[Misc] Remove upper bound in openai package version #22060
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Woosuk Kwon <woosuk.kwon@berkeley.edu>
|
👋 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 🚀 |
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request removes the upper version bound for the openai package. My review suggests re-introducing a less restrictive upper bound to prevent the automatic adoption of future major versions, which could contain breaking changes and affect stability.
| fastapi[standard] >= 0.115.0 # Required by FastAPI's form models in the OpenAI API server's audio transcriptions endpoint. | ||
| aiohttp | ||
| openai >= 1.87.0, <= 1.90.0 # Ensure modern openai package (ensure ResponsePrompt exists in type.responses and max_completion_tokens field support) | ||
| openai >= 1.87.0 # Ensure modern openai package (ensure ResponsePrompt exists in type.responses and max_completion_tokens field support) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While removing the specific upper bound of <= 1.90.0 is justified, completely unpinning the upper version can introduce instability. A future major release of the openai package (e.g., 2.0.0) could introduce breaking changes that would automatically be pulled in, potentially breaking vLLM's build or runtime behavior.
To mitigate this risk while still allowing for non-breaking updates, it's a best practice to specify an upper bound that excludes the next major version.
openai >= 1.87.0, < 2.0.0 # Ensure modern openai package (ensure ResponsePrompt exists in type.responses and max_completion_tokens field support)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe this is too conservative 😅
|
More specifically the flaky test was fixed by #20913 |
Signed-off-by: Woosuk Kwon <woosuk.kwon@berkeley.edu>
Signed-off-by: Woosuk Kwon <woosuk.kwon@berkeley.edu> Signed-off-by: Jinzhen Lin <linjinzhen@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Woosuk Kwon <woosuk.kwon@berkeley.edu> Signed-off-by: Noam Gat <noamgat@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Woosuk Kwon <woosuk.kwon@berkeley.edu> Signed-off-by: Paul Pak <paulpak58@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Woosuk Kwon <woosuk.kwon@berkeley.edu> Signed-off-by: Diego-Castan <diego.castan@ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Woosuk Kwon <woosuk.kwon@berkeley.edu>
Signed-off-by: Woosuk Kwon <woosuk.kwon@berkeley.edu>
Context from @DarkLight1337