-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
⬆️✅ Support 0.6.5+ vllm #7
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
Merged
evaline-ju
merged 6 commits into
foundation-model-stack:main
from
evaline-ju:vllm-latest
Jan 13, 2025
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
ecb818f
:arrow_up: Unpin vllm
evaline-ju 0b2c9be
:white_check_mark::wrench: Update mock model configs
evaline-ju f0a70b5
:white_check_mark: Update test for extra fields
evaline-ju 1964f07
:arrow_up: Upgrade lower bound of vllm
evaline-ju 66b9acf
:fire: Remove error on extra params tests
evaline-ju 15bf20c
:recycle: API server updates
evaline-ju 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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
hmm. this will change the general API behavior from our side. Does orchestrator expects bad request in such scenario or passthrough?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
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)
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.
Completely agree with that. My concern is not around validation for vllm API, which I completely agree should be as lean as possible. But I am wondering if this will create inconsistency in the way we handle validation in orchestrator across detectors. So like do we expect such validation from detectors in general, or its consistent with what orchestrator expects from other detectors.
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.
I think this is consistent with what orchestrator expects from other detectors/detector server(s) today, in the sense that for "other" detectors currently, users can also pass in any
detector_params, which will be passed through and validated by the individual detector server(s). It will be then up to the individual server implementations to work based on expected/unexpected params. The one parameter exception currently is thethresholdparameter, that the orchestrator uses, but the orchestrator would not be passing that on to the detectors, including the ones here.