Allow labelsGap to be a number (constant) or array (variable gaps)

[ilizaran]

User description

This enhancement allows field blocks to have different spacing between
consecutive field labels, providing more flexibility in OMR template
configuration for non-uniform layouts.

---

PR Type

Enhancement

---

Description

• Support labelsGap as number or array for flexible field spacing

• Normalize single number to repeated list in field block setup

• Validate array length matches expected gaps count

• Update dimension calculation to sum variable gaps

• Modify bubble grid generation to use indexed gaps

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["labelsGap input<br/>number or array"] --> B["Normalize to list<br/>in setup_field_block"]
  B --> C["Validate array length<br/>matches fieldLabels-1"]
  C --> D["Calculate total gaps<br/>for dimensions"]
  D --> E["Apply indexed gaps<br/>in bubble grid"]

Loading

File Walkthrough

	Relevant files
Configuration changes	template_schema.py Schema support for variable labelsGap                                        src/schemas/template_schema.py Changed labelsGap schema from single positive_number to oneOf allowing both number and array Added array validation requiring length equal to len(fieldLabels) - 1 Added descriptive text for both constant and variable gap modes +11/-1
Enhancement	template.py Implement variable gaps logic in field block                          src/template.py Added normalization logic to convert single number to repeated list in setup_field_block Added validation to ensure array length matches expected gaps count Modified calculate_block_dimensions to sum all gaps instead of multiplication Updated generate_bubble_grid to use indexed gaps from the list for each label transition +19/-3

---

[qodo-free-for-open-source-projects]

PR Compliance Guide 🔍

Below is a summary of compliance checks for this PR:

Security Compliance
🟢	No security concerns identified No security vulnerabilities detected by AI analysis. Human verification advised for critical code.
Ticket Compliance
⚪	🎫 No ticket provided Create ticket/issue
Codebase Duplication Compliance
⚪	Codebase context is not defined Follow the guide to enable codebase context checks.
Custom Compliance
🟢	Generic: Comprehensive Audit Trails Objective: To create a detailed and reliable record of critical system actions for security analysis and compliance. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Meaningful Naming and Self-Documenting Code Objective: Ensure all identifiers clearly express their purpose and intent, making code self-documenting Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Error Handling Objective: To prevent the leakage of sensitive system information through error messages while providing sufficient detail for internal debugging. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Secure Logging Practices Objective: To ensure logs are useful for debugging and auditing without exposing sensitive information like PII, PHI, or cardholder data. Status: Passed Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
⚪	Generic: Robust Error Handling and Edge Case Management Objective: Ensure comprehensive error handling that provides meaningful context and graceful degradation Status: Empty list edge case: When num_labels is 1 or less, labels_gap becomes an empty list which may cause issues in downstream calculations if not properly handled. Referred Code if isinstance(labels_gap, (int, float)): # If it's a single number, create a list with that value repeated num_labels = len(self.parsed_field_labels) labels_gap = [labels_gap] * (num_labels - 1) if num_labels > 1 else [] Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
	Generic: Security-First Input Validation and Data Handling Objective: Ensure all data inputs are validated, sanitized, and handled securely to prevent vulnerabilities Status: Type validation missing: The normalization logic checks isinstance(labels_gap, (int, float)) and isinstance(labels_gap, list) but does not handle cases where labels_gap might be of an unexpected type. Referred Code if isinstance(labels_gap, (int, float)): # If it's a single number, create a list with that value repeated num_labels = len(self.parsed_field_labels) labels_gap = [labels_gap] * (num_labels - 1) if num_labels > 1 else [] elif isinstance(labels_gap, list): # Validate that the list length matches the expected number of gaps expected_gaps = len(self.parsed_field_labels) - 1 if len(labels_gap) != expected_gaps: raise Exception( f"labelsGap array length ({len(labels_gap)}) must equal len(fieldLabels) - 1 ({expected_gaps}) for field block '{self.name}'" ) Learn more about managing compliance generic rules or creating your own custom rules
Update

Compliance status legend

🟢 - Fully Compliant
🟡 - Partial Compliant
🔴 - Not Compliant
⚪ - Requires Further Human Verification
🏷️ - Compliance label

[qodo-free-for-open-source-projects]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
Possible issue	✅ Fix incorrect block dimension calculation Suggestion Impact: The commit directly implements the suggested fix by adding the multiplication of len(self.parsed_field_labels) with bubble_dimensions[_v] to correctly account for all bubbles' dimensions code diff: fields_dimension = int( - total_labels_gap + bubble_dimensions[_v] + total_labels_gap + len(self.parsed_field_labels) * bubble_dimensions[_v] Correct the fields_dimension calculation to account for the dimensions of all bubbles, not just one, by multiplying bubble_dimensions[_v] by the number of field labels. src/template.py [291-293] fields_dimension = int( - labels_gap * (len(self.parsed_field_labels) - 1) + bubble_dimensions[_v] + total_labels_gap + + len(self.parsed_field_labels) * bubble_dimensions[_v] ) [Suggestion processed] Suggestion importance[1-10]: 9 __ Why: The suggestion correctly identifies a bug in the PR's logic for calculating fields_dimension, which only accounts for one bubble's dimension instead of all of them, potentially leading to incorrect block dimension calculations.	High
Update

[Udayraj123]

please make this PR brief and to the point with minimal diffs