Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[TextAnalytics] Implemented ExtractiveSummarization input #22791

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jul 22, 2021

Conversation

kinelski
Copy link
Member

Part of #22773.

@kinelski kinelski added the Client This issue points to a problem in the data-plane of the library. label Jul 22, 2021
@kinelski kinelski self-assigned this Jul 22, 2021
@kinelski kinelski changed the base branch from main to feature/textanalytics/summarization July 22, 2021 14:20
/// If set, specifies the order in which the extracted sentences will be returned in the result. Use
/// <see cref="SummarySentencesOrder.Offset"/> to keep the original order in which the sentences appear
/// in the input. Use <see cref="SummarySentencesOrder.Rank"/> to order them according to their relevance
/// to the text input, as decided by the service. Defaults to <see cref="SummarySentencesOrder.Offset"/>.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
/// to the text input, as decided by the service. Defaults to <see cref="SummarySentencesOrder.Offset"/>.
/// to the document input, as decided by the service. Defaults to <see cref="SummarySentencesOrder.Offset"/>.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Do you think we should do the default in a remarks?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't do it in the remarks in other properties. For example, in other actions:

        /// <summary>
        /// The default value of this property is 'false'. This means, Text Analytics service logs your input text for 48 hours,
        /// solely to allow for troubleshooting issues.
        /// Setting this property to true, disables input logging and may limit our ability to investigate issues that occur.
        /// <para>
        /// Please see Cognitive Services Compliance and Privacy notes at <see href="https://aka.ms/cs-compliance"/> for additional details,
        /// and Microsoft Responsible AI principles at <see href="https://www.microsoft.com/ai/responsible-ai"/>.
        /// </para>
        /// </summary>
        /// <remarks>
        /// This property only applies for <see cref="TextAnalyticsClientOptions.ServiceVersion.V3_1"/> and up.
        /// </remarks>
        public bool? DisableServiceLogs { get; set; }

So I put it in the summary section for consistency.

Copy link
Member

@kristapratico kristapratico left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

#region Extract summary

[Test]
public void AnalyzeOperationExtractsSummaryWithTwoActions()
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This would be a live test, so I can only add it when the output side is implemented. Do you have tests for long documents in all endpoints in JS or this is something added only for extractive text summarization?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I can only add it when the output side is implemented.

To clarify, you're saying processing the response received from the service is not yet implement in the SDK? that is fine if so.

The nature of the input document depends on the action you want to apply to it so in this case I think a long document is needed to make sure we get a useful summary.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

To clarify, you're saying processing the response received from the service is not yet implement in the SDK?

Correct. We just have the "sending" part implemented in this PR.

Copy link
Member

@deyaaeldeen deyaaeldeen left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The implementation looks good. I left one comment about adding a test case.

@check-enforcer
Copy link

This pull request is protected by Check Enforcer.

What is Check Enforcer?

Check Enforcer helps ensure all pull requests are covered by at least one check-run (typically an Azure Pipeline). When all check-runs associated with this pull request pass then Check Enforcer itself will pass.

Why am I getting this message?

You are getting this message because Check Enforcer did not detect any check-runs being associated with this pull request within five minutes. This may indicate that your pull request is not covered by any pipelines and so Check Enforcer is correctly blocking the pull request being merged.

What should I do now?

If the check-enforcer check-run is not passing and all other check-runs associated with this PR are passing (excluding license-cla) then you could try telling Check Enforcer to evaluate your pull request again. You can do this by adding a comment to this pull request as follows:
/check-enforcer evaluate
Typically evaulation only takes a few seconds. If you know that your pull request is not covered by a pipeline and this is expected you can override Check Enforcer using the following command:
/check-enforcer override
Note that using the override command triggers alerts so that follow-up investigations can occur (PRs still need to be approved as normal).

What if I am onboarding a new service?

Often, new services do not have validation pipelines associated with them. In order to bootstrap pipelines for a new service, please perform following steps:

For data-plane/track 2 SDKs Issue the following command as a pull request comment:

/azp run prepare-pipelines
This will run a pipeline that analyzes the source tree and creates the pipelines necessary to build and validate your pull request. Once the pipeline has been created you can trigger the pipeline using the following comment:
/azp run net - [service] - ci

For track 1 management-plane SDKs

Please open a separate PR and to your service SDK path in this file. Once that PR has been merged, you can re-run the pipeline to trigger the verification.

@kinelski kinelski merged commit 7b0afd5 into Azure:feature/textanalytics/summarization Jul 22, 2021
@kinelski kinelski deleted the ta-input branch July 22, 2021 21:10
kinelski added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 4, 2021
…23109)

* [TextAnalytics] Generating code from 3.2-preview.1 swagger (#22774)

* [TextAnalytics] Implemented ExtractiveSummarization input (#22791)

Co-authored-by: Mariana Rios Flores <[email protected]>

* [TextAnalytics] Added DisableServiceLogs property to ExtractSummaryAction (#22803)

* [TextAnalytics] Remaining Extractive Text Summarization implementation work (#22841)

Co-authored-by: Deyaaeldeen Almahallawi <[email protected]>

* [TextAnalytics] Added model factory for extractive summarization models (#22873)

* [TextAnalytics] SummarySentece is now a struct (#22915)

* [TextAnalytics] Recording old tests with service version 3.2-preview.1 (#23078)

* [TextAnalytics] Added sample for Extractive Text Summarization (#23097)

Co-authored-by: Mariana Rios Flores <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Deyaaeldeen Almahallawi <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Client This issue points to a problem in the data-plane of the library. Cognitive - Text Analytics
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants