feat(beta): add streaming and function calling helpers #409
Conversation
stainless-bot
requested review from
schnerd,
athyuttamre and
logankilpatrick
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Post-merge review with some non-blocking comments cc @rattrayalex @RobertCraigie
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| // or, equivalently: | ||
| for await (const part of stream) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
const chunk of stream?
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| `openai.chat.completions.stream()` returns a `ChatCompletionStreamingRunner`, which emits events, has an async | ||
| iterator, and exposes a helper methods to accumulate chunks into a convenient shape and make it easy to reason |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
typo: "a helper methods" -> "helper methods"
| openai.chat.completions.runFunctions({ stream: true, … }, options?): ChatCompletionStreamingRunner | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| `openai.chat.completions.runFunctions()` returns either a Runner for automating function calls with chat |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
typo: "either" feels out of place
| model: string; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| export namespace ChatCompletionSnapshot { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are these auto generated or manually kept in sync?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These are manually defined, everything in the src/lib folder is not touched by codegen and is manually written on our end.
| functions: RunnableFunctions<FunctionsArgs>; | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| export class ChatCompletionRunner extends AbstractChatCompletionRunner<ChatCompletionRunnerEvents> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems fine but just curious why we have this abstract class separation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There are some subtle differences between ChatCompletionStream which does streaming but not function running and ChatCompletionRunner which does function running but not streaming… but tbh I think they've shrunk over time and we could perhaps get rid of this separation. Let me give it a try.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah, yeah, the types are different which is intentional, best to keep separate.
No description provided.