chore: Update the context for date extraction + bug fixes

[paul-paliychuk]

🚀	This description was created by Ellipsis for commit 66df94a

Summary:

Updated date extraction context and fixed edge handling bugs in core files.

Key points:

• Updated date extraction context and fixed edge handling bugs in core/graphiti.py, core/prompts/extract_edge_dates.py, and core/utils/maintenance/temporal_operations.py.
• Removed extract_node_edge_node_triplet from core/graphiti.py and core/utils/maintenance/temporal_operations.py.
• Updated extract_edge_dates in core/utils/maintenance/temporal_operations.py to use EntityEdge directly.
• Simplified context in v1 function in core/prompts/extract_edge_dates.py by removing source and target nodes.
• Modified add_episode in core/graphiti.py to handle edge expiration and date extraction more efficiently.
• Minor cleanup in runner.py by removing a commented-out line.

---

Generated with ❤️ by ellipsis.dev

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 459afb5 in 30 seconds

More details

• Looked at 103 lines of code in 4 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 4 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. core/graphiti.py:41

• Draft comment:
  Removed unused import extract_node_edge_node_triplet. This is a good cleanup step.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The removal of extract_node_edge_node_triplet from imports in graphiti.py is correct since it's no longer used in the code.

2. core/graphiti.py:178

• Draft comment:
  Simplified logic by directly using existing_edges + deduped_edges for edges_to_save. This is a good improvement.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The change in add_episode method to use existing_edges + deduped_edges directly for edges_to_save is correct and simplifies the logic.

3. core/prompts/extract_edge_dates.py:24

• Draft comment:
  Removed source_node and target_node from the prompt context. This aligns with the updated function signature and context usage.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The removal of source_node and target_node from the prompt in extract_edge_dates.py is consistent with the changes in temporal_operations.py.

4. core/utils/maintenance/temporal_operations.py:126

• Draft comment:
  Updated extract_edge_dates to use EntityEdge directly instead of NodeEdgeNodeTriplet. This change is consistent with the updated logic.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 0%
  The extract_edge_dates function no longer uses NodeEdgeNodeTriplet, which is consistent with the changes in the codebase.

Workflow ID: wflow_keh0zdzqDoEcZrUR

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 66df94a in 19 seconds

More details

• Looked at 14 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. core/utils/maintenance/temporal_operations.py:84

• Draft comment:
  Consider using logger.debug instead of removing the logger statements if they were used for debugging purposes. This helps in maintaining useful logs without cluttering production logs.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 50%
  The logger statements for debugging have been removed. If these were used for debugging purposes, consider using a debug level instead of info to avoid cluttering logs in production.

2. core/utils/maintenance/temporal_operations.py:84

• Draft comment:
  Avoid logging sensitive data. Ensure that the context being logged does not contain sensitive information.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment is not about a change made in the diff, as the logging line it refers to was removed. Additionally, the issue it raises is already resolved by the removal of the logging line. Therefore, the comment should be removed.
  I might be missing the context of whether the 'context' variable still contains sensitive data that is logged elsewhere, but the comment is specifically about a removed line.
  The comment is specifically about a removed line, so it should be removed regardless of other potential issues.
  The comment should be removed because it is not about a change made in the diff and the issue it raises is already resolved.

Workflow ID: wflow_o3sCGHVIVNtsROsS

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.