Skip to content

feature: Improves Amp client compatibility #605

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
luispater merged 1 commit into from
Jan 8, 2026
+25 −0
Merged

feature: Improves Amp client compatibility #605

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
25 changes: 25 additions & 0 deletions internal/api/modules/amp/response_rewriter.go
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -69,7 +69,32 @@ func (rw *ResponseRewriter) Flush() {
var modelFieldPaths = []string{"model", "modelVersion", "response.modelVersion", "message.model"}

// rewriteModelInResponse replaces all occurrences of the mapped model with the original model in JSON
// It also suppresses "thinking" blocks if "tool_use" is present to ensure Amp client compatibility
func (rw *ResponseRewriter) rewriteModelInResponse(data []byte) []byte {
// 1. Amp Compatibility: Suppress thinking blocks if tool use is detected
// The Amp client struggles when both thinking and tool_use blocks are present
// 1. Amp Compatibility: Suppress thinking blocks if tool use is detected
// The Amp client struggles when both thinking and tool_use blocks are present
Comment on lines +76 to +77
Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

These comments are duplicates of the ones on lines 74-75. They can be removed for conciseness.

if gjson.GetBytes(data, `content.#(type=="tool_use")`).Exists() {
filtered := gjson.GetBytes(data, `content.#(type!="thinking")#`)
if filtered.Exists() {
originalCount := gjson.GetBytes(data, "content.#").Int()
filteredCount := filtered.Get("#").Int()

if originalCount > filteredCount {
var err error
data, err = sjson.SetBytes(data, "content", filtered.Value())
if err != nil {
log.Warnf("Amp ResponseRewriter: failed to suppress thinking blocks: %v", err)
} else {
log.Debugf("Amp ResponseRewriter: Suppressed %d thinking blocks due to tool usage", originalCount-filteredCount)
// Log the result for verification
log.Debugf("Amp ResponseRewriter: Resulting content: %s", gjson.GetBytes(data, "content").String())
}
}
}
Comment on lines +80 to +95
Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot Dec 18, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

medium

The check if filtered.Exists() is redundant. The outer if on line 78 already ensures that the content field exists. If content exists, gjson.GetBytes(data, content.#(type!="thinking")#) will always return a result where .Exists() is true (even if it's an empty JSON array []). You can simplify the code by removing this conditional block and un-indenting its contents.

                originalCount := gjson.GetBytes(data, "content.#").Int()
			filteredCount := filtered.Get("#").Int()

			if originalCount > filteredCount {
				var err error
				data, err = sjson.SetBytes(data, "content", filtered.Value())
				if err != nil {
					log.Warnf("Amp ResponseRewriter: failed to suppress thinking blocks: %v", err)
				} else {
					log.Debugf("Amp ResponseRewriter: Suppressed %d thinking blocks due to tool usage", originalCount-filteredCount)
					// Log the result for verification
					log.Debugf("Amp ResponseRewriter: Resulting content: %s", gjson.GetBytes(data, "content").String())
				}
			}

}

if rw.originalModel == "" {
return data
}
Expand Down