 We still don't know which one is better, GitHub co-pilot or using GPT on the OpenAI.com The jury is still out. This is a new JavaScript function. We do have update graph, don't we? We have update, output, graph, we have analyze, waveform, yes. Yeah, I think we call data, take-show data, so we have different types of data, we have to name them properly. This is not actually happening, let's see, the output. I don't understand if that's a little bit taking stuff from the JSON file. Would it write some code or still thinking about it? It's not quite clear what's being sent there to the chatbot, considering we have the context in two files. Make sure output graph is visible. Yeah, it's just not, the GitHub co-part is not doing anything. Okay, that's obviously not it. Also, we're not doing anything with the signal. Yeah, we're taking data from JSON. Yeah, okay, that's obviously won't do it. Oh, that's clearing the graph, okay. Signal map, no, it's not signal map. Yeah, so the output graph that is missing at the moment should be plotting a detection error and present unknowns over time. I want to modify, analyze, okay, actually error history, yeah, we should have it already. We have detection error history already. Need to update the output graph, okay, can you actually do it? So we should be passing this as a JSON file. You might not need it over here. Yeah, I would like to clear it. Should be like a default option. Yeah, so this is writing a wrong code. It's not actually taking the correct data. How to update based on the previous response. So this is update to the JavaScript, mainly after this update output graph function. Right, this is more like it. Yeah, so we have two traces, percent detection error and present unknown. Yeah, data looks legit. And we're using plot lead to plot, analyze, waveforms, the next function. Then data, update output yes, data no signal yes, date, output graph. Why are we passing the entire data to this object? I don't think this is quite right. Why are we sending the whole data to the update output graph function? Shouldn't it be just the necessary components from the JSON file? Well, it's not a file, but you know what I mean, from the API. Yeah, update data, graph should not accept data. Yeah, this one looks more like it. So we're only passing the necessary data to the update output graph. That sounds legit. As detection work, there's some sort of naming differences while it should be able to handle this one quickly and input wave declared twice. Yes, the server does return to expected noisy signal property in the response data. The analyze root result. I have this noisy signal somewhere, yes, turning it to least. So that's what the tool meant to be doing. It meant to be able to select your input waveform, which we already have. Add the noise on top of the signal. And there is a fuzzy logic algorithm behind this that will do detection based on a couple of points in the signal. Now we're actually changing constable considering we're rebuilding the whole thing. We're also making a few changes where the fuzzy logic algorithm actually looking at two features. We might add more features later. One is the symmetry of the signal and the other one is sharpness. So how spiky or not spiky it is. So we're looking at those two. This is what this prototype does if we manage to get it working again. So it's complaining about that noisy signal not being passed to the front end from the server. Copilot says that the data is being returned from the server. Don't think there is an error in the add noise functions. Why is this the only one that has a tool list conversion? Is it possible that the error is due to the fact that the noisy signal is the only one that is converted to list before transferred as JSON? So now I'm confused that suggesting we should be turning all of them to list. Pressure the JSON file and okay let's check what's the noisy data still that quickly. Should see the whole data in the console. The JavaScript is loading forever. Okay we're having a bunch of errors. Input graphs stopped working as well. Right noisy signal data is missing. And we've got it in the Python code. Something with noisy signal and we're converting it to list. We really need that JavaScript locally somewhere. It doesn't take 20 seconds to load. Yeah it's obvious that we don't need an extra function there. If we get there we should not get that error. Yeah we need to solve the fact that noisy signal data is missing. Try copart back to copat. Keep jumping back and forth between copart and github and github and github xyp4. Service not returning noisy signal might be returning it but it's not defined. The server side. Don't expect exceptions. Can try commenting out the tool list method. Yeah try that already. check the print signal, print noises signal, loading forever, that's another problem. Okay, we're getting a 504 post-analyze, I'm from the back end, didn't notice this one before. There's a try and accept block that catches all exceptions and blah blah blah, the exact issue is the end, accept to actually print the error. It's a good idea, control F5 that, yeah I think now we're getting close, I don't remember but this whatsoever, a non-typed and non-typed, ah okay, it's a good suggestion because yes we need more troubleshooting, it's possible that the input wave is none, I think it was possible, obviously that is what's happening, okay I need to keep troubleshooting, so the input wave is empty, why, it's a problem if the generate signal function, what is the option value, I'm doing the same, should I be getting them twice now, okay so I do keep this one now, it was working before that's why I just need Copa to sort it out, yeah input wave value should always be present, that's right, I didn't think there isn't even an option for it not to be present, okay we already have that, we're going in circles now, you are going in circles, you already gave me that response, can you try something else, yes the input wave value is none, but why does it happen to begin with, yeah we could use more tip again, printing the whole data, so we have input wave square, noise amplitude point one, okay it's something with the name, ah it's because we changed, okay we have the data, the signal, the noisy signal, the output, we clear, console, the noise signal is definitely there, can we get in closer, that's working now, noise signal seem okay, but I still get noisy signal data is missing, so now we're labeling JSON JavaScript or item code, let's try JavaScript, the issue might be that this noisy signal data is not the expected format, input graph function expects noisy signal to be an array, that's not an array, is it not an array, looks like an array, but it could be a list, I don't even know the difference really, it does contain numeric values and that, well it counts, so that won't work, it's giving an error, no actually you might finish up because we're going in circles, see you next time, bye.