标签:#ha
找到 11261 篇相关文章
DuckPGQ – A DuckDB community extension for graph workloads
Claude Opus 5
https://www.anthropic.com/claude-opus-5-system-card
India’s move against Jack Dorsey’s Bitchat sparks legal debate
The offline messaging app surged in popularity in India amid protests in New Delhi.
JEP 541: Deprecate the macOS/x64 Port for Removal
Don't Take the Black Pill [video]
The Origins of Modern Mathematics in Russia
Online Historical Encyclopaedia of Programming Languages
Cloning Mifare Classic Cards via Proxmark3
The rise and fall of language diversity through the Holocene
Drone-Bench: Tracking simple drone surveillance capabilities of frontier models
Be skeptical of OpenAI's rogue hacker agent story
Proving a Human Wrote Something
Unitree As2-W
History of John Backus's functional programming project [draft]
Asked Codex to redesign a page; it pushed my repo to OpenAI infra
New Jersey bans grocery stores from using shoppers' personal data to set prices
Jensen Huang on X: Open Weights and American AI Leadership
Testing Microsoft Agent Framework Applications
This is Part 18 of my series on the Microsoft Agent Framework. You can read the original post over on lukaswalter.dev . In the previous article , we looked at observability for agents. The main idea was to make a run visible as a chain of model calls, tool calls, approvals, and workflow events. Testing starts from the same idea. An agent run is not one answer string. It is a small application flow with several boundaries: user input -> prompt and context -> model request -> model response -> tool selection -> tool arguments -> tool execution -> structured result or final answer -> routing or workflow state If the only test is an end-to-end prompt against a live model, all of those boundaries are mixed together. When the test fails, you do not know whether the problem is the prompt, the model, the tool schema, the router, the workflow, or the real dependency behind the tool. The solution is not to pretend that an LLM is deterministic. The solution is to test each boundary at the level where it is deterministic, then add a smaller number of evaluation-style tests for behavior that genuinely depends on the model. This post covers: fake model clients tool contract tests structured output tests routing tests workflow tests eval-style regression checks The examples use xUnit-style assertions, but the testing approach does not depend on xUnit. The snippets focus on the relevant testing boundary and omit some application-specific factory and workflow setup. Do not start with the live model A live model test is useful. It is also expensive, slow, sometimes flaky, and difficult to diagnose. That makes it a poor replacement for normal unit and integration tests. I use a testing pyramid for agent applications: evals realistic model and user examples application integration tests agent + tools + storage + workflow boundaries deterministic component tests fake model client, tools, schemas, routing The bottom layer should be the largest. It should catch ordinary programming mistak