[FIX] create & open the correct temp path for line-profiler test results (based on the iteration index)

[mohammedahmed18]

PR Type

Bug fix

---

Description

• Use candidate index for optimization iteration

• Ensure unique temp path per profiler run

---

Diagram Walkthrough

flowchart LR
  A["line_profiler_step"] -- "calls run_and_parse_tests" --> B["optimization_iteration arg"]
  B -- "was 0 (wrong)" --> C["Shared temp path"]
  B -- "now candidate_index" --> D["Per-iteration temp path"]

Loading

File Walkthrough

	Relevant files
Bug fix	function_optimizer.py Correct optimization_iteration to candidate index                codeflash/optimization/function_optimizer.py Pass candidate_index as optimization_iteration. Replace hardcoded 0 to avoid path conflicts. +1/-1

---

[github-actions]

PR Reviewer Guide 🔍

Here are some key observations to aid the review process:

⏱️ Estimated effort to review: 1 🔵⚪⚪⚪⚪

🧪 No relevant tests

🔒 No security concerns identified

⚡ Recommended focus areas for review Consistency Verify all call sites and downstream consumers expect and correctly handle a non-zero optimization_iteration value and that result paths are truly unique per candidate_index. line_profile_results, _ = self.run_and_parse_tests( testing_type=TestingMode.LINE_PROFILE, test_env=test_env, test_files=self.test_files, optimization_iteration=candidate_index, testing_time=TOTAL_LOOPING_TIME_EFFECTIVE,

[github-actions]

PR Code Suggestions ✨

Explore these optional code suggestions:

Category	Suggestion	Impact
Possible issue	Guard iteration index validity Verify candidate_index is always a non-negative integer and stable across retries to avoid writing to unintended paths or colliding temp files. If candidate_index can be None or negative, normalize it before use to ensure deterministic file naming. codeflash/optimization/function_optimizer.py [2075] -optimization_iteration=candidate_index, +optimization_iteration=int(candidate_index if isinstance(candidate_index, int) and candidate_index >= 0 else 0), Suggestion importance[1-10]: 5 __ Why: The suggestion is reasonable for robustness if candidate_index might be invalid, but the PR change itself intentionally switches from a hardcoded 0 to candidate_index. Without evidence that candidate_index can be None/negative, this is a precautionary check rather than a fix for a demonstrated issue.	Low

[aseembits93]

@mohammedahmed18 not sure if this will have any effect

[mohammedahmed18]

yep, noticed that, still looking into it