Added a LangChain tooling bridge example

[ElliotWood]

Why are these changes needed?

As per discord feedback it was clear the LangChain integrations would be beneficial to this project. This example shows how to give your AutoGen agent the callability to use a LangChain toolkit/tool to solve the problem or query.

This means we can inherit the 35+ integrations from the LangChain community, but using the agent power of AutoGen.

Checks

• I've included any doc changes needed for https://microsoft.github.io/autogen/. See https://microsoft.github.io/autogen/docs/Contribute#documentation to build and test documentation locally.
• I've added tests (if relevant) corresponding to the changes introduced in this PR. (Not relevant)
• I've made sure all auto checks have passed.

[ElliotWood]

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree company="LAB3"

[AaronWard]

Great work @ElliotWood - this will be super useful, would be cool to have this ability in something like integration_utils.py

[gagb]

Great PR!

Feedback:

• clarify the path of Test.txt. In my run, I had to place in cwd even when work_dir is set to coding. (Mac with python 3.11)
• Spark example requires setting up key differently from circumference example. It would be great if the reader has to set everything in the beginning once.

[pcdeadeasy]

Great example to bring in LangChain tools and agents into Autogen.

[gagb]

@ElliotWood, lmk if the feedback makes sense before I can approve it to be added to the repo.

[wgong]

@ElliotWood Great PR, can you share a high-level perspective on AutoGen vs LangChain: how they overlap and differ? Thanks.

[wgong]

@ElliotWood posted the question to Bard, here is the answer, which is pretty good

[ElliotWood]

@ElliotWood, lmk if the feedback makes sense before I can approve it to be added to the repo.

Hey just an FYI, im on vacation till the 20th I will push the updated feedback once ive returned, unless someone else wants to do it earlier ;)

[sonichi]

@gagb can your comments be addressed in a separate PR or must be fixed in this PR? If the former, we can merge this PR and create an issue.

[thinkall]

+1 for adding this into a utils file, but this can be done in another PR.

[gagb]

@gagb can your comments be addressed in a separate PR or must be fixed in this PR? If the former, we can merge this PR and create an issue.

The pr works just needs more documentation clarity if you want a new user to be able to run it. I am okay your suggestion..

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #58 (59d9622) into main (ea8dec7) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #58   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   43.31%   43.31%           
=======================================
  Files          17       17           
  Lines        2133     2133           
  Branches      481      481           
=======================================
  Hits          924      924           
  Misses       1126     1126           
  Partials       83       83           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	43.22% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[ElliotWood]

Just found this from Langchain side
https://python.langchain.com/docs/modules/agents/tools/tools_as_openai_functions
Could provide similar functionality

[sonichi]

@gagb can your comments be addressed in a separate PR or must be fixed in this PR? If the former, we can merge this PR and create an issue.

The pr works just needs more documentation clarity if you want a new user to be able to run it. I am okay your suggestion..

Would you like to create an issue after this PR is merged?

[sonichi]

The merging is blocked by "push cannot contain secrets" even though I've removed the keys in the PR. @ElliotWood do you think creating a new PR without secrets is the right solution?

[AaronWard]

@sonichi https://docs.github.com/en/enterprise-cloud@latest/code-security/secret-scanning/push-protection-for-repositories-and-organizations#bypassing-push-protection-for-a-secret

[gagb]

@gagb can your comments be addressed in a separate PR or must be fixed in this PR? If the former, we can merge this PR and create an issue.

The pr works just needs more documentation clarity if you want a new user to be able to run it. I am okay your suggestion..

Would you like to create an issue after this PR is merged?

Yes, should I wait for merge or create now?

[ElliotWood]

The merging is blocked by "push cannot contain secrets" even though I've removed the keys in the PR. @ElliotWood do you think creating a new PR without secrets is the right solution?

Will do mate, I'm on vacation until the 20th so I don't have my laptop I will need to do it when i get back, apologies

[sonichi]

@gagb can your comments be addressed in a separate PR or must be fixed in this PR? If the former, we can merge this PR and create an issue.

The pr works just needs more documentation clarity if you want a new user to be able to run it. I am okay your suggestion..

Would you like to create an issue after this PR is merged?

Yes, should I wait for merge or create now?

create after #263 is merged. And this PR will be closed.