Skip to content

Allow use new capabilities when use assume_exists #350

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

victorlcampos
Copy link

@victorlcampos victorlcampos commented Aug 15, 2025

What this does

Type of change

  • Bug fix
  • New feature
  • Breaking change
  • Documentation
  • Performance improvement

Scope check

  • I read the Contributing Guide
  • This aligns with RubyLLM's focus on LLM communication
  • This isn't application-specific logic that belongs in user code
  • This benefits most users, not just my specific use case

Quality check

  • I ran overcommit --install and all hooks pass
  • I tested my changes thoroughly
  • I updated documentation if needed
  • I didn't modify auto-generated files manually (models.json, aliases.json)

API changes

  • Breaking change
  • New public methods/classes
  • Changed method signatures
  • No API changes

Related issues

@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ def resolve(model_id, provider: nil, assume_exists: false, config: nil) # ruboco
id: model_id,
name: model_id.tr('-', ' ').capitalize,
provider: provider_instance.slug,
capabilities: %w[function_calling streaming],
capabilities: provider_class.capabilities.capabilities_for(model_id),
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will not work. The entire point of assume_model_exists is that the model doesn't exist. Take a look at the array of possible capabilities in models_schema.json instead.

Comment on lines +84 to +86
model: 'gemini-pro',
provider: 'gemini',
assume_model_exists: true
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd rather use the Ollama provider for this one and a randomized name of a model.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants