# What does this PR do?
This PR brings back the facility to not force registration of resources
onto the user. This is not just annoying but actually not feasible
sometimes. For example, you may have a Stack which boots up with private
providers for inference for models A and B. There is no way for the user
to actually know which model is being served by these providers now (to
be able to register it.)
How will this avoid the users needing to do registration? In a follow-up
diff, I will make sure I update the sample run.yaml files so they list
the models served by the distributions explicitly. So when users do
`llama stack build --template <...>` and run it, their distributions
come up with the right set of models they expect.
For self-hosted distributions, it also allows us to have a place to
explicit list the models that need to be served to make the "complete"
stack (including safety, e.g.)
## Test Plan
Started ollama locally with two lightweight models: Llama3.2-3B-Instruct
and Llama-Guard-3-1B.
Updated all the tests including agents. Here's the tests I ran so far:
```bash
pytest -s -v -m "fireworks and llama_3b" test_text_inference.py::TestInference \
--env FIREWORKS_API_KEY=...
pytest -s -v -m "ollama and llama_3b" test_text_inference.py::TestInference
pytest -s -v -m ollama test_safety.py
pytest -s -v -m faiss test_memory.py
pytest -s -v -m ollama test_agents.py \
--inference-model=Llama3.2-3B-Instruct --safety-model=Llama-Guard-3-1B
```
Found a few bugs here and there pre-existing that these test runs fixed.
* Significantly simpler and malleable test setup
* convert memory tests
* refactor fixtures and add support for composable fixtures
* Fix memory to use the newer fixture organization
* Get agents tests working
* Safety tests work
* yet another refactor to make this more general
now it accepts --inference-model, --safety-model options also
* get multiple providers working for meta-reference (for inference + safety)
* Add README.md
---------
Co-authored-by: Ashwin Bharambe <ashwin@meta.com>
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.
