fix: GH-3998 Refactor the ollamaChatRequest method of OllamaChatModel
#3999
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…ama.OllamaChatModel#ollamaChatRequest` to support custom implementations of `AbstractMessage` and align with other `ChatModel` implementations. Signed-off-by: Sun Yuhan <[email protected]>
sunyuhan1998
changed the title
sunyuhan1998
changed the title
ollamaChatRequest method of OllamaChatModel
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As mentioned in the issue #3998 , when
OllamaChatModelconstructs theOllamaApi.ChatRequest, it directly usesinstanceofto identify theMessagetype. This approach restricts users from customizing their own implementations ofAbstractMessageand is also inconsistent with the implementation of otherChatModels (e.g.,org.springframework.ai.openai.OpenAiChatModel#createRequestandorg.springframework.ai.deepseek.DeepSeekChatModel#createRequest).This PR resolves the issue by unifying the implementation: message type identification is now performed using
MessageType.Fixes #3998