Integrate aider to solve complex issues

[VolkerH]

Hi @haesleinhuepf,

I like the idea of interacting with the code base through issues like here (either Github or even better Gitlab) and that any suggested changes are created as MR.
I know you have probably seen https://aider.chat/ which uses different LLMs for code architect or implementer/editor. As far as I played with it, aider also seems to break down more complex changes in to multiple commits. I think, this sort of approach (maybe using aider as backend) would be good for gitbob.

git-bob comment

[VolkerH]

git-bob solve

[github-actions]

^{This message was generated by git-bob (version: 0.9.2, model: gpt-4o-2024-08-06, log), an experimental AI-based assistant. It can make mistakes and has limitations. Check its messages carefully.}

Hi @VolkerH,

thanks for reaching out! Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to respond to you directly.
I need approval from a person who has access.

Best,
git-bob

[VolkerH]

Can people like me trigger the Github Actions of your repo with your OpenAI key?

Ah, I just saw that you thought of that.

[haesleinhuepf]

I also thought of integration with aider, see:

• Run aider within github CI instead of locally Aider-AI/aider#1022

How much experience do you have with aider @VolkerH ? I heard that it's quite expensive in use... that's why I was hesitant yet in implementing this bridge...

[VolkerH]

Not much first-hand experience.
I did give it a try for about an hour or so. Also made the mistake of adding too many files as context which can get expensive as it is lots of tokens.

I just like the approach of having the architect that breaks the think down into smaller steps, the implementer that creates a commit for each of those steps and thought aider is already implementing this. (I am not sure how well they are doing this).

As a user interface, I would think the approach via Gitlab/hub is superior to CLI because:

• you not only have a commit history, you also have the whole specification (initial prompt) and conversation with the LLM in your history
• using the existing review functionality in Gitlab/hub it is much more natural to point out at which particular sections you want changes from the LLM.

I envisage a workflow like:

• Create the issue in which you explain the use case and background information, maybe including some images for a multi-modal LLM
• Provide specifications in an issue comment
• [Optional] Outline your own idea of the main steps/architecture
• Have a conversation with git-bob about the architecture spanning several isse comments.
• Once the conversation has narrowed it down to reasonable steps, ask git-bob to implement these steps
• git-bob then makes a branch and creates commits step-by-step, opens a Pull Request.
• user uses the PR review tools to comment and ask for changes
• user can pull branch make final edits, try out cod, push
• iterate over last steps

I see some of this conversation implemented in aider, some in git-bob. For me, both are still proofs-of-concept that I would have trouble using productively, but I can see this becoming super-useful in a couple of years

[haesleinhuepf]

I just like the approach of having the architect that breaks the think down into smaller steps, the implementer that creates a commit for each of those steps and thought aider is already implementing this. (I am not sure how well they are doing this).

git-bob also does that. I think the approach is inspired by github copilot workflows.

• Have a conversation with git-bob about the architecture spanning several isse comments.
• Once the conversation has narrowed it down to reasonable steps, ask git-bob to implement these steps

That's exactly how git-bob works :-)
See #378

For me, both are still proofs-of-concept

Exactly. I called it "functional proof of concept" in the preprint. And I'm using it in some project for simple tasks. Also in my opinion we need to work like this to move the technology forward.

[VolkerH]

Ah. I hadn't looked at the pre-print. That spells out everything already, in particular this:

2. Discussions with git-bob and resulting code-modifications
   are conserved in an online-platform that others can read and
   follow, making the interaction with the AI-assistant fully
   transparent,

... which is what I think is really the advantage over aider, or editor integrations such as cursor.ai or continue.dev.
Cool.

Now you could create a fancy website for git-bob and try to rake in a few million $$ venture capital like cursor or continue ...

[haesleinhuepf]

which is what I think is really the advantage over aider, or editor integrations such as cursor.ai or continue.dev.
Cool.

I hope the reviewers agree. 🤞
And they will ask for gitlab suppprt as well. So thanks for opening the other issue. The discussion there is also a nice example 🌞