Eric J Ma's Website

Outlines: LLM prompt management and more

written by Eric J. Ma on 2023-06-16 | tags: outlines python coding bot ghostwriting docstrings unit tests prompt management composable prompts llamabot gpt-4 code generation ui design jinja2 clean code

Today, I explored the outlines library and built a coding bot that ghostwrites code, docstrings, and tests! 🤖 With clean prompt design, I was able to create a compact and efficient Python program. The best part? It's super easy to map this to a user interface! 🎉 Check out how I did it and learn about the benefits of using outlines for prompt management. 😄

Outlines

I recently picked up on the library outlines by Normal Computing. Reading the README, it could have great potential in prompt management - the ability to concisely manage prompts in a composable fashion.

For example, I decided to build a coding bot - not just the Copilot-esque autocomplete, but one that could ghostwrite code with me. As an experiment, I installed the outlines library and created a codingbot that would do three things: ghostwrite code, write docstrings, and write tests. With these three well-defined tasks on hand, I wrote the code + prompts needed to accomplish this task.

Here is what the bot and the prompts looked like.

Firstly, the bot's definition:

from llamabot.bot.simplebot import SimpleBot

codebot = SimpleBot(
    """You are a Python programming expert.

You provide suggestions to programmers in Python.

Only return code, do not put Markdown syntax in your output.
Do not explain your code, only provide code.

Code should have type hints.
Ensure that the implementation of the function results in the simplest type hints possible.

Ensure that within any errors raised, the error message is actionable
and informs the user what they need to do to fix the error.
Make sure the error message is prescriptive,
possibly even more verbose than necessary,
and includes verbiage such as "please do X" or "please do not do Y".

If you are called to suggest docstrings, you always use the sphinx-style docstrings.

If you are asked to write tests, prefer the use of Hypothesis to generate property-based tests.
Only suggest example-based tests if it is not possible to generate property-based tests.
For each test, please write a docstring that explains what the test is testing.
For test function style, use pytest-style test functions and not Unittest-style test classes.
"""
)

I clearly had to do some iteration on the prompt, and I used llamabot's PromptRecorder to help with that.

Then, the prompt for ghostwriting the code:

import outlines.text as text

@text.prompt
def ghostwriter(desired_functionality):
    """I would like to accomplish the following.

    {{ desired_functionality }}

    How do I write the code for this? Please return only the code without explaining it.

    Ensure that there are type hints in the function.
    """

Next up, the docstring writer:

@text.prompt
def docstring(code):
    """Please help me write docstrings for the following code.

    Ensure that you use Markdown Python block(s) to showcase how the code should be used.
    The code usage example should be before the parameter/argument documentation.
    Do not use sphinx-style directives,
    but instead use Markdown-style triple back-ticks to house the code block.

    Do not include :type: or :rtype: in the docstring
    as they should be covered by the type hints.

    {{ code }}
    """

And finally, the unit test code writer:

@text.prompt
def tests(code):
    """Please help me write unit tests for the following code.

    {{ code }}
    """

With those, I tried the following code ghostwriting request:

output = codebot(
    ghostwriter(
        """I need a function that accepts a URL and returns the contents of the URL as a string.

It should validate that the URL is from GitHub
and that it is a valid GitHub pull request URL.
It should also raise an error if the URL does not return a 200 status code.
If the URL is a valid PR URL and does not end with .diff,
then it should append .diff to the URL before retrieving the contents.
"""
    )
)

This is what I got back:

import requests
from typing import Union
from urllib.parse import urlparse


def get_pr_contents(url: str) -> str:
    parsed_url = urlparse(url)

    if parsed_url.netloc != "github.com":
        raise ValueError("Please provide a valid GitHub URL.")

    path_parts = parsed_url.path.split("/")
    if len(path_parts) < 5 or path_parts[3] != "pull":
        raise ValueError("Please provide a valid GitHub pull request URL.")

    if not url.endswith(".diff"):
        url += ".diff"

    response = requests.get(url)

    if response.status_code != 200:
        raise ValueError("The URL did not return a 200 status code. Please check the URL and try again.")

    return response.text

On being satisfied with the correctness of the function, I then asked the bot to add docstrings into the mix:

output_with_docstrings = codebot(docstring(output))

This gives me:

def get_pr_contents(url: str) -> str:
    """
    Fetches the contents of a GitHub pull request as a diff.

