fix(eval): Update intent check to accept cluster not found

[eranco74]

Sometimes the response is: "I am unable to find any clusters. Can you provide the cluster ID?"

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Tests
  • Broadened evaluation test expectation for non-existent cluster scenarios to accept either absence or inability to locate the cluster.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Updated a single test evaluation entry in test/evals/eval_data.yaml to relax the expected_intent for a non-existent cluster from "does not exist" to "does not exist or could not be found". No code, control flow, or public API changes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Test evaluation data test/evals/eval_data.yaml	Relaxed the expected_intent string for a non-existent cluster scenario to allow responses saying the cluster "does not exist or could not be found" instead of only "does not exist".

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~3 minutes

• Single-line test data change; no logic or structural edits.

Possibly related PRs

• Resolves asking for cluster ID when it's known. #249: Also modifies test/evals/eval_data.yaml to relax cluster identification wording.
• MGMT-21240: improve eval test coverage #182: Related prior changes to non-existent-cluster expectations in eval tests.
• fix(eval): Make intent check order-agnostic #251: Adjusts expected_intent entries in the same eval data file.

Suggested labels

lgtm

Suggested reviewers

• keitwb
• jhernand

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title directly describes the main change: updating an intent check in eval tests to accept 'cluster not found' responses, which aligns with the file modification in test/evals/eval_data.yaml.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 9aa423f and a745ce7.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• test/evals/eval_data.yaml (1 hunks)

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• test/evals/eval_data.yaml

---

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 and usage tips.}

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: carbonin, eranco74

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [carbonin,eranco74]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[eranco74]

/retest

[carbonin]

/retest

[carbonin]

/retest

[carbonin]

Should have been fixed by merging #236. Maybe try a rebase?

[carbonin]

/lgtm