-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
Add dynamic provider and API key configuration for LiteLLM Client integration #148
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
https://github.com/coderabbitai full review |
|
@coderabbitai can you compare this to #149 |
|
Tip For best results, initiate chat on the files or code changes. 🧩 Analysis chainI'll compare PR #148 with PR #149 for you, but first I need to gather information about PR #149. Let me check that for you. 🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 2355 Let me analyze both PRs to provide a comparison of their approaches and changes. 🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 12507 Let me look more deeply at the implementation changes in both PRs to understand how they differ. 🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 896 Let me look for the implementation of LiteLLMClient class and compare how both PRs approach dynamic provider configuration. 🏁 Script executed: Length of output: 5968 @aj47 Based on my analysis of both PR #148 and PR #149, here's a comparison of their approaches: PR #148 vs PR #149 ComparisonCore Focus
Implementation Approach
Test Coverage
RecommendationPR #148 appears to be more comprehensive and robust with better test coverage and proper database integration for configuration persistence. It seems to follow better software engineering practices with a test-driven approach and consideration for different API key sources and error scenarios. Would you like me to look more deeply at any particular aspect of these PRs? |
This PR refactors the LiteLLM integration to support dynamic selection of inference providers and API keys, replacing the previous hardcoded configuration approach. The LiteLLMClient class now accepts provider and api_key parameters during initialization or per call, enabling flexible runtime behavior. Configuration persistence is updated to store and retrieve selected providers and their key sources via the database layer. The chat completion method dynamically routes requests based on the configured provider, utilizing the correct key.
The test suite is expanded to ensure robustness, including:
Overall, these enhancements enable multi-provider support out of the box and prepare the system for future extensibility in LLM backend management.