Skip to content
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

Add new model options for Perplexity Tool (builtin) #13688

Closed
5 tasks done
kaznishi opened this issue Feb 13, 2025 · 6 comments
Closed
5 tasks done

Add new model options for Perplexity Tool (builtin) #13688

kaznishi opened this issue Feb 13, 2025 · 6 comments
Labels
💪 enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@kaznishi
Copy link

Self Checks

  • I have searched for existing issues search for existing issues, including closed ones.
  • I confirm that I am using English to submit this report (我已阅读并同意 Language Policy).
  • [FOR CHINESE USERS] 请务必使用英文提交 Issue,否则会被关闭。谢谢!:)
  • Please do not modify this template :) and fill in all the required fields.

1. Is this request related to a challenge you're experiencing? Tell me about your story.

When attempting to create a workflow using the new models of the Perplexity API with the built-in Perplexity tool, I found that the model selection options had not been updated, making it impossible to choose them. I would like to add selectable options for the new models (sonar, sonar-pro, sonar-reasoning, sonar-reasoning-pro) so that they can be used.

2. Additional context or comments

The addition of the new models has been announced here:
https://docs.perplexity.ai/changelog/changelog#build-with-perplexitys-new-apis

Since the new models, like the existing ones, are OpenAI Compatible, it seems that simply adding options to the YAML will work.

By the way, it appears that the existing models will soon become inaccessible.
https://docs.perplexity.ai/changelog/changelog#api-model-deprecation-notice

In my view, within the scope of this issue, the options for the old models should be retained. I believe that removing these options should be postponed until users have had sufficient time to adjust their settings.

3. Can you help us with this feature?

  • I am interested in contributing to this feature.
@dosubot dosubot bot added the 💪 enhancement New feature or request label Feb 13, 2025
@crazywoola
Copy link
Member

Please be aware that we are going to roll out the v1.0.0 changes related to models runtimes and tools will not take effect above v1.0, if you want to contribute to this feature please make sure adapt the changes to https://github.com/langgenius/dify-official-plugins. :)

@kaznishi
Copy link
Author

@crazywoola
I see. Thank you for information!
I will make an issue in the dify-official-plugins repository and link this issue.
When I modify codes, I will adapt the changes to the dify-official-plugins repository.

I want to contribute this issue.
However, I found a statement that says "If all looks good, they will give the go-ahead for you to start coding." in CONTRIBUTING.md, so I'm staying because I wasn't sure if I could start working on it.

Can I start make a pull request?

@crazywoola
Copy link
Member

crazywoola commented Feb 13, 2025

Of course. Actually if you checked the checkbox then you can start working on it, if we have some insights or information like #13688 (comment) We will share it with you :)

Rules are not that restricted. :)

@kaznishi
Copy link
Author

I see. Thanks! I will start.

@kaznishi
Copy link
Author

PR Opened.

@kaznishi
Copy link
Author

The structure of the main branch in this repository has changed due to the merge of the plugins/beta branch, and conflicts appeared with this pull request. Therefore, I will close this pull request.
Since the pull request for dify-official-plugins towards v1.0.0 has already been merged, I consider my objective to be achieved.

#13694 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
💪 enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants