Skip to content

fix lora fetch#67

Merged
tastelikefeet merged 1 commit intomodelscope:mainfrom
tastelikefeet:fix/0214-1
Feb 14, 2026
Merged

fix lora fetch#67
tastelikefeet merged 1 commit intomodelscope:mainfrom
tastelikefeet:fix/0214-1

Conversation

@tastelikefeet
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

PR type

  • Bug Fix
  • New Feature
  • Document Updates
  • More Models or Datasets Support

PR information

Write the detail information belongs to this PR.

Experiment results

Paste your experiment result here(if needed).

@gemini-code-assist
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary of Changes

Hello @tastelikefeet, 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 addresses a bug in the LoRA adapter fetching logic by implementing robust error handling. Previously, attempting to retrieve a non-existent LoRA adapter would result in an IndexError. The updated code now gracefully handles such scenarios by raising a ValueError, providing clearer feedback when a requested LoRA adapter cannot be located.

Highlights

  • Error Handling for LoRA Fetching: The find_lora_by_tenant and find_lora methods in multi_lora.py have been updated to explicitly check if a LoRA adapter is found. If no adapter matches the criteria, a ValueError is now raised with a descriptive message, preventing potential IndexError exceptions.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Changelog
  • src/twinkle/model/multi_lora.py
    • Modified find_lora_by_tenant to raise ValueError if no LoRA is found.
    • Modified find_lora to raise ValueError if no LoRA is found.
Activity
  • No human activity has been recorded on this pull request yet.
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.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes a potential IndexError in find_lora_by_tenant and find_lora by checking if a matching lora exists before trying to access it. The change is good and improves robustness. I've added a couple of suggestions to refactor the implementation for better efficiency and readability by avoiding the creation of intermediate lists.

Comment on lines +132 to +136
_loras = [_lora for _lora in self.loras if _lora.tenant_adapter_name == tenant_adapter_name]
if len(_loras) > 0:
return _loras[0]
else:
raise ValueError(f'No lora found for tenant {tenant_adapter_name}')
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

While this correctly fixes the potential IndexError, it can be made more efficient. Instead of creating a new list of all matching loras just to get the first one, you can iterate through self.loras and return the first match found. This avoids creating an intermediate list and stops iteration as soon as a match is found.

        for _lora in self.loras:
            if _lora.tenant_adapter_name == tenant_adapter_name:
                return _lora
        raise ValueError(f'No lora found for tenant {tenant_adapter_name}')

Comment on lines +139 to +143
_loras = [_lora for _lora in self.loras if _lora.adapter_name == adapter_name]
if len(_loras) > 0:
return _loras[0]
else:
raise ValueError(f'No lora found for real adapter_name {adapter_name}')
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

medium

Similar to my previous comment, this implementation can be made more efficient. Iterating to find the first match is preferable to building a list of all matches, especially since only the first element is used.

        for _lora in self.loras:
            if _lora.adapter_name == adapter_name:
                return _lora
        raise ValueError(f'No lora found for real adapter_name {adapter_name}')

@tastelikefeet tastelikefeet merged commit b7ed744 into modelscope:main Feb 14, 2026
2 of 3 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant