Azure / Azure/azure-sdk-for-python
[azure-ai-textanalytics] recognize_pii_entities: per-category recognition criteria (e.g., BRCPFNumber checksum) are undocumented
まだ誰も着手していません。
- 主要言語
- Python
- スター
- 5.6k
- フォーク
- 3.4k
- 平均マージ
- 2日 2時間
- マージ済み PR(30日)
- 213
説明
Note on test data used below: Neither CPF value in this report is a real person's identifier.
123.456.789-00is syntactically a CPF but is mathematically invalid (it fails the public Brazilian check-digit algorithm — all digits sequential, check digits zero). It is a non-issuable placeholder commonly used as obvious dummy data.998.214.865-68is a valid-formatted CPF but is not a real person's number — it is the exact value Microsoft itself ships in this very SDK's official samplesample_recognize_pii_entities.py("...Brazilian CPF number 998.214.865-68"). I reuse it here only to keep the repro identical to the official sample.
- Package Name: azure-ai-textanalytics
- Package Version: latest
- Operating System: Windows
- Python Version: 3.x
Describe the issue
The docstring and reference docs for TextAnalyticsClient.recognize_pii_entities and the categories_filter keyword describe the request shape (which categories to filter for) but give no signal that detection criteria differ per category — some appear to do format-only matching, others apparently apply additional validation (e.g., checksum) that is not documented.
This is more of a clarification request than a bug.
To Reproduce
from azure.ai.textanalytics import TextAnalyticsClient
from azure.core.credentials import AzureKeyCredential
client = TextAnalyticsClient(endpoint, AzureKeyCredential(key))
# (A) syntactically valid CPF format, invalid check digits -> NOT detected
res_a = client.recognize_pii_entities(
["Entre em contato pelo CPF 123.456.789-00"], language="pt"
)
# (B) valid CPF (same value used in this SDK's official PII sample) -> detected as BRCPFNumber
res_b = client.recognize_pii_entities(
["Entre em contato pelo CPF 998.214.865-68"], language="pt"
)
No categories_filter is passed in either case, so the default detection set applies. (A) returns no BRCPFNumber; (B) does.
Expected behavior
Either:
- The SDK reference / conceptual doc points out that recognition criteria vary per category and may include semantic validation beyond format (and points to a service-level page that lists per-category criteria), or
- The service-level doc page (Recognized PII and PHI entities) is updated and the SDK references it.
Note: I attempted to file the documentation-side report directly against
MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs, but that repository now has GitHub Issues disabled (has_issues: false), so this SDK issue is the only public channel available for the report. Routing the service-side fix internally would be appreciated.
Why this matters for SDK users
Without this signal, developers writing tests with placeholder PII (a common pattern) get silent false negatives and have to reverse-engineer the detection criteria empirically. This was the path I took to discover the behavior.
コントリビューションガイド
はじめの一歩
- issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
- 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
- リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
- issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。
調査の方向性
TextAnalyticsClient.recognize_pii_entities とその categories_filter リファレンスから始め、sdk/textanalytics/azure-ai-textanalytics/samples/sample_recognize_pii_entities.py の公式サンプルを Recognized PII and PHI entities サービス ページと比較します。SDK またはサービスのドキュメントで、認識基準はカテゴリによって異なり、形式を超えた検証が含まれる場合があることを、関連する相互参照とともに説明できれば完了です。
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
評価
- 技術スタック
- azure, python
- 領域
- documentation
- issue の種類
- ドキュメント
- 難易度
- 3/5
- 見積もり時間
- 1〜2日
- 活発さ
- 静か
- 明瞭さ
- おおむね明確
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 52/100