.path.insert(0, os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "..", ".."))
|
||||
|
||||
from cloud.models import (
|
||||
check_model_capabilities,
|
||||
decide_routing,
|
||||
evaluate_capability,
|
||||
load_routing_policy,
|
||||
merge_policy_documents,
|
||||
parse_routing_policy,
|
||||
split_model_capability_missing,
|
||||
)
|
||||
from cloud.routing_dryrun import dry_run_from_env, dry_run_policy_document
|
||||
|
||||
REQUIRES = {"tool_calling": True, "vision": True,
|
||||
"min_context_tokens": 1000}
|
||||
|
||||
CAPS = {
|
||||
"good": {"tool_calling": True, "vision": True,
|
||||
"context_tokens": 200000},
|
||||
"no-tool": {"tool_calling": False, "vision": True,
|
||||
"context_tokens": 200000},
|
||||
"no-vision-field": {"tool_calling": True,
|
||||
"context_tokens": 200000},
|
||||
"small-ctx": {"tool_calling": True, "vision": True,
|
||||
"context_tokens": 100},
|
||||
"no-ctx": {"tool_calling": True, "vision": True},
|
||||
"mixed": {"tool_calling": False, "context_tokens": 200000},
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
def _policy(mode, tier_model, requires, caps, worker_model=None):
|
||||
doc = {
|
||||
"version": "batch3",
|
||||
"mode": mode,
|
||||
"tiers": {"default": {"model": tier_model,
|
||||
"requires": requires}},
|
||||
"model_capabilities": caps,
|
||||
}
|
||||
return parse_routing_policy(doc)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
class EvaluateCapabilityTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
|
||||
def test_matrix_known_unknown_mixed_absent_empty(self):
|
||||
cases = [
|
||||
# (model, ok, missing, unknown, known, unknown_missing,
|
||||
# status, verb)
|
||||
("good", True, [], False, [], [], "ok", None),
|
||||
("no-tool", False, ["tool_calling"], False,
|
||||
["tool_calling"], [], "fail", "lacks"),
|
||||
("no-vision-field", False, ["vision"], True,
|
||||
[], ["vision"], "unknown", "cannot verify"),
|
||||
("small-ctx", False, ["min_context_tokens"], False,
|
||||
["min_context_tokens"], [], "fail", "lacks"),
|
||||
("no-ctx", False, ["min_context_tokens"], True,
|
||||
[], ["min_context_tokens"], "unknown", "cannot verify"),
|
||||
("mixed", False, ["tool_calling", "vision"], True,
|
||||
["tool_calling"], ["vision"], "unknown", "cannot verify"),
|
||||
("absent-model", False,
|
||||
["min_context_tokens", "tool_calling", "vision"], True,
|
||||
[], ["min_context_tokens", "tool_calling", "vision"],
|
||||
"unknown", "cannot verify"),
|
||||
]
|
||||
for (model, ok, missing, unknown, known, unknown_missing,
|
||||
status, verb) in cases:
|
||||
with self.subTest(model=model):
|
||||
verdict = evaluate_capability(CAPS, model, REQUIRES)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.ok, ok)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.missing, missing)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.unknown, unknown)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.known_missing, known)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.unknown_missing, unknown_missing)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.status, status)
|
||||
if verb is not None:
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.verb, verb)
|
||||
|
||||
def test_empty_requires_always_ok_even_for_absent_model(self):
|
||||
verdict = evaluate_capability(CAPS, "absent-model", {})
|
||||
self.assertTrue(verdict.ok)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.missing, [])
|
||||
self.assertFalse(verdict.unknown)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.status, "ok")
|
||||
|
||||
def test_parity_with_old_check_and_split(self):
