We relied on an LLM-assisted workflow to speed up a data pipeline refactor and, over a few sprints, it suggested several convenient snippets that looked correct at first glance. The assistant was used interactively through a chat interface, and we leaned on multi-turn prompts to get code tailored to our style. That convenience hid a recurring failure mode: the model repeatedly suggested deprecated Pandas APIs that later caused warnings and subtle behavioral drift.
The problem didn't appear as an immediate crash. Small inputs and local tests passed, so the snippets were merged. The deprecated calls (append, .ix, etc.) remained functional in our pinned environment for a while, which gave a false sense of safety. Only when we upgraded dependencies and processed larger datasets did performance and correctness issues surface, turning a small suggestion into production incidents.
How it surfaced during development
The first visible sign was a CI job filled with deprecation warnings after a dependency bump. Next came a few downstream jobs that took significantly longer and a rare indexing bug when a broker message included unexpected columns. The team traced both issues back to generated code that used deprecated methods; the model produced examples copied from older sources and mixed method calls that behaved differently in edge cases.
We then used a verification pass with the project's documentation and a targeted lookup via a deep research tool to confirm which APIs were current. That step showed the model often reflects the most common patterns in its training data rather than the project's pinned versions, so examples can be syntactically correct but semantically inappropriate for your dependency matrix.
Why it was subtle and easy to miss
Two factors made this failure mode quiet. First, deprecations are often additive: methods keep working for a few versions with warnings. That means local test suites that use narrow fixtures won't fail. Second, multi-turn sessions caused context loss: we had not fed the assistant an explicit constraints block listing the project's pinned library versions, and the model started offering idioms from different eras as the conversation progressed.
Small model behaviors compounded the issue. The assistant preferred the shortest, familiar example — not the safest modern pattern — and when prompted to optimize for brevity it omitted compatibility guards. Our reliance on convenience completions plus optimistic merging practices turned several tiny model preferences into a systemic risk that only became visible under version upgrades. It exposed a mismatch between the model's priors and our operational constraints.
Practical mitigations and trade-offs
The immediate fixes were straightforward: add dependency constraints to prompts, include a code style checklist that flags deprecated APIs, and extend tests to cover upgrade scenarios. We also added a static analysis step and a CI job that runs against the target newer dependency versions before merging. Those checks catch many deprecated patterns early, though they increase CI runtime and maintenance.
Longer-term, treat model output as draft code: verify against authoritative docs and run quick compatibility tests. Use explicit prompts like “assume Pandas X.Y.Z” when asking for snippets, and capture context in the assistant session. These practices don’t eliminate hallucinations or stale examples, but they reduce the chance that a small model preference becomes an expensive production problem.
Top comments (0)