Skip to content
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

[Feature Request]: Use Pydantic models for llm_configs, config_list and code_execution_config #1095

Closed
ekzhu opened this issue Dec 29, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@ekzhu
Copy link
Collaborator

ekzhu commented Dec 29, 2023

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Right now, config_list, llm_configs and code_execution_config are dictionaries, and the schema of these dictionaries are enforced through parser functions.

Describe the solution you'd like

A better way to handle this would be to use Pydantic models so parsing, serializing and data validations are handled by Pydantic. This also address many issues related to invalid configs.

Additional context

Pydantic

Example of Pydantic models already used in our repo: https://github.com/microsoft/autogen/blob/main/autogen/function_utils.py

Existing issues to address data validation:
#1082
#1026
#1074
#1069

@afourney
Copy link
Member

Arguably I would add code_execution_config to that as well.

@ekzhu ekzhu changed the title [Feature Request]: Use Pydantic models for llm_configs and config_list [Feature Request]: Use Pydantic models for llm_configs, config_list and code_execution_config Jan 2, 2024
@ekzhu ekzhu mentioned this issue Jan 26, 2024
3 tasks
whiskyboy pushed a commit to whiskyboy/autogen that referenced this issue Apr 17, 2024
Co-authored-by: Chi Wang <wang.chi@microsoft.com>
@ekzhu ekzhu closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale May 21, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants