Add add_resolve_rate_to_predictions function to output_utils

[juanmichelini]

Summary

This PR adds a new utility function add_resolve_rate_to_predictions in benchmarks/utils/output_utils.py that enriches a predictions JSONL file with resolution status from a report JSON file.

Changes

New Function: add_resolve_rate_to_predictions

The function takes two file paths:

1. predictions_path: Path to a JSONL file where each line is a JSON object with an instance_id field
2. report_path: Path to a JSON file containing resolved_ids and unresolved_ids lists

For each prediction in the JSONL file:

• If instance_id is in resolved_ids, adds {"report": {"resolved": true}}
• If instance_id is in unresolved_ids, adds {"report": {"resolved": false}}
• If instance_id is in neither list, no report field is added

Example

Given predictions:

{"instance_id": "fasterxml/jackson-databind:pr-4469", ...}
{"instance_id": "elastic/logstash:pr-15241", ...}
{"instance_id": "fasterxml/jackson-databind:pr-1234", ...}
{"instance_id": "fasterxml/jackson-databind:pr-2036", ...}

And a report with:

{
    "resolved_ids": ["fasterxml/jackson-databind:pr-2036", ...],
    "unresolved_ids": ["fasterxml/jackson-databind:pr-4469", "elastic/logstash:pr-15241", ...]
}

The predictions file is updated to:

{"instance_id": "fasterxml/jackson-databind:pr-4469", ..., "report": {"resolved": false}}
{"instance_id": "elastic/logstash:pr-15241", ..., "report": {"resolved": false}}
{"instance_id": "fasterxml/jackson-databind:pr-1234", ...}
{"instance_id": "fasterxml/jackson-databind:pr-2036", ..., "report": {"resolved": true}}

Note: pr-1234 is not updated because it's not in either list.

Tests

Added comprehensive tests in tests/test_output_utils.py covering:

• Basic functionality with resolved and unresolved instances
• Preservation of existing fields in predictions
• Empty predictions file handling
• Empty report lists handling
• String path support
• Missing keys in report handling

Fixes #195

@juanmichelini can click here to continue refining the PR

[juanmichelini]

@simonrosenberg @xingyaoww leaving this one as a draft for the moment.
Don't want to rush anything that overwrites the output.jsonl, since we might lose inference.