-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
Add tool completion to batch inference #461
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
Conversation
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.
overall lgtm and it's nice that tool_completion
currently mirrors the latest version, just a couple of nits. thanks for adding this feature in for batch complete calls, we'll add it into our inference pipeline
model-engine/model_engine_server/inference/batch_inference/generate_tool_sample_data.py
Show resolved
Hide resolved
model-engine/model_engine_server/inference/batch_inference/sample_data_tool.json
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
model-engine/model_engine_server/inference/batch_inference/vllm_batch.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
model-engine/model_engine_server/inference/batch_inference/vllm_batch.py
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…llm-engine into yunfeng-tool-completion
|
||
|
||
TOOL_MAP = { | ||
Tools.CODE_EVALUATOR: CodeBlockEvaluator, |
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.
nit: move each tool to own file for future if there are more tools
self.evaluate = self.evaluate_code_in_docker | ||
except docker.errors.DockerException: | ||
# If docker is not available, use the python interpreter | ||
self.evaluate = self.evaluate_code_using_exec |
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.
is this safe for the batch job? seems that potentially harmful generations could break this
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.
(synced offline) known risk - for now since main use is internal, risk should be low and this is okay. will have follow-ups to mitigate issues
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.
that's true. please take a look how we think about this problem: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zKfhizd0FpwoupF_jYmWkz4naTxkInI0g-rS6xzNWso/edit#heading=h.2hej6pszhyrd
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 for batch jobs the risk is more manageable
Pull Request Summary
for notekeeping, some things to fix:
Test Plan and Usage Guide
some local test
tested running jobs in training cluster
added unit tests
vllm batch image deployed