Skip to content

fix(etl): exclude technique-jsonb fields from metric auto-capture - #8

Merged
aistackdev merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
fix/non-metric-keys-techniques
May 26, 2026
Merged

fix(etl): exclude technique-jsonb fields from metric auto-capture#8
aistackdev merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
fix/non-metric-keys-techniques

Conversation

@aistackdev

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

The two new gemma4 ingests produced WARN lines like:

```
[WARN] auto-captured unexpected metric 'max_num_batched_tokens'
[WARN] auto-captured unexpected metric 'num_speculative_tokens'
```

`parseTechniques` correctly routes these fields into `BenchmarkParams.techniques`, but the metric-auto-capture loop in `benchmark-mapper.ts` also picked them up because they weren't in `NON_METRIC_KEYS`. Result: same value stored in both `techniques` and `metrics` jsonb columns.

Fix: add the four technique-jsonb keys to `NON_METRIC_KEYS` so they're routed exclusively into techniques.

Test plan

  • `pnpm typecheck` clean
  • Post-merge re-ingest: the WARN lines disappear; `metrics` JSONB no longer contains the redundant `max_num_batched_tokens`/`num_speculative_tokens` keys.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

`max_num_batched_tokens` and `num_speculative_tokens` are TECHNIQUE_KEYS
extracted into BenchmarkParams.techniques by parseTechniques. But they
weren't in NON_METRIC_KEYS, so benchmark-mapper's metrics loop ALSO
captured them as numeric metrics, producing:

  [WARN] auto-captured unexpected metric 'max_num_batched_tokens'
         — add to METRIC_KEYS … or NON_METRIC_KEYS

Net effect: same value in both `techniques` and `metrics` JSONB columns.
Wasted space and a confusing warning.

Add all technique-flag artifact keys to NON_METRIC_KEYS so they live
only in techniques.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@aistackdev
aistackdev merged commit 584da70 into master May 26, 2026
3 of 9 checks passed
@aistackdev
aistackdev deleted the fix/non-metric-keys-techniques branch May 26, 2026 09:21
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