-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
fix(models): don't offset streamed content_index by the reasoning item #3757
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
Open
AmirF194
wants to merge
1
commit into
openai:main
Choose a base branch
from
AmirF194:fix/stream-content-index-reasoning
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+67
−4
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When the stream order is reasoning -> refusal -> text, removing the reasoning offset here makes the refusal part emit at
content_index=0; the later text branch then emits text atcontent_index=1because a refusal already exists. Howeverresponse.completedis still assembled with text before refusal (assistant_msg.content.append(text)thenappend(refusal)), so raw stream consumers reconstruct the parts swapped relative to the final message. This affects exactly the refusal-before-text shape the handler already supports, now with a preceding reasoning item.Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, I checked this and the text/refusal swap is pre-existing, not introduced here. This PR only removes the reasoning-item offset; the
text<->refusalcross-increment in both branches is untouched. In thereasoning -> refusal -> textorder: onmainrefusal streams atcontent_index=1and text at2; on this branch refusal at0and text at1. In both cases the streamed order is refusal-then-text while the final message assembles text-then-refusal (lines 1044-1047 append text before refusal unconditionally), so the parts are swapped relative to the stream either way. This change only shifts the absolute indices down by one; it doesn't create or widen that gap.It's worth fixing, but it's a separate concern (the final-assembly order vs arrival order), so I've kept this PR to the reasoning offset. Happy to open a follow-up to align the both-text-and-refusal case if you'd like.