Add FlowGpt provider, Fix issue with None values in api

[hlohaus]

No description provided.

[github-actions]

Thank you, H Lohaus, for your contribution to the project.

Review of Pull Request: Add FlowGpt provider, Fix issue with None values in api

Summary

This pull request introduces a new provider, FlowGpt, and addresses an issue where None values were being incorrectly passed in the API. The changes are well-structured and align with the project's coding standards.

Detailed Comments

Addition of FlowGpt Provider

• File: g4f/Provider/FlowGpt.py
• The implementation of the FlowGpt provider is comprehensive, covering all necessary configurations and model support. It's great to see support for a wide range of models including GPT-4, GPT-3.5 variants, Google Gemini, Claude-v2, and Llama2-13b. The use of async/await for asynchronous network calls is appropriate, ensuring non-blocking I/O operations.

Update to __init__.py in Provider and api Directories

• Files: g4f/Provider/__init__.py and g4f/api/__init__.py
• The inclusion of FlowGpt in the provider's init file is correctly done, ensuring it is recognized and utilized by the system.
• The modification in api/__init__.py to use config.dict(exclude_none=True) is a smart fix for the issue with None values. This ensures that any None values are excluded from the dictionary passed to the function, preventing errors related to unexpected None values.

Minor Code Style Adjustments

• File: g4f/gui/client/js/chat.v1.js
• The adjustment to prompt_lock variable declaration improves code readability and consistency with the surrounding code style.

Recommendations

• Testing: Ensure comprehensive testing, especially around the new provider integration and the API fix. This includes testing with different models, handling various message histories, and verifying the exclusion of None values does not negatively impact other functionalities.
• Documentation: It would be beneficial to update the project's documentation to include information about the newly supported FlowGpt provider and any necessary configurations or limitations.

Conclusion

The pull request is well-prepared and introduces valuable enhancements to the project. After addressing the recommendations above and ensuring thorough testing, it should be in good shape for merging.

Keep up the great work!

[github-actions]

The system field contains a typo: assitant should be assistant. Also, ensure the system description is accurate and consider externalizing such strings for easier management and updates.