fix: handle empty metadata in get_global_func_metadata

[guan404ming]

Related Issue

Fixes #208

Why

Python-registered global functions without metadata cause JSONDecodeError when get_global_func_metadata() is called because the FFI returns an empty string which json.loads() cannot parse.

How

• Check for empty metadata string before JSON parsing
• Return empty dict for functions without metadata
• Add regression test for Python functions without metadata

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @guan404ming, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves an issue where calling get_global_func_metadata() on Python-registered global functions without metadata would lead to a JSONDecodeError. The fix gracefully handles cases where the FFI returns an empty string for missing metadata, ensuring that an empty dictionary is returned instead of raising an error. This improves the robustness of metadata retrieval for global functions.

Highlights

• Error Handling: Implemented a check for empty metadata strings before attempting JSON parsing in get_global_func_metadata to prevent JSONDecodeError.
• Return Value Consistency: Ensured that get_global_func_metadata now returns an empty dictionary ({}) for functions that do not have associated metadata, providing a consistent and expected output.
• Regression Test: Added a new test case (test_metadata_empty_for_python_func) to specifically verify the correct behavior when retrieving metadata for Python-registered functions that lack metadata.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request addresses a JSONDecodeError that occurs when retrieving metadata for a Python-registered global function that has no metadata. The fix correctly handles the case where the FFI returns an empty string by returning an empty dictionary, preventing the error. A regression test has been added to verify this fix. The changes look good, but I have a suggestion to make the new test more robust.