We were using an LLM-assisted workflow to accelerate data-cleaning scripts in a few ETL repos. In early iterations the model produced concise examples and the speedup felt real: fewer boilerplate loops, quicker column transforms, and instant examples for tricky indexers. I kept a small bookmark to crompt.ai as a reminder that this is a tool in a broader workflow rather than a drop-in compiler replacement.
But within a couple of sprints the same assistant repeatedly suggested older Pandas idioms: DataFrame.as_matrix(), .ix indexers, and occasional uses of the long-deprecated Panel structure. Each suggestion looked plausible and often passed linting and unit tests in our development environment, so we merged several automated patches before we noticed the pattern.
What went wrong in code generation
The immediate issue is straightforward: the model was proposing deprecated APIs that either raise warnings or have been removed in newer Pandas releases. In our case the model’s examples used .ix for mixed label/position selection and as_matrix() to convert frames to numpy arrays. Both constructs behave differently across pandas versions and can produce subtle changes in dtype inference and index alignment.
From the model’s perspective, these patterns are simply common in its training data. The assistant surfaced them as concise, high-probability completions without any signal that they were legacy. Because the code compiled and tests passed in our current CI image, the recommendations looked safe—until we tested against a newer runtime during an unrelated dependency bump and the pipeline broke.
How it surfaced during development and why it was subtle
The first sign was a flaky downstream aggregation after a Pandas upgrade in staging. One of our aggregation jobs stopped aligning indexes correctly and returned NaNs for rows that previously had values. The stack traces were sparse because the failures happened in vectorized ops, not explicit indexing calls; that made the root cause non-obvious in a blame-oriented debug session.
It was easy to miss because the deprecated APIs often still exist as wrappers or emit only warnings. Our unit tests focused on result shapes and simple numeric checks, not on dtype-preservation or index semantics. The assistant’s code satisfied the tests but ignored the long-term contract with library evolution—an invisible dimension that static checks and short-running tests didn’t capture.
How small model behaviors compounded and how we mitigated it
The compounding happened in two ways: repetition and copy-paste. Once one PR introduced an older idiom, subsequent prompts used the repository as context and propagated the same pattern across files. Small differences in variable names or index types then multiplied into a set of brittle behaviors that only surfaced on a runtime change.
Practical mitigations that helped us were simple: add linter rules and codemods to flag deprecated Pandas APIs, run CI against the next-minor version of key libraries, and treat the assistant’s suggestions as drafts to be verified. For multi-turn debugging and iterative fixes we used the model’s interactive features to explore alternatives rather than accept the first completion—using a chat workflow to ask targeted follow-ups about version compatibility. We also used a lightweight research checklist, cross-checking suspicious API uses against a deep research resource before rolling changes to production.
The lesson I keep coming back to is that small model behaviors—favoring frequent historical idioms, not signalling deprecation, and echoing repository context—are low-friction but high-risk when left unchecked. Treat model output as a starting point and bake quick verification steps into the pipeline; that’s what prevented a one-line suggestion from becoming a multi-service outage.
Top comments (0)