feat: expose converse options via providerOptions #12
Conversation
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
…mirrors converse api
Collaborator
|
Thank you! I think your implementation is correct using Please can you add a test for these? |
ChrisB-TL
changed the title
ChrisB-TL
changed the title
Contributor
Author
|
Absolutely, sorry! Coming right up. |
ChrisB-TL
approved these changes
Apr 29, 2025
Collaborator
ChrisB-TL
left a comment
ChrisB-TL
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've changed the test to use Prism's testing utilities, and added a similar test for structured.
This is good to go!
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description
Mirrors options for the converse API.
As there doesn't seem to be any matching functions exported from the core Prism interface it feels viable to have them as provider specific options.
Completely understandable if there's a reason you excluded it in the first place.
I'm mainly interested in 'additionalModelRequestFields', since that enables control of the thinking block for claude 3.7.