|
||||
# The refactor contract: every verdict field equals what the
|
||||
# two old functions returned for the same inputs, across a
|
||||
# matrix of directories, models and requires — including the
|
||||
# preserved edge where an absent model plus an uncleaned
|
||||
# requires key makes the total check list the invalid key
|
||||
# while the split lists only recognised keys. That edge is
|
||||
# documented here as preserved parity, not as desired
|
||||
# semantics; changing it would be a behaviour change.
|
||||
requires_sets = [
|
||||
REQUIRES,
|
||||
{"tool_calling": True},
|
||||
{"min_context_tokens": 500},
|
||||
{},
|
||||
{"tool_calling": True, "bogus_key": True},
|
||||
]
|
||||
models = list(CAPS) + ["absent-model", "", None]
|
||||
for requires in requires_sets:
|
||||
for model in models:
|
||||
with self.subTest(model=model, requires=requires):
|
||||
verdict = evaluate_capability(
|
||||
CAPS, model, requires)
|
||||
ok, missing, unknown = check_model_capabilities(
|
||||
CAPS, model, requires)
|
||||
known, unknown_missing = \
|
||||
split_model_capability_missing(
|
||||
CAPS, model, requires)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.ok, ok)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.missing, missing)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.unknown, unknown)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(verdict.known_missing, known)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(
|
||||
verdict.unknown_missing, unknown_missing)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
class DecideRoutingWordingTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
|
||||
def test_active_known_missing_falls_back_to_worker_default(self):
|
||||
policy = _policy("active", "no-tool", REQUIRES, CAPS)
|
||||
decision = decide_routing({}, "good", policy=policy)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(decision.source, "worker_default")
|
||||
self.assertTrue(decision.capability_fallback)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(decision.chosen_model, "good")
|
||||
self.assertIn("capability lacks: tool_calling",
|
||||
decision.reason)
|
||||
|
||||
def test_active_both_fail_blocks_with_exact_reason_shape(self):
|
||||
policy = _policy("active", "no-tool", REQUIRES, CAPS)
|
||||
decision = decide_routing({}, "no-tool", policy=policy)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(decision.source, "capability_blocked")
|
||||
self.assertIsNone(decision.chosen_model)
|
||||
self.assertIn("refusing to dispatch an incapable or"
|
||||
" unverifiable model", decision.reason)
|
||||
|
||||
def test_shadow_unknown_and_known_notes(self):
|
||||
policy = _policy("shadow", "no-vision-field", REQUIRES, CAPS)
|
||||
decision = decide_routing({}, "good", policy=policy)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(decision.source, "shadow")
|
||||
self.assertFalse(decision.applied)
|
||||
self.assertIn("capability unknown: vision", decision.reason)
|
||||
policy = _policy("shadow", "no-tool", REQUIRES, CAPS)
|
||||
decision = decide_routing({}, "good", policy=policy)
|
||||
self.assertIn("capability lacks: tool_calling",
|
||||
decision.reason)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
class DryRunWordingTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
|
||||
def _doc(self, mode, tier_model):
|
||||
return {
|
||||
"version": "batch3",
|
||||
"mode": mode,
|
||||
"tiers": {"default": {"model": tier_model,
|
||||
"requires": REQUIRES}},
|
||||
"model_capabilities": CAPS,
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
def test_tier_check_notes_and_block_flags(self):
|
||||
report = dry_run_policy_document(
|
||||
self._doc("active", "no-tool"))
|
||||
tier = report["tiers"]["default"]
|
||||
self.assertEqual(tier["capabilities"]["status"], "fail")
|
||||
self.assertTrue(report["blocked"])
|
||||
self.assertTrue(any(
|
||||
"lacks capability: tool_calling" in w
|
||||
and "would block 'default' tasks at dispatch" in w
|
||||
for w in report["warnings"]))
|
||||
report = dry_run_policy_document(
|
||||
self._doc("shadow", "no-vision-field"))
|
||||
tier = report["tiers"]["default"]
|
||||
self.assertEqual(tier["capabilities"]["status"], "unknown")
|
||||
self.assertFalse(report["blocked"])
|
||||
self.assertTrue(any(
|
||||
"cannot verify capability: vision" in w
|
||||
and "shadow mode does not block dispatch" in w
|
||||
for w in report["warnings"]))
|
||||
|
||||
def test_gateway_check_notes_and_block_flags(self):
|
||||
report = dry_run_policy_document(
|
||||
self._doc("active", "good"), gateway_model="no-tool")
|
||||
gw = report["gateway"]["tiers"]["default"]
|
||||
self.assertEqual(gw["status"], "fail")
|
||||
self.assertTrue(report["blocked"])
|
||||
self.assertTrue(any(
|
||||
"gateway model 'no-tool' lacks capability: tool_calling"
|
||||
in w
|
||||
and "would block 'default' tasks at the gateway gate" in w
|
||||
for w in report["warnings"]))
|
||||
report = dry_run_policy_document(
|
||||
self._doc("shadow", "good"), gateway_model=None)
|
||||
gw = report["gateway"]["tiers"]["default"]
|
||||
self.assertEqual(gw["status"], "unknown")
|
||||
self.assertTrue(gw["unknown"])
|
||||
self.assertTrue(any(
|
||||
"gateway model is not set in CLOUD_SUB2API_DEFAULT_MODEL"
|
||||
in w for w in report["warnings"]))
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
class MergePolicyDocumentsTestCase(unittest.TestCase):
|
||||
def test_boundary_cases(self):
|
||||
self.assertIsNone(merge_policy_documents(None, None))
|
||||
self.assertEqual(merge_policy_documents(None, {"a": 1}),
|
||||
{"a": 1})
|
||||
self.assertEqual(merge_policy_documents({"a": 1}, None),
|
||||
{"a": 1})
|
||||
self.assertEqual(merge_policy_documents({"a": 1}, ["x"]),
|
||||
{"a": 1})
|
||||
self.assertEqual(merge_policy_documents(["x"], {"a": 1}),
|
||||
{"a": 1})
