MutaFix run: more-itertools-007

ranker nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B · patcher nvidia/nemotron-3-super-120b-a12b · via Nebius Token Factory

fixedoutcome
35swall time
2model calls
$0.0003API cost
Benchmark ground truth (hidden from the agent)
more_itertools/more.py:2468 · operator CMP · function more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.count
- return int(value not in self)   (injected bug)+ return int(value in self)   (original)
retriever rank 1 of 20 · ranker position 1 · patched the right function yes · exact restore yes

Trace

reproduce
+12.51s
2 failing test(s) · 2 failed, 766 passed · 12.51s
failing tests and errors
tests/test_more.py::NumericRangeTests::test_contains_items_with_inexact_step
tests/test_more.py::NumericRangeTests::test_count
tests/test_more.py::NumericRangeTests::test_contains_items_with_inexact_step
E   AssertionError: 1 != 0
tests/test_more.py::NumericRangeTests::test_count
E   AssertionError: 1 != 0
trace
+18.45s
re-ran 1 test file(s) with the trace plugin: 2 failing and 618 passing tests, 10 library functions ran in a failing test · 5.84s
tests/test_more.py
retrieve
+18.45s
280 functions indexed, 17 reachable from tests/test_more.py::NumericRangeTests::test_contains_items_with_inexact_step in the static call graph. Kept 20 candidates, ranked by spectrum score (Ochiai), call graph and BM25 break ties.
candidates in retriever order
  1. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.count call depth 1 · Ochiai 1.00 (failing 2, passing 0)
  2. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__contains__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.71 (failing 2, passing 2)
  3. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.index call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.63 (failing 2, passing 3)
  4. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range._index_near call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.63 (failing 2, passing 3)
  5. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range._get_by_index call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.41 (failing 1, passing 2)
  6. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range._before_stop call depth 3 · Ochiai 0.35 (failing 2, passing 14)
  7. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range._len call depth 2 · Ochiai 0.34 (failing 2, passing 15)
  8. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__getitem__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.32 (failing 1, passing 4)
  9. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__init__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.29 (failing 2, passing 21)
  10. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__iter__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.27 (failing 1, passing 6)
  11. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__repr__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 1)
  12. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__reduce__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 1)
  13. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__eq__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 3)
  14. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__hash__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 1)
  15. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__reversed__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 4)
  16. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__bool__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 1)
  17. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__len__ call depth 1 · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 9)
  18. more_itertools/more.py::_islice_helper call depth - · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 5)
  19. more_itertools/more.py::locate call depth - · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 13)
  20. more_itertools/more.py::is_sorted call depth - · Ochiai 0.00 (failing 0, passing 1)
rank
+18.45s
spectrum order kept (no model call)
  1. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.count
  2. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.__contains__
  3. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.index
  4. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range._index_near
  5. more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range._get_by_index
read
+20.79s
turn 1 · NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B · 2006 in / 182 out · 2.34s · $0.00016

read more_itertools/more.py::numeric_range.count

The failing tests involve `count` and `contains` assertions failing with `1 != 0`, indicating that `count` is returning incorrect results for inexact steps. Candidate 1 is `numeric_range.count`, which directly implements the `count` method and is ranked highest for failing tests. The current implementation `return int(value not in self)` is logically inverted—it returns `1` when the value is *not* in the range, but the test expects `1` when the value *is* in the range (as `r.count(v)` should count occurrences of `v` in `r`). This explains why `assertEqual(1, r.count(v))` fails: `count` returns `0` when `v` is present due to the inverted logic.

patch
+35.18s
turn 2 · NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Nano-30B-A3B · 2258 in / 198 out · 2.01s · $0.00018

The current implementation returns `int(value not in self)`, which evaluates to `1` when `value` is NOT in the range and `0` when it IS. However, the `count` method should return the number of occurrences of `value` in the range, which is `1` when present (since duplicates are not expected in a range) and `0` otherwise. The logic is inverted, causing `count` to return `0` for values that are actually present (as seen in the test failure `1 != 0`). Flipping the condition to `int(value in self)` fixes this: it returns `1` when the value is present (matching the test's expectation) and `0` when absent.

--- a/more_itertools/more.py+++ b/more_itertools/more.py@@ -2466,5 +2466,5 @@      def count(self, value):-        return int(value not in self)+        return int(value in self)      def index(self, value):

tests: all tests pass 768 passed

Final patch

--- a/more_itertools/more.py+++ b/more_itertools/more.py@@ -2466,5 +2466,5 @@      def count(self, value):-        return int(value not in self)+        return int(value in self)      def index(self, value):