-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 748
feat(core): add thought_description for simplified progress display #2163
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
Open
GraceJiang0312
wants to merge
5
commits into
NVIDIA:develop
Choose a base branch
from
GraceJiang0312:feat/thought-description-static-label
base: develop
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and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
f8d1ac0
feat(core): add static thought_description for simplified thought pro…
GraceJiang0312 d95b68d
docs(tests): add missing docstrings for thought_description tests
GraceJiang0312 23bfc14
test: add missing docstring and astream coverage for thought_description
GraceJiang0312 9b85466
Merge branch 'develop' into feat/thought-description-static-label
willkill07 e9be4b1
Merge branch 'develop' into feat/thought-description-static-label
GraceJiang0312 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
Some comments aren't visible on the classic Files Changed page.
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
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
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.
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.
Why is this called
thought_textand not consistent withthought_description?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.
thought_descriptionis the raw value configured onFunctionBaseConfig, essentially the "input".thought_textonResponseIntermediateStepis the rendered string actually shown in the UI, it's derived fromthought_descriptionviaStepAdaptor._get_thought_description(): falls back to a default like "Running function: " whenthought_descriptionisn't set, and always has a status suffix appended ("..." while running, "... completed" once finished). So it's never a direct copy of the config value, it seemed clearer to give it a distinct name (thought_text) rather than reusingthought_descriptionfor a value that's been transformed.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.
Right, but this now increases cognitive load. It's still a description. And now folks have to manually tie
description->text.Reduced orthogonality is a good thing.
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.
@GraceJiang0312 to be clear, I'm waiting for an update that addresses this. I do not believe we should have two different names where one is effectively the same as the other. Both are
thought_descriptions. There is no reason to introduce another name.