|
||||
# No tiers anywhere: plain shallow update.
|
||||
self.assertEqual(
|
||||
merge_policy_documents({"mode": "shadow", "version": "v1"},
|
||||
{"mode": "active"}),
|
||||
{"mode": "active", "version": "v1"})
|
||||
|
||||
def test_json_replaces_whole_tiers_map_not_per_tier(self):
|
||||
# Preserved (not fixed) semantics, documented in
|
||||
# merge_policy_documents: JSON tiers replace the whole map.
|
||||
# File tiers absent from JSON are dropped, not preserved.
|
||||
base = {"mode": "shadow",
|
||||
"tiers": {"plan": "m-file-plan",
|
||||
"default": "m-file-default"}}
|
||||
override = {"tiers": {"plan": "m-json-plan"}}
|
||||
self.assertEqual(merge_policy_documents(base, override),
|
||||
{"mode": "shadow",
|
||||
"tiers": {"plan": "m-json-plan"}})
|
||||
|
||||
def test_inputs_not_mutated(self):
|
||||
base = {"mode": "shadow",
|
||||
"tiers": {"plan": "m-file-plan",
|
||||
"default": "m-file-default"}}
|
||||
override = {"tiers": {"plan": "m-json-plan"}}
|
||||
base_before, override_before = copy.deepcopy(base), \
|
||||
copy.deepcopy(override)
|
||||
merge_policy_documents(base, override)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(base, base_before)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(override, override_before)
|
||||
|
||||
def test_property_random_pairs_match_shallow_update(self):
|
||||
rng = random.Random(20261102)
|
||||
tier_values = ["m1", "m2", {"model": "m3"},
|
||||
{"model": "m4", "mode": "shadow"},
|
||||
{"model": "m5", "mode": "bogus"},
|
||||
{"model": ""}, " ", 7, None]
|
||||
top_values = ["shadow", "active", "v9", 3, None,
|
||||
{"x": 1}, ["a"]]
|
||||
|
||||
def _rand_doc():
|
||||
doc = {}
|
||||
if rng.random() < 0.8:
|
||||
doc["mode"] = rng.choice(["shadow", "active", "off"])
|
||||
if rng.random() < 0.5:
|
||||
doc["version"] = rng.choice(top_values)
|
||||
if rng.random() < 0.8:
|
||||
tiers = {}
|
||||
for tier in rng.sample(
|
||||
["plan", "goal", "default", "weird"],
|
||||
rng.randint(0, 3)):
|
||||
tiers[tier] = rng.choice(tier_values)
|
||||
if rng.random() < 0.1:
|
||||
doc["tiers"] = rng.choice(["x", 5, None])
|
||||
else:
|
||||
doc["tiers"] = tiers
|
||||
return doc
|
||||
|
||||
for _ in range(300):
|
||||
base = _rand_doc()
|
||||
override = _rand_doc()
|
||||
got = merge_policy_documents(base, override)
|
||||
expected = dict(base)
|
||||
expected.update(override)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(got, expected)
|
||||
|
||||
def test_loader_and_dryrun_agree_on_same_env(self):
|
||||
# Loader and dry-run now share merge_policy_documents: for
|
||||
# the same file+JSON env, the parsed policy tiers and the
|
||||
# dry-run report tiers (and fingerprints) must agree.
|
||||
cases = [
|
||||
({"mode": "shadow",
|
||||
"tiers": {"plan": "m-file-plan",
|
||||
"default": "m-file-default"}},
|
||||
{"tiers": {"plan": "m-json-plan"}}),
|
||||
({"mode": "active",
|
||||
"tiers": {"default": {"model": "m1",
|
||||
"requires": {"tool_calling": True}}},
|
||||
"model_capabilities": {"m1": {"tool_calling": True}}},
|
||||
{"mode": "shadow"}),
|
||||
]
|
||||
for base_doc, override_doc in cases:
|
||||
with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile(
|
||||
"w", suffix=".json", delete=False) as fh:
|
||||
json.dump(base_doc, fh)
|
||||
path = fh.name
|
||||
try:
|
||||
env = {"CLOUD_ROUTING_POLICY_FILE": path,
|
||||
"CLOUD_ROUTING_POLICY_JSON":
|
||||
json.dumps(override_doc)}
|
||||
policy = load_routing_policy(env)
|
||||
report = dry_run_from_env(env)
|
||||
self.assertIsNotNone(policy)
|
||||
self.assertTrue(report["valid"])
|
||||
for tier, model in policy.tiers.items():
|
||||
self.assertEqual(
|
||||
report["tiers"][tier]["model"], model)
|
||||
self.assertEqual(report["content_fingerprint"],
|
||||
policy.content_fingerprint())
|
||||
finally:
|
||||
os.unlink(path)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
if __name__ == "__main__":
|
||||
unittest.main()
|
||||
+17
-21
@@ -165,10 +165,9 @@ from cloud.db import connect as _db_connect
|
||||
from cloud.goal_command import parse_goal_command as _parse_goal_command
|
||||
from cloud.logging_config import get_logger, log_event, setup_logging
|
||||
from cloud.models import ModelRouter, RoutingPolicy, decide_routing, \
|
||||
check_model_capabilities, classify_task, \
|
||||
classify_task, evaluate_capability, \
|
||||
is_fallbackable, load_routing_policy, parse_routing_policy, \
|
||||
record_fallback, record_routing, \
|
||||
split_model_capability_missing
|
||||
record_fallback, record_routing
|
||||
from cloud.routing_shadow import parse_worker_routing_detail as \
|
||||
_parse_routing_detail
|
||||
from cloud.auto_memory import AutoMemoryStore
|
||||
@@ -7032,15 +7031,15 @@ class Worker:
|
||||
if mode not in ("active", "shadow"):
|
||||
return None
|
||||
model = task.get("model")
|
||||
ok, missing, unknown = check_model_capabilities(
|
||||
verdict = evaluate_capability(
|
||||
self.routing_policy.model_capabilities, model, requires)
|
||||
if ok:
|
||||
if verdict.ok:
|
||||
return None
|
||||
known, _unk = split_model_capability_missing(
|
||||
self.routing_policy.model_capabilities, model, requires)
|
||||
known = verdict.known_missing
|
||||
detail = ("%s model=%s tier=%s mode=%s missing=%s unknown=%s"
|
||||
% (task["id"], model, tier, mode,
|
||||
",".join(missing) or "-", unknown))
|
||||
",".join(verdict.missing) or "-",
|
||||
verdict.unknown))
|
||||
if mode == "shadow":
|
||||
self._audit(task["project_id"],
|
||||
"worker_capability_recheck_shadow", detail)
|
||||
@@ -7444,17 +7443,17 @@ class Worker:
|
||||
if _gw_requires:
|
||||
_gw_mode = self.routing_policy.tier_mode(_gw_tier)
|
||||
if _gw_mode in ("active", "shadow"):
|
||||
_gw_ok, _gw_missing, _gw_unknown = \
|
||||
check_model_capabilities(
|
||||
self.routing_policy.model_capabilities,
|
||||
task.get("model"), _gw_requires)
|
||||
if not _gw_ok:
|
||||
_gw_verdict = evaluate_capability(
|
||||
self.routing_policy.model_capabilities,
|
||||
task.get("model"), _gw_requires)
|
||||
if not _gw_verdict.ok:
|
||||
_gw_note = ("gateway model %s %s capability:"
|
||||
" %s" % (
|
||||
task.get("model"),
|
||||
"cannot verify"
|
||||
if _gw_unknown else "lacks",
|
||||
", ".join(_gw_missing)))
|
||||
if _gw_verdict.unknown
|
||||
else "lacks",
|
||||
", ".join(_gw_verdict.missing)))
|
||||
# Audit fix 4(第三遍审计分档建议):
|
||||
# 显式模型按 known/unknown 分档。known
|
||||
# 是目录明确写了不满足(布尔 False、
|
||||
@@ -7463,10 +7462,7 @@ class Worker:
|
||||
# 无该模型、或条目缺字段,目录陈旧
|
||||
# 不应惩罚用户的正确选择,只审计不拦。
|
||||
# shadow 档两种情况都只审计。
|
||||
_gw_known, _gw_unk = \
|
||||
split_model_capability_missing(
|
||||
self.routing_policy.model_capabilities,
|
||||
task.get("model"), _gw_requires)
|
||||
_gw_known = _gw_verdict.known_missing
|
||||
_gw_block = False
|
||||
_gw_error = None
|
||||
if _explicit_model:
|
||||
@@ -7483,8 +7479,8 @@ class Worker:
|
||||
" missing=%s unknown=%s blocked=%s"
|
||||
% (task_id, task.get("model"),
|
||||
_gw_tier, _gw_mode,
|
||||
",".join(_gw_missing) or "-",
|
||||
_gw_unknown,
|
||||
",".join(_gw_verdict.missing) or "-",
|
||||
_gw_verdict.unknown,
|
||||
_gw_blocked))
|
||||
if _gw_blocked:
|
||||
_gw_block = True
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in new issue
Block a user