Splits the meta-reference safety implementation into three distinct providers:
- inline::llama-guard
- inline::prompt-guard
- inline::code-scanner
Note that this PR is a backward incompatible change to the llama stack server. I have added deprecation_error field to ProviderSpec -- the server reads it and immediately barfs. This is used to direct the user with a specific message on what action to perform. An automagical "config upgrade" is a bit too much work to implement right now :/
(Note that we will be gradually prefixing all inline providers with inline:: -- I am only doing this for this set of new providers because otherwise existing configuration files will break even more badly.)
* docker compose ollama
* comment
* update compose file
* readme for distributions
* readme
* move distribution folders
* move distribution/templates to distributions/
* rename
* kill distribution/templates
* readme
* readme
* build/developer cookbook/new api provider
* developer cookbook
* readme
* readme
* [bugfix] fix case for agent when memory bank registered without specifying provider_id (#264)
* fix case where memory bank is registered without provider_id
* memory test
* agents unit test
* Add an option to not use elastic agents for meta-reference inference (#269)
* Allow overridding checkpoint_dir via config
* Small rename
* Make all methods `async def` again; add completion() for meta-reference (#270)
PR #201 had made several changes while trying to fix issues with getting the stream=False branches of inference and agents API working. As part of this, it made a change which was slightly gratuitous. Namely, making chat_completion() and brethren "def" instead of "async def".
The rationale was that this allowed the user (within llama-stack) of this to use it as:
```
async for chunk in api.chat_completion(params)
```
However, it causes unnecessary confusion for several folks. Given that clients (e.g., llama-stack-apps) anyway use the SDK methods (which are completely isolated) this choice was not ideal. Let's revert back so the call now looks like:
```
async for chunk in await api.chat_completion(params)
```
Bonus: Added a completion() implementation for the meta-reference provider. Technically should have been another PR :)
* Improve an important error message
* update ollama for llama-guard3
* Add vLLM inference provider for OpenAI compatible vLLM server (#178)
This PR adds vLLM inference provider for OpenAI compatible vLLM server.
* Create .readthedocs.yaml
Trying out readthedocs
* Update event_logger.py (#275)
spelling error
* vllm
* build templates
* delete templates
* tmp add back build to avoid merge conflicts
* vllm
* vllm
---------
Co-authored-by: Ashwin Bharambe <ashwin.bharambe@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Ashwin Bharambe <ashwin@meta.com>
Co-authored-by: Yuan Tang <terrytangyuan@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: raghotham <rsm@meta.com>
Co-authored-by: nehal-a2z <nehal@coderabbit.ai>
PR #201 had made several changes while trying to fix issues with getting the stream=False branches of inference and agents API working. As part of this, it made a change which was slightly gratuitous. Namely, making chat_completion() and brethren "def" instead of "async def".
The rationale was that this allowed the user (within llama-stack) of this to use it as:
```
async for chunk in api.chat_completion(params)
```
However, it causes unnecessary confusion for several folks. Given that clients (e.g., llama-stack-apps) anyway use the SDK methods (which are completely isolated) this choice was not ideal. Let's revert back so the call now looks like:
```
async for chunk in await api.chat_completion(params)
```
Bonus: Added a completion() implementation for the meta-reference provider. Technically should have been another PR :)
This PR makes several core changes to the developer experience surrounding Llama Stack.
Background: PR #92 introduced the notion of "routing" to the Llama Stack. It introduces three object types: (1) models, (2) shields and (3) memory banks. Each of these objects can be associated with a distinct provider. So you can get model A to be inferenced locally while model B, C can be inference remotely (e.g.)
However, this had a few drawbacks:
you could not address the provider instances -- i.e., if you configured "meta-reference" with a given model, you could not assign an identifier to this instance which you could re-use later.
the above meant that you could not register a "routing_key" (e.g. model) dynamically and say "please use this existing provider I have already configured" for a new model.
the terms "routing_table" and "routing_key" were exposed directly to the user. in my view, this is way too much overhead for a new user (which almost everyone is.) people come to the stack wanting to do ML and encounter a completely unexpected term.
What this PR does: This PR structures the run config with only a single prominent key:
- providers
Providers are instances of configured provider types. Here's an example which shows two instances of the remote::tgi provider which are serving two different models.
providers:
inference:
- provider_id: foo
provider_type: remote::tgi
config: { ... }
- provider_id: bar
provider_type: remote::tgi
config: { ... }
Secondly, the PR adds dynamic registration of { models | shields | memory_banks } to the API surface. The distribution still acts like a "routing table" (as previously) except that it asks the backing providers for a listing of these objects. For example it asks a TGI or Ollama inference adapter what models it is serving. Only the models that are being actually served can be requested by the user for inference. Otherwise, the Stack server will throw an error.
When dynamically registering these objects, you can use the provider IDs shown above. Info about providers can be obtained using the Api.inspect set of endpoints (/providers, /routes, etc.)
The above examples shows the correspondence between inference providers and models registry items. Things work similarly for the safety <=> shields and memory <=> memory_banks pairs.
Registry: This PR also makes it so that Providers need to implement additional methods for registering and listing objects. For example, each Inference provider is now expected to implement the ModelsProtocolPrivate protocol (naming is not great!) which consists of two methods
register_model
list_models
The goal is to inform the provider that a certain model needs to be supported so the provider can make any relevant backend changes if needed (or throw an error if the model cannot be supported.)
There are many other cleanups included some of which are detailed in a follow-up comment.
