Toloka 1: https://hackmd.io/@P_oDzqNMQBqjwVAD_Ao-Dw/Bkx0DQwKC
Toloka 2: https://hackmd.io/@P_oDzqNMQBqjwVAD_Ao-Dw/H1gdSYWcR

(554070 553953 553817 553690 553696 annotated but not done)
## Completed task Ids:
554166 554164 554076 554079 554081 554085 554116 554098 554058 553983 553980 553967 553922 553743 553818 553732(another one claimed but not submitted) 554102 554155 554156 554044 553896 553919 553929 553978 553950 553947 553908 553849
Today:
554060 553917 553918 553926 553985 554087 554007 554157 554008 554148
Today:
554045 553936 553609 553613 554029 554057 554004 554111 553939 553928 553924 553923 553868 554161 553744 554149 554084 553989

The user's instruction is clear and straightforward.

The user's instruction asks to move the `chunked` context manager description within the `Spotify` class to follow the decorator for better readability. However, the `chunked` method is already correctly placed in the `Spotify` class, right after its `@contextmanager` decorator. Therefore, the task is non-solvable as the requested change has already been implemented in the code. No further action is needed.

# Justification
## Instruction

The user's instruction is good as it is clear, solvable, and free of ambiguity.
The user's instruction is good as it is clear, solvable and there is no amibiguity.
The user's instruction is clear and can be implemented without ambiguity.
The instruction is clear, specific and does not require any additional context.
The instruction is good as it is clear, specific and does not require any additional context.
The instruction is very clear and simple.
The instruction is clear and straightforward, and there is no ambiguity in it. 
The user's instruction is clear and unambiguous. It specifies that the version number should be updated from `0.11.5` to `0.11.6` in the `__init__.py` file.

The instruction is ambiguous as there are multiple interpretations of how the version should be updated (e.g., major, minor, or patch), and the instruction doesn't clarify which one to apply.

The instruction lacks context as it references replacing a direct call to `self.add_url_rule` with a method `_add_url_rule`, but there is no direct call to `self.add_url_rule` in the provided code. Additionally, the `_add_url_rule` method is not present in the code snippet, and there is no information about its implementation. 

The user's instruction is ambiguous because modifying the return statement can be interpreted in multiple ways, and choosing one interpretation over others would require making assumptions that go beyond common sense.

## solution
The solution correctly updates the default values for `RTDBIN_DEFAULT_MAXUSAGE` and `RTDBIN_DEFAULT_LIFETIME` to 0 as per the user's instructions, without introducing any unnecessary steps or complications.

The solution is incorrect because it fails to implement the requested change (removing the 424 entry) and introduces some unnecessary minor modifications.

The solution can be easily fixed by removing the 424 entry from the `HTTP_STATUS_CODE` dictionary and reverting the unnecessary minor changes to match the original code exactly.

The solution is correct as it directly follows the user's instruction by updating the `json.dump` function calls for both `CHAR_OUT_FILE` and `SERVICE_OUT_FILE` in the `main` function, adding `sort_keys=True` without making any unnecessary changes.

The solution correctly addresses the user's instruction to modify the `SWITCH` function by changing the `default_clause` calculation when the number of arguments is even. The solution is concise, relevant, and executable without introducing any unnecessary complexity or changes.

The solution correctly adds a line in the `_stepSummary` method to display the "collect" step status without introducing any unnecessary complexity.

The solution is correct, as it is relevant and meets all of the user's requirements.

The solution is correct and meets all the requirements. It correctly modifies the `build_file_path` function to return an empty string and print a message when the values dictionary is empty.

The solution correctly updates the `__version__` variable in the `src/stactools/cop_dem/__init__.py` file to 0.4.1 without any unnecessary changes.

⛔️ No

The provided solution is incorrect. Although it correctly updates the import statements, it also makes an unnecessary modification to a comment.

The solution is incorrect because it places the `__version__ = "5.9.2"` assignment before the `__author__` variable, whereas the instruction specifically requests it to be placed *right after* the `__author__` variable assignment.

The correct approach would be to update only the `DEFAULTS` variable and leave the `RESULTS` variable unchanged unless the instruction explicitly mentioned updating it as well.

## Fixable?

The solution is not easily fixable in under a minute by simply changing a single line or moving a block of code. It requires identifying and reverting several changes.

The solution can be easily fixed by reverting the unnecessary change made to the comment.

The solution is easily fixable by simply moving the `__version__` line after the `__author__` line.

# Source File

using System;
using Avalonia.Data;

namespace Avalonia.Diagnostics.ViewModels
{
    internal class AvaloniaPropertyViewModel : PropertyViewModel
    {
        private readonly AvaloniaObject _target;
        private Type _assignedType;
        private object? _value;
        private string _priority;
        private string _group;
        private readonly Type _propertyType;

#nullable disable
        // Remove "nullable disable" after MemberNotNull will work on our CI.
        public AvaloniaPropertyViewModel(AvaloniaObject o, AvaloniaProperty property)
#nullable restore
        {
            _target = o;
            Property = property;

            Name = property.IsAttached ?
                $"[{property.OwnerType.Name}.{property.Name}]" :
                property.Name;
            DeclaringType = property.OwnerType;
            _propertyType = property.PropertyType;
            Update();
        }

        public AvaloniaProperty Property { get; }
        public override object Key => Property;
        public override string Name { get; }
        public override bool? IsAttached => Property.IsAttached;
        public override string Priority => _priority;
        public override Type AssignedType => _assignedType;

        public override object? Value
        {
            get => _value;
            set
            {
                try
                {
                    _target.SetValue(Property, value);
                    Update();
                }
                catch { }
            }
        }

        public override string Group => _group;

        public override Type? DeclaringType { get; }
        public override Type PropertyType => _propertyType;
        public override bool IsReadonly => Property.IsReadOnly;

        // [MemberNotNull(nameof(_type), nameof(_group), nameof(_priority))]
        public override void Update()
        {
            if (Property.IsDirect)
            {
                object? value;
                Type? valueType = null;

                try
                {
                    value = _target.GetValue(Property);
                    valueType = value?.GetType();
                }
                catch (Exception e)
                {
                    value = e.GetBaseException();
                }

                RaiseAndSetIfChanged(ref _value, value, nameof(Value));
                RaiseAndSetIfChanged(ref _assignedType, valueType ?? Property.PropertyType, nameof(AssignedType));
                RaiseAndSetIfChanged(ref _priority, "Direct", nameof(Priority));

                _group = "Properties";
            }
            else
            {
                object? value;
                Type? valueType = null;
                BindingPriority? priority = null;

                try
                {
                    var diag = _target.GetDiagnostic(Property);

                    value = diag.Value;
                    valueType = value?.GetType();
                    priority = diag.Priority;
                }
                catch (Exception e)
                {
                    value = e.GetBaseException();
                }

                RaiseAndSetIfChanged(ref _value, value, nameof(Value));
                RaiseAndSetIfChanged(ref _assignedType, valueType ?? Property.PropertyType, nameof(AssignedType));

                if (priority != null)
                {
                    RaiseAndSetIfChanged(ref _priority, priority.ToString()!, nameof(Priority));
                    RaiseAndSetIfChanged(ref _group, IsAttached == true ? "Attached Properties" : "Properties", nameof(Group));
                }
                else
                {
                    RaiseAndSetIfChanged(ref _priority, "Unset", nameof(Priority));
                    RaiseAndSetIfChanged(ref _group, "Unset", nameof(Group));
                }
            }
            RaisePropertyChanged(nameof(Type));
        }
    }
}

# User's instruction
AvaloniaPropertyViewModel: Update group when IsPinned changes

In the AvaloniaPropertyViewModel class, ensure that the group is updated when the IsPinned property changes.

#### Instruction evaluation criteria
Evaluate the user's instruction

✅ Good: none of the below options match

⛔️ Ambiguous: there are multiple interpretations of what the user wants
ℹ️ The instruction may have some ambiguity that could be resolved by common sense like assuming specific constant values

⛔️ Lack of context: ask to use something that is not presented in original code
ℹ️ Adding import of some common library is allowed, it's not lack of context

⛔️ Non-solvable

- The task doesn’t make sense
- The task is clear but it’s impossible to solve it
- What’s asked is already implemented in the source file

### Plan and Code diff
Plan
- Define a function named 'register' that takes two arguments: 'self' and 'name'.
- Inside the function, check if the name is in the '_options' dictionary of the object.
- If the name is in the dictionary, raise a ValueError with a message indicating that the name is already registered.
- If the name is not in the dictionary, add the option to the dictionary with the name as the key.
- Return the object.
ℹ️ A correct plan is one that is both complete and not excessive in relation to the instruction, it has all required steps and doesn’t have redundant ones.
Also:

Should be relevant to the instruction
Should be complete, mentioning all steps needed to solve the problem.
Shouldn’t mention unnecessary steps, i.e. ones without which the working plan still works
Should contain the main steps of the assumed solution
Plan steps should mostly imply code changes. The only allowed exceptions are:
Steps like “ensure that variable X is used consistently…”
Evaluate the plan

✅ Good: meets the requirements

⛔️ Bad: does not meet the requirements

### Model's Response

### Model's Response

### Solution's requirements

Solution requirements

- Solution should be relevant to the instruction and plan in such priority.
- Solution should not include any changes that are not implied by the task such as changing the code style, removing the import, adding the comments in the code locations that are not mentioned in the task.
- Solutions should not be unnecessarily complicated or introduce any redundancy. For example, if the instruction asks for changing some constant like “add 10 more random strings to list X” it should generate a new code with a new definition of the list instead of e.g. generating a new function that does so.
- Solution needs to be executable in a sense that an expert after an eye-check doesn’t see reasons why it may fail to run

Is correct? (Solves the task described in the instruction and doesn’t have unnecessary steps and code looks executable)

✅ Yes

⛔️ No
Clarification of why the solution is incorrect (or the opposite) when the decision is not obvious

ℹ️ Can you make the code satisfy instructions either changing a single line or moving a single code block to a different location? The change should take less than a minute to implement
Is this solution easily fixable?

✅ Yes

⛔️ No
If any clarification is needed:

# ---------------- Justification:
## ------------ User's Instruction:
The instruction is bad as it doesn't explicitly state all the parameters the function should have. It mentions a name and an option, but doesn't clearly define them. It implies that the instruction left room for interpretation and assumptions.

## ------------ Plan:

The plan is good, it is relevant, complete, and outlines the main solution steps.

## ------------ Solution:
The solution is good because it is concise and meets all of the user's instructions without any unncessary steps.

The code doesn't have any issues.

The solution is not easily fixable (either changing a single line or moving a single code block to a different location) because it introduces unnecessary complexity by modifying three additional lines (lines 131, 133, and 137) that were not requested by the user. To properly fix this, the unnecessary changes would need to be reverted, which requires more than just altering a single line or moving a single code block.

# Draft: