-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.9k
[Bugfix] Properly reject requests with empty list guided_choice #20195
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
[Bugfix] Properly reject requests with empty list guided_choice #20195
Conversation
Signed-off-by: mgoin <mgoin64@gmail.com>
👋 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 🚀 |
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.
Summary of Changes
Hello @mgoin, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!
This pull request resolves a critical bug where providing an empty list for the guided_choice
parameter in structured output requests caused the server to crash. The change introduces a specific validation to gracefully handle such invalid inputs, returning a clear error to the client instead of an internal server error, significantly improving the stability and user experience.
Highlights
- Robust Input Validation: Implemented a new validation check within
_validate_structured_output
to explicitly reject requests whereguided_decoding.choice
is an empty list, preventing server crashes. - Improved Error Handling: Requests with an empty
guided_choice
list will now result in aBadRequestError
(HTTP 400) with a clear message, rather than causing an internal server error and engine crash.
Using Gemini Code Assist
The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.
Invoking Gemini
You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command>
or @gemini-code-assist <command>
. Below is a summary of the supported commands.
Feature | Command | Description |
---|---|---|
Code Review | /gemini review |
Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state. |
Pull Request Summary | /gemini summary |
Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state. |
Comment | @gemini-code-assist | Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments. |
Help | /gemini help |
Displays a list of available commands. |
Customization
To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/
folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.
Limitations & Feedback
Gemini Code Assist is currently in preview and may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments to provide feedback.
You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.
Footnotes
-
Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩
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.
Code Review
This pull request effectively addresses a critical bug where an empty guided_choice
list would crash the server. The fix introduces a validation check early in the request processing pipeline, which is the correct approach. My feedback focuses on improving the clarity of the error message for a better user experience.
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.
thank you!
…-project#20195) Signed-off-by: mgoin <mgoin64@gmail.com>
…-project#20195) Signed-off-by: mgoin <mgoin64@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: avigny <47987522+avigny@users.noreply.github.com>
…-project#20195) Signed-off-by: mgoin <mgoin64@gmail.com>
Purpose
Improve the error message and properly raise a ValueError when receiving a request specifying empty "choice" for structured outputs.
Test Plan
Server:
Client:
Test Result
Before (the server would crash):
After: