# What does this PR do?
Today, external providers are installed via the `external_providers_dir`
in the config. This necessitates users to understand the `ProviderSpec`
and set up their directories accordingly. This process splits up the
config for the stack across multiple files, directories, and formats.
Most (if not all) external providers today have a
[get_provider_spec](559cb18fbb/src/ramalama_stack/provider.py (L9))
method that sits unused. Utilizing this method rather than the
providers.d route allows for a much easier installation process for
external providers and limits the amount of extra configuration a
regular user has to do to get their stack off the ground.
To accomplish this and wire it throughout the build process, Introduce
the concept of a `module` for users to specify for an external provider
upon build time. In order to facilitate this, align the build and run
spec to use `Provider` class rather than the stringified provider_type
that build currently uses.
For example, say this is in your build config:
```
- provider_id: ramalama
provider_type: remote::ramalama
module: ramalama_stack
```
during build (in the various `build_...` scripts), additionally to
installing any pip dependencies we will also install this module and use
the `get_provider_spec` method to retrieve the ProviderSpec that is
currently specified using `providers.d`.
In production so far, providing instructions for installing external
providers for users has been difficult: they need to install the module
as a pre-req, create the providers.d directory, copy in the provider
spec, and also copy in the necessary build/run yaml files. Accessing an
external provider should be as easy as possible, and pointing to its
installable module aligns more with the rest of our build and dependency
management process.
For now, `external_providers_dir` still exists as an alternate more
declarative method of using external providers.
## Test Plan
added an integration test installing an external provider from module
and more unit test coverage for `get_provider_registry`
( the warning in yellow is expected, the module is installed inside of
the build env, not where we are running the command)
<img width="1119" height="400" alt="Screenshot 2025-07-24 at 11 30
48 AM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/1efbaf45-b9e8-451a-bd63-264ed664706d"
/>
<img width="1154" height="618" alt="Screenshot 2025-07-24 at 11 31
14 AM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/feb2b3ea-c5dd-418e-9662-9a3bd5dd6bdc"
/>
---------
Signed-off-by: Charlie Doern <cdoern@redhat.com>
- fireworks, together do not support Llama-guard 3 8b model anymore
- Need to default to ollama
- current safety shields logic was not correct since the shield_id was
the provider ( which had duplicates )
- Followed similar logic to models
Note: Seems a bit over-engineered but this can now be extended to other
providers and fits in the overall mechanism of how env_vars are used to
manage starter.
### How to test
```
ENABLE_OLLAMA=ollama ENABLE_FIREWORKS=fireworks SAFETY_MODEL=llama-guard3:1b pytest -s -v tests/integration/ --stack-config starter -k 'not(supervised_fine_tune or builtin_tool_code or safety_with_image or code_interpreter_for or rag_and_code or truncation or register_and_unregister)' --text-model fireworks/meta-llama/Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct --vision-model fireworks/meta-llama/Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct --safety-shield llama-guard3:1b --embedding-model all-MiniLM-L6-v2
```
### Related but not obvious in this PR
In the llama-stack-ops repo, we run tests before publishing packages and
docker containers.
The actions in that repo were using the fireworks / together distros (
which are non-existent )
So need to update that to run with `starter` and use `ollama`
specifically for safety.
# What does this PR do?
* Given that our API packages use "import *" in `__init.py__` we don't
need to do `from llama_stack.apis.models.models` but simply from
llama_stack.apis.models. The decision to use `import *` is debatable and
should probably be revisited at one point.
* Remove unneeded Ruff F401 rule
* Consolidate Ruff F403 rule in the pyprojectfrom
llama_stack.apis.models.models
Signed-off-by: Sébastien Han <seb@redhat.com>
# What does this PR do?
The builtin implementation of code interpreter is not robust and has a
really weak sandboxing shell (the `bubblewrap` container). Given the
availability of better MCP code interpreter servers coming up, we should
use them instead of baking an implementation into the Stack and
expanding the vulnerability surface to the rest of the Stack.
This PR only does the removal. We will add examples with how to
integrate with MCPs in subsequent ones.
## Test Plan
Existing tests.
# What does this PR do?
IBM watsonx ai added as the inference [#1741
](https://github.com/meta-llama/llama-stack/issues/1741)
[//]: # (If resolving an issue, uncomment and update the line below)
[//]: # (Closes #[issue-number])
---------
Co-authored-by: Sajikumar JS <sajikumar.js@ibm.com>
