{"record":{"id":"c014f2f1f9f54746","repo":"vxcontrol/pentagi","slug":"edit-file-was-called-but-did-not-produce-the-reque","errorCode":null,"errorMessage":"edit_file was called but did not produce the requested change","messagePattern":"edit_file was called but did not produce the requested change","errorType":"exception","errorClass":null,"httpStatus":null,"severity":"warning","filePath":"backend/pkg/providers/tester/file_edit.go","lineNumber":212,"sourceCode":"\t\tType:    f.Type(),\n\t\tGroup:   f.Group(),\n\t\tLatency: latency,\n\t}\n\n\tif _, ok := response.(*llms.ContentResponse); !ok {\n\t\tresult.Error = fmt.Errorf(\"expected *llms.ContentResponse, got %T\", response)\n\t\treturn result\n\t}\n\n\tswitch {\n\tcase f.failure != \"\":\n\t\tresult.Error = fmt.Errorf(\"%s\", f.failure)\n\tcase !f.readFileSeen:\n\t\tresult.Error = fmt.Errorf(\"model never called the %q tool\", tools.FileToolName)\n\tcase !f.editFileSeen:\n\t\tresult.Error = fmt.Errorf(\"model called read_file but never followed up with edit_file\")\n\tcase !f.editApplied:\n\t\tresult.Error = fmt.Errorf(\"edit_file was called but did not produce the requested change\")\n\tdefault:\n\t\tresult.Success = true\n\t}\n\n\treturn result\n}\n\n// firstFileToolCall returns the first tool call in resp targeting PentAGI's\n// file tool (tools.FileToolName) along with its decoded arguments.\nfunc firstFileToolCall(resp *llms.ContentResponse) (llms.ToolCall, map[string]any, bool) {\n\tfor _, choice := range resp.Choices {\n\t\tfor _, call := range choice.ToolCalls {\n\t\t\tif call.FunctionCall == nil || call.FunctionCall.Name != tools.FileToolName {\n\t\t\t\tcontinue\n\t\t\t}\n\n\t\t\tvar args map[string]any\n\t\t\tif err := json.Unmarshal([]byte(call.FunctionCall.Arguments), &args); err != nil {","sourceCodeStart":194,"sourceCodeEnd":230,"githubUrl":"https://github.com/vxcontrol/pentagi/blob/ea665308baaff015b226f308438a68d929d0f29b/backend/pkg/providers/tester/file_edit.go#L194-L230","documentation":"This error comes from the file-edit integration test case in the provider tester. The test drives the model through a scripted tool exchange: the model must call read_file on a known path, then call edit_file with a unified diff that, when applied, replaces an old line with a new line. The error means the model DID call edit_file, but the resulting content failed the verification check — either ApplyUnifiedDiff failed to produce output containing the expected new line, the old line was still present, or the diff targeted the wrong path/produced no change.","triggerScenarios":"The model invokes the file tool with name edit_file against FileEditTestPath, but the diff it generates does not transform FileEditTestContent into content containing FileEditTestNewLine and lacking FileEditTestOldLine (f.editApplied stays false, file_edit.go:154-157), so Execute() at file_edit.go:212 reports the failure. Also triggered when the diff applies but is a no-op or only partially matches the context lines.","commonSituations":"Weaker models emitting malformed or approximate unified diff hunks (wrong context lines, wrong line numbers); models editing a differently-cased or differently-formatted copy of the target line; models producing a diff for a different file path; provider updates (new model versions) that regress tool-calling diff fidelity.","solutions":["Re-run the test — LLM diff generation is nondeterministic, a flaky model may pass on retry.","Use a stronger model for the agent under test; diff generation quality correlates strongly with model capability.","Check f.failure / the tool-exchange log (appendToolExchange records 'edit_file's diff applied but did not produce ...') to see the exact resulting content the diff produced.","Verify the prompt/expected-line constants (FileEditTestOldLine / FileEditTestNewLine) are unambiguous so the diff has exactly one valid form.","Improve the edit_file tool prompt/description shown to the model so diff format expectations are explicit."],"exampleFix":"// before (typical failing model output: fuzzy replacement instead of a unified diff)\n{\"name\":\"edit_file\",\"arguments\":{\"path\":\"/test/file.txt\",\"diff\":\"replace old line with new line\"}}\n// after (correct unified diff the test can apply)\n{\"name\":\"edit_file\",\"arguments\":{\"path\":\"/test/file.txt\",\"diff\":\"--- a/file.txt\\n+++ b/file.txt\\n@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@\\n-old line\\n+new line\"}}","handlingStrategy":"try-catch","validationCode":"// before running the test, confirm the expected transformation is applyable\nnewContent, _, err := tools.ApplyUnifiedDiff(FileEditTestContent, modelDiff)\nif err == nil && strings.Contains(newContent, FileEditTestNewLine) && !strings.Contains(newContent, FileEditTestOldLine) {\n    // diff is valid, safe to run the test case\n}","typeGuard":"func diffProducesExpectedChange(oldContent, diff, wantLine, staleLine string) bool {\n    newContent, _, err := tools.ApplyUnifiedDiff(oldContent, diff)\n    return err == nil && strings.Contains(newContent, wantLine) && !strings.Contains(newContent, staleLine)\n}","tryCatchPattern":"result := testCase.Execute(response, latency)\nif result.Error != nil {\n    if strings.Contains(result.Error.Error(), \"did not produce the requested change\") {\n        log.Printf(\"model diff invalid, retrying with stronger model: %v\", result.Error)\n        result = rerunWithModel(ctx, strongerModel)\n    }\n}","preventionTips":["Use models with proven unified-diff tool-calling ability for file-edit tests","Inspect f.failure and the recorded tool exchanges for the exact diff the model emitted","Keep the target line unique in FileEditTestContent so a minimal diff has one valid form","Retry flaky cases before declaring a provider regression","Pin and re-baseline expectations when switching model versions"],"tags":["llm","testing","tool-calling","diff"],"backgroundTag":"llm-tool-call-verification-failed","analyzedSha":"ea665308baaff015b226f308438a68d929d0f29b","analyzedAt":"2026-09-01T14:16:31.421Z","contentChangedAt":null,"schemaVersion":2},"datasetVersion":"2026-09-08T10:18:20.063Z"}