- 
          
 - 
                Notifications
    
You must be signed in to change notification settings  - Fork 11k
 
[Bugfix] Handle None parameters in Mistral function calls. #13786
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
| 
           👋 Hi! Thank you for contributing to the vLLM project. 💬 Join our developer Slack at https://slack.vllm.ai to discuss your PR in #pr-reviews, coordinate on features in #feat- channels, or join special interest groups in #sig- channels. Just a reminder: PRs would not trigger full CI run by default. Instead, it would only run  Once the PR is approved and ready to go, your PR reviewer(s) can run CI to test the changes comprehensively before merging. To run CI, PR reviewers can either: Add  🚀  | 
    
| 
           @DarkLight1337 As you have reviewed the previous PR would you be so kind to also have a look at this one? 🙇 /cc @bufferoverflow  | 
    
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 seems reasonable to me - thank you for the contribution
| 
           Thanks @mgoin! I had a look at the failing checks and they seem unrelated to the changes here. Can you have a quick look and re-trigger them? 🙇  | 
    
| 
           Yup we have flakey tests at the moment. Retrying now!  | 
    
          
 Thanks @mgoin! Not much improvement unfortunately 😢  | 
    
| 
           @fgreinacher It looks like the engine test is a real failure https://buildkite.com/vllm/ci/builds/14086#01953d3c-62f4-4051-8829-ccc94dd06c09/207-1647  | 
    
Signed-off-by: Florian Greinacher <florian.greinacher@siemens.com>
Head branch was pushed to by a user without write access
55c5953    to
    72f255e      
    Compare
  
    | 
           Thanks @mgoin, there was indeed a problem with the new test case. This is fixed now and the remaining failures really look unrelated now 😀  | 
    
…ect#13786) Signed-off-by: Louis Ulmer <ulmerlouis@gmail.com>
This is a follow-up of #12884 which was missing the case when a client explicitly passes
Nonefunction parameters. While not super useful this is technically valid and should also be allowed.⚒️ with ❤️ by @siemens