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

⬆️✅ Support 0.6.5+ vllm #7

Open
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

evaline-ju
Copy link
Collaborator

@evaline-ju evaline-ju commented Jan 2, 2025

vllm APIs including OpenAIServingChat that the chat detection base class is built on underwent some breaking changes. The decision was made in this PR to just update the lower bound of vllm instead of maintaining conditional support in the tests for 0.6.2-pre0.6.5, since vllm APIs move quickly. At time of writing, there are at least two patch versions 0.6.5-0.6.6 with these supported changes. Some post-0.6.6 but in main branch changes have been noted as inline comments.

Key changes

  • https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/9919 building on https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/9358 added the non-optional chat_template_content_format field to OpenAIServingChat
  • https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/10463 that allows extra fields now in the vllm API since the OpenAI API now allows extra fields, impacting request/response fields like ChatCompletionRequest [used to make the request to chat completions]
  • https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm/pull/11164 added get_diff_sampling_params to model configs

Closes: #6

Signed-off-by: Evaline Ju <[email protected]>
@evaline-ju evaline-ju marked this pull request as ready for review January 8, 2025 21:21
assert type(request) == ErrorResponse
assert request.code == HTTPStatus.BAD_REQUEST.value
# As of vllm >= 0.6.5, extra fields are allowed
assert type(request) == ChatCompletionRequest
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hmm. this will change the general API behavior from our side. Does orchestrator expects bad request in such scenario or passthrough?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

@evaline-ju evaline-ju Jan 9, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will just cause a passthrough of the variable from my testing. My worry is that adding additional validation when vllm and openAI allow passthrough is then we're even more tied to small API changes (like tracking all expected fields)

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Support 0.6.5+ vllm
2 participants