llama-models should have extremely minimal cruft. Its sole purpose
should be didactic -- show the simplest implementation of the llama
models and document the prompt formats, etc.
This PR is the complement to
https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-models/pull/279
## Test Plan
Ensure all `llama` CLI `model` sub-commands work:
```bash
llama model list
llama model download --model-id ...
llama model prompt-format -m ...
```
Ran tests:
```bash
cd tests/client-sdk
LLAMA_STACK_CONFIG=fireworks pytest -s -v inference/
LLAMA_STACK_CONFIG=fireworks pytest -s -v vector_io/
LLAMA_STACK_CONFIG=fireworks pytest -s -v agents/
```
Create a fresh venv `uv venv && source .venv/bin/activate` and run
`llama stack build --template fireworks --image-type venv` followed by
`llama stack run together --image-type venv` <-- the server runs
Also checked that the OpenAPI generator can run and there is no change
in the generated files as a result.
```bash
cd docs/openapi_generator
sh run_openapi_generator.sh
```
# What does this PR do?
The current default system prompt for llama3.2 tends to overindex on
tool calling and doesn't work well when the prompt does not require tool
calling.
This PR adds an option to override the default system prompt, and
organizes tool-related configs into a new config object.
- [ ] Addresses issue (#issue)
## Test Plan
python -m unittest
llama_stack.providers.tests.inference.test_prompt_adapter
## Sources
Please link relevant resources if necessary.
## Before submitting
- [ ] This PR fixes a typo or improves the docs (you can dismiss the
other checks if that's the case).
- [ ] Ran pre-commit to handle lint / formatting issues.
- [ ] Read the [contributor
guideline](https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-stack/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md),
Pull Request section?
- [ ] Updated relevant documentation.
- [ ] Wrote necessary unit or integration tests.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with
[ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/meta-llama/llama-stack/pull/937).
* #938
* __->__ #937
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.
2024-10-10 10:24:13 -07:00
Renamed from tests/test_augment_messages.py (Browse further)
