-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 841
Add ChatToolMode.RequireSpecific(AITool) #6901
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Draft
stephentoub
wants to merge
1
commit into
dotnet:main
Choose a base branch
from
stephentoub:requiredtool
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Draft
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If we end up roundtripping this value the resultant object is going to have a subtly different equality semantic, and will have impact in how the resultant object gets processed in the OpenAI provider. Is there a way we could potentially preserve its intended representation in such cases?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will it? Do you just mean it'll no longer be equal to another instance that contains the tool since this one is null? I mean, yeah :) That's not just equality, it's no longer the same requirement. If you set it to an AIFunctionDeclaration, though, it should behave the same, as the name gets extracted.
What did you have in mind?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nothing specific, just asking if serializing the value could inherently change how it gets handled by the leaf clients.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It could, yes, as the AITool will be null after deserialization. That's already the case for ChatOptions.Tools, too. So if you serialize and deserialize a ChatOptions, you're going to lose both on the resulting instance.
We could revisit that. We could allow AITool to be serialized, and in most cases we can persist most data. The main (and important) thing we can't is the actual function implementation for AIFunction.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@eiriktsarpalis, alternative suggestions or approaches? What do you think about enabling AITools to be serialized, except an AIFunction would roundtrip as an AIFunctionDeclaration (i.e. it would lose its invocation ability)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The only alternative I can think of is requiring tools by name only.
Seems reasonable, although that scheme would only work in the context of a
JsonConverter<AITool>but not for aJsonConverter<AIFunction>due to the lack of type relationship withAIFunctionDefinition.