Skip to content

Conversation

@akraines
Copy link

Fxes #97

Copy link

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

Comment on lines +850 to +852
// Convert reasoning_budget_tokens (u32) to thinking_budget (i32)
// -1 means dynamic thinking, 0 means off (for supported models)
let thinking_budget = self.reasoning_budget_tokens.map(|b| b as i32);

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Expose dynamic thinking budget for Google

The builder converts reasoning_budget_tokens from u32 to i32, but the comment immediately below says -1 enables dynamic thinking. Because the public API only accepts u32, callers cannot provide -1, so dynamic thinking can’t actually be enabled even though it’s documented as supported. This will surprise users following the new example/docs and silently block the intended behavior; consider accepting i32 (or adding a separate flag) so -1 can be passed through.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Comment on lines 553 to +557
json_schema: Option<StructuredOutputFormat>,
tools: Option<Vec<Tool>>,
thinking_budget: Option<i32>,
thinking_level: Option<String>,
include_thoughts: Option<bool>,

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Fix Google::new doctest mismatch after adding params

The Google::new signature now requires thinking_budget, thinking_level, and include_thoughts, but the module-level example at the top of google.rs still calls it with the old 10-argument form. cargo test runs doctests by default, so the example will now fail to compile. Please update the doc example (or switch it to LLMBuilder) to match the new signature.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant