Fix RepeatPhraseChecker constraints

[nzw0301]

The current implementation can return None when difference=0 at last. In addition, the current implementation cannot check the instruction correctly.

---

Note

Fixes RepeatPhraseChecker.check_following to ensure exactly small_n phrases each differ by one word and avoids returning None.

• Checkers:
  • RepeatPhraseChecker.check_following in open_instruct/IFEvalG/instructions.py:
    • Enforces that all matched phrases each differ by exactly one word and their count equals small_n.
    • Removes dead code and replaces premature return with a final aggregated check to prevent None returns.

^{Written by Cursor Bugbot for commit 7462f93. This will update automatically on new commits. Configure here.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @nzw0301, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request refines the RepeatPhraseChecker's check_following method to ensure more accurate and robust instruction validation. The changes prevent erroneous None returns and improve the precision of phrase matching by introducing a dedicated counter for satisfied phrases, ultimately leading to a more reliable check against the expected repetition count.

Highlights

• Corrected RepeatPhraseChecker logic: The pull request addresses an issue where the check_following method in RepeatPhraseChecker could return None incorrectly or fail to properly validate instructions.
• Improved phrase satisfaction tracking: A new counter, num_satisfied_phrases, has been introduced to accurately track the number of phrases that meet the specified criteria.
• Refined validation condition: The final validation now explicitly checks if the count of satisfied phrases matches the expected number (self._small_n), replacing a less precise if differences == 1 condition.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request addresses a bug in the RepeatPhraseChecker where constraint checking was happening outside the loop, leading to incorrect behavior and potential None returns. The changes restructure the logic to correctly iterate and validate each phrase. However, the fix alters the validation logic to allow phrases with zero differences, which might not be the intended behavior if exactly one difference is required. My review provides a suggestion to restore the one-difference constraint while keeping the corrected structure.