Keep required fields spec in the structured-output schema #643
+12
−1
Conversation
This file contains 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
github-actions
bot
added
status:awaiting review
ravwojdyla
changed the title
|
I will note that in my specific case, for a nested Pydantic schema, the Gemini API worked fine with this patch. So I wonder if the change from #309 is still required and if yes in what cases? |
No |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Please see the context in #642. I don't think this blanket change is acceptable, but IMHO neither is the current blanket removal of
requiredfield. I'm looking forward to directions how to properly support required fields in the structured-output, given the current state of the Gemini services.I'm happy to make any required changes to this PR.