fix(gooddata-eval): make MAQL comparison case-insensitive for keywords

[Tomkess]

Summary

_normalize_maql/_best_maql_match (metric_skill.py) compare an agent's
generated MAQL against expected_output.maql via exact string equality after
whitespace/wrapper normalization — but MAQL keywords (SELECT, FOR PREVIOUS, WHERE, BY, ...) are case-insensitive at the query-engine level,
while the comparison was fully case-sensitive.

Reproduced live

In gdc-mic-ai-evaluation, after #1718 landed: fixture "Create a metric for
the prior-year value of Active cards" expects

SELECT {metric/active_card_count_-_txn_-_cutcgco}
  FOR Previous({label/process_date.year})

Agent produced, verbatim:

SELECT {metric/active_card_count_-_txn_-_cutcgco} FOR PREVIOUS({label/process_date.year})

Byte-identical except FOR PREVIOUS vs FOR Previous — scored as a fail.

First approach considered and rejected

Lowercase everything outside {type/id} braces. Wrong — WHERE-clause
literal values are also outside braces (e.g. WHERE {label/status} = "Active") and are real, case-sensitive data, not keywords. Blindly folding
them creates a new false-positive risk: two genuinely different filter
values would be scored as equal.

Actual fix

Per the MAQL reference,
every literal value in MAQL is quoted, and every identifier lives inside
{..} — both are exhaustive, structural markers. Protecting text inside
either while casefolding everything else needs no keyword list at all,
which matters because MAQL's actual keyword vocabulary is large (SELECT,
BY, WHERE, HAVING, FOR PREVIOUS/NEXT/EACH, WITHOUT PF,
TOP/BOTTOM, WITHIN, the RANK family, the RUNSUM family, IFNULL,
CASE/WHEN, 15+ math functions, ...) — an enumerated list would inevitably
miss one and only partially fix the bug.

_PROTECTED_RE = re.compile(r"\{[^}]*\}|\"[^\"]*\"|'[^']*'")

def _casefold_outside_protected(s: str) -> str:
    """Lowercase MAQL keywords/operators while preserving case-sensitive {type/id}
    identifiers and quoted string literal values (e.g. WHERE {label/x} = "Active")."""
    parts, last = [], 0
    for m in _PROTECTED_RE.finditer(s):
        parts.append(s[last:m.start()].lower())
        parts.append(m.group(0))
        last = m.end()
    parts.append(s[last:].lower())
    return "".join(parts)

Applied as the final step in _normalize_maql, after the existing
whitespace/wrapper normalization.

Test plan

• test_normalize_maql_is_case_insensitive_for_keywords — the exact
  reproduced case (FOR PREVIOUS vs FOR Previous) now normalizes equal.
• test_normalize_maql_preserves_identifier_case — {metric/Mixed_Case_Id}
  survives untouched.
• test_normalize_maql_preserves_quoted_literal_case — the test that
  would have caught the rejected first draft: WHERE x = "Active" vs
  WHERE x = "active" must stay a genuine mismatch, not a false positive.
• Updated test_normalize_maql_strips_whitespace, whose expected value
  assumed no case normalization ever happens.
• Full gooddata-eval suite: 274 passed, 9 pre-existing unrelated
  failures (missing openai extra in this test env; two unrelated test
  files) — identical count to before this change.
• ruff check / ruff format --check clean.

Related

Found while re-testing #1718's fix against real production fixtures — see
that PR's description for the broader investigation this follows from.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@Tomkess, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 13 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 1ee80736-48d0-43ec-9c4c-4e90b0f8daaa

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d1ab1ad and 731af8d.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• packages/gooddata-eval/src/gooddata_eval/core/agentic/metric_skill.py
• packages/gooddata-eval/tests/test_agentic_metric_skill.py

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}