fix: deprecate AgentConfig in favor of AgentState.
#803
Conversation
This file contains 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
cpacker
approved these changes
Jan 11, 2024
mattzh72
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 9, 2024
cpacker
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 29, 2025
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Please describe the purpose of this pull request.
With the new storage refactor, we need to remove
AgentConfig(stored locally per-user) and replace it withAgentState. We also can no longer assume that there is a localMemGPTConfigfile that we can read from, as the server will not have access to this, so I modified parts of the code to assume that the config if passed in.Things that needed to be removed:
AgentConfigMemGPTConfig.load()(unless a top-level CLI command, which is still single-user)How to test
TBD
Have you tested this PR?
TBD
Is your PR over 500 lines of code?
No