    Example usage:

    ```python
    pr_url = "https://github.com/owner/repo/pull/42"
    pr_contents = get_pr_contents(pr_url)
    print(pr_contents)
    ```

    :param url: The URL of the GitHub pull request.
    :returns: The contents of the pull request as a diff.
    :raises ValueError: If the provided URL is not a valid GitHub URL or a valid GitHub pull request URL.
    :raises ValueError: If the URL did not return a 200 status code.
    """
    parsed_url = urlparse(url)

    if parsed_url.netloc != "github.com":
        raise ValueError("Please provide a valid GitHub URL.")

    path_parts = parsed_url.path.split("/")
    if len(path_parts) < 5 or path_parts[3] != "pull":
        raise ValueError("Please provide a valid GitHub pull request URL.")

    if not url.endswith(".diff"):
        url += ".diff"

    response = requests.get(url)

    if response.status_code != 200:
        raise ValueError("The URL did not return a 200 status code. Please check the URL and try again.")

    return response.text

Finally, we can do a test ghostwriter:

unit_test_output = codebot(tests(output))

And that gives:

import pytest
from hypothesis import given, strategies as st

from your_module import get_pr_contents


@given(url=st.text())
def test_get_pr_contents_invalid_url(url: str) -> None:
    """
    Test that get_pr_contents raises a ValueError when given an invalid GitHub URL.
    """
    with pytest.raises(ValueError, match="Please provide a valid GitHub URL."):
        get_pr_contents(url)


@given(url=st.text())
def test_get_pr_contents_invalid_pr_url(url: str) -> None:
    """
    Test that get_pr_contents raises a ValueError when given an invalid GitHub pull request URL.
    """
    url = f"https://github.com/{url}"
    with pytest.raises(ValueError, match="Please provide a valid GitHub pull request URL."):
        get_pr_contents(url)


def test_get_pr_contents_non_200_status_code() -> None:
    """
    Test that get_pr_contents raises a ValueError when the URL does not return a 200 status code.
    """
    url = "https://github.com/invalid/repo/pull/1.diff"
    with pytest.raises(ValueError, match="The URL did not return a 200 status code. Please check the URL and try again."):
        get_pr_contents(url)


def test_get_pr_contents_valid_url() -> None:
    """
    Test that get_pr_contents returns the correct content when given a valid GitHub pull request URL.
    """
    url = "https://github.com/valid/repo/pull/1"
    expected_content = "some_content"

    with requests_mock.Mocker() as m:
        m.get(url + ".diff", text=expected_content)
        content = get_pr_contents(url)

    assert content == expected_content

While I showed the outputs of GPT-4, those were not this exercise's main points. The thing I really wanted to highlight here is the compactness of the code involved:

output = codebot(
    ghostwriter(
        """I need a function that accepts a URL and returns the contents of the URL as a string.

It should validate that the URL is from GitHub
and that it is a valid GitHub pull request URL.
It should also raise an error if the URL does not return a 200 status code.
If the URL is a valid PR URL and does not end with .diff,
then it should append .diff to the URL before retrieving the contents.
"""
    )
)

output_with_docstrings = codebot(docstring(output))
unit_test_output = codebot(tests(output))

If you think about it, all I've done in the ghostwriter prompt is provide a natural language-based, high-level design of the kind of code that I need, delving into sufficient detail when necessary. With good prompt design, we can, with very high probability, obtain outputs that can be directly fed into the docstring() and tests() functions. And because of the organization of this code, one can easily map it 1-to-1 with a possible user interface:

  • The input to ghostwriter is a text area-style box;
  • The outputs of each of ghostwriter, docstring and tests is a Markdown display box.
  • The user experience here could be sampling multiple options from the ghostwriter and picking the one that feels the most correct, followed by auto-generating docstrings and tests in parallel.

Having a clean separation of concerns makes building the UI much easier!

Couldn't we have used strings and string interpolation in functions instead?

We could! Here is an example of how we might have accomplished prompt templating using f-strings, for example:

def docstring(code):
    prompt = f"""Please help me write docstrings for the following code.

    Ensure that you use Markdown Python block(s) to showcase how the code should be used.
    The code usage example should be before the parameter/argument documentation.
    Do not use sphinx-style directives,
    but instead use Markdown-style triple back-ticks to house the code block.

    Do not include :type: or :rtype: in the docstring
    as they should be covered by the type hints.

    {code}
    """
    return prompt

This could get tricky, however, if we have special syntax in the prompt that requires curly braces. If code also includes a docstring, there is no way of escaping those characters from the multi-line string.

By contrast, using Jinja2 templating and the @text.prompt decorator to perform the docstring transformation dynamically, we can inject arbitrary strings into the prompt without worrying about escaping any characters. This is where the outlines package rescues the day.

What can we learn from this exercise?

The biggest one is of encapsulating a prompt in a Python function. Though it's doable without the use of outlines, the @text.prompt decorator enables interpolation without worrying about tricky edge cases.

Apart from that, I also wanted to emphasize how the syntax here is quite enabling! Encapsulating natural language instructions in a function makes for very compact Python programs.
Cite this blog post: 
@article{
    ericmjl-2023-outlines-more,
    author = {Eric J. Ma},
    title = {Outlines: LLM prompt management and more},
    year = {2023},
    month = {06},
    day = {16},
    howpublished = {\url{https://ericmjl.github.io}},
    journal = {Eric J. Ma's Blog},
    url = {https://ericmjl.github.io/blog/2023/6/16/outlines-llm-prompt-management-and-more},
}

I send out a newsletter with tips and tools for data scientists. Come check it out at Substack.

If you would like to sponsor the coffee that goes into making my posts, please consider GitHub Sponsors!

Finally, I do free 30-minute GenAI strategy calls for teams that are looking to leverage GenAI for maximum impact. Consider booking a call on Calendly if you're interested!