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

Parse and correctly set Gemini safety settings #3026

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

drewgillson
Copy link
Contributor

Why are these changes needed?

The provided example at the top of this file did not work correctly. Safety settings need to be parsed into Vertex AI objects and cannot just be a dictionary of simple objects.

Checks

@drewgillson
Copy link
Contributor Author

@microsoft-github-policy-service agree

@qingyun-wu qingyun-wu requested a review from BeibinLi June 27, 2024 17:08
@qingyun-wu
Copy link
Contributor

@drewgillson thanks for the contribution, could you fix the code formatting issue by running pre-commit? Thanks!
@BeibinLi could you help review? Thank you!

Copy link
Collaborator

@BeibinLi BeibinLi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks! What if VertexAI is not used? For instance, what if the user is using google-generativeai rather than VertexAI?

Copy link

gitguardian bot commented Jul 20, 2024

️✅ There are no secrets present in this pull request anymore.

If these secrets were true positive and are still valid, we highly recommend you to revoke them.
Once a secret has been leaked into a git repository, you should consider it compromised, even if it was deleted immediately.
Find here more information about risks.


🦉 GitGuardian detects secrets in your source code to help developers and security teams secure the modern development process. You are seeing this because you or someone else with access to this repository has authorized GitGuardian to scan your pull request.

@qingyun-wu
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @drewgillson, could you fix code format issues? Thanks!

@ekzhu
Copy link
Collaborator

ekzhu commented Oct 1, 2024

@drewgillson would you like to continue working on this PR?

@ekzhu ekzhu changed the base branch from main to 0.2 October 2, 2024 18:27
@jackgerrits jackgerrits added the 0.2 Issues which were filed before re-arch to 0.4 label Oct 4, 2024
@rysweet rysweet added the awaiting-op-response Issue or pr has been triaged or responded to and is now awaiting a reply from the original poster label Oct 10, 2024
@rysweet
Copy link
Collaborator

rysweet commented Oct 12, 2024

@drewgillson - this is a few months stale - we've rebased and updated the branch and its been a couple weeks since, closing for now and please reopen if you would like to continue.

@rysweet rysweet closed this Oct 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
0.2 Issues which were filed before re-arch to 0.4 awaiting-op-response Issue or pr has been triaged or responded to and is now awaiting a reply from the original poster
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants