486 support for pydantic v2 v1 compatible

[arpagon]

I'm currently working on a PR that updates our codebase to support both Pydantic v1 and v2 compatibility. This is a significant change as it involves updates to import statements, formatting, and some logic adjustments across multiple files and modules.

The migration to Pydantic v2 is being done progressively. The first step is to make the codebase compatible with both Pydantic v1 and v2. This is achieved by importing from pydantic.v1 instead of pydantic.

# Example of import statement change
from pydantic.v1 import BaseModel

Once the codebase is compatible with both versions, the next step is to fully migrate to Pydantic v2. This will be a major change as it will require adapting the polymorphism used in the base classes throughout the project to the new code pattern in Pydantic v2.

During this migration process, I suggest having two versions of the project, similar to what was done in Langchain. For instance, version 112 could be compatible with Pydantic v1, and a subsequent version could be fully migrated to Pydantic v2.

I will also update the documentation to reflect these changes and provide a clear migration guide for users. This will help them understand why this change is necessary and how it impacts the project.

[arpagon]

@CodiumAI-Agent /review

[CodiumAI-Agent]

PR Analysis

(review updated until commit a8e85ae)

• 🎯 Main theme: Support for Pydantic v2 and v1 compatibility
• 📝 PR summary: This PR is a significant change to the codebase, aiming to make it compatible with both Pydantic v1 and v2. It involves updates to import statements, formatting, and some logic adjustments across multiple files and modules. The migration to Pydantic v2 is being done progressively, starting with making the codebase compatible with both versions.
• 📌 Type of PR: Enhancement
• 🧪 Relevant tests added: No
• ⏱️ Estimated effort to review [1-5]: 4, because the PR involves changes in multiple files and modules, and requires understanding of the Pydantic library and its versions.
• 🔒 Security concerns: No security concerns found

PR Feedback

💡 General suggestions: The PR is well-structured and the changes are clearly explained in the description. However, it would be beneficial to add tests to ensure that the changes do not break existing functionality and that the codebase works as expected with both Pydantic v1 and v2. Additionally, it would be helpful to include a rollback plan in case issues arise after the changes are merged.

🤖 Code feedback:

---

relevant file	apps/telegram_bot/main.py
suggestion	Consider using a single import statement for all Pydantic classes to make the code cleaner and easier to read. For example, you can use from pydantic.v1 import BaseModel, Field, SecretStr instead of separate import statements for each class. [medium]
relevant line	from pydantic.v1 import BaseModel

---

relevant file	apps/voice_rag/main.py
suggestion	It's good that you're checking if the environment variable 'PINECONE_INDEX_NAME' is set. However, consider moving this check to a separate function or method for better code organization and reusability. [medium]
relevant line	pinecone_index_name = os.getenv("PINECONE_INDEX_NAME")

---

relevant file	vocode/streaming/agent/anthropic_agent.py
suggestion	It's great that you're using SecretStr for handling sensitive data like anthropic_api_key. However, consider adding a comment explaining why you're converting anthropic_api_key to SecretStr for better code readability. [medium]
relevant line	anthropic_api_key = SecretStr(anthropic_api_key)

---

relevant file	vocode/streaming/telephony/server/base.py
suggestion	It's good that you're using f-strings for string formatting. However, consider using a separate variable for the formatted string to make the code cleaner and easier to read. [medium]
relevant line	self.logger.info(f"Set up recordings endpoint at https://{self.base_url}/recordings/{{conversation_id}}")

---

---

✨ Usage guide:

---

Overview:
The review tool scans the PR code changes, and generates a PR review. The tool can be triggered automatically every time a new PR is opened, or can be invoked manually by commenting on any PR.
When commenting, to edit configurations related to the review tool (pr_reviewer section), use the following template:

/review --pr_reviewer.some_config1=... --pr_reviewer.some_config2=...

With a configuration file, use the following template:

[pr_reviewer]
some_config1=...
some_config2=...

Utilizing extra instructions The review tool can be configured with extra instructions, which can be used to guide the model to a feedback tailored to the needs of your project. Be specific, clear, and concise in the instructions. With extra instructions, you are the prompter. Specify the relevant sub-tool, and the relevant aspects of the PR that you want to emphasize. Examples for extra instructions: [pr_reviewer] # /review # extra_instructions=""" In the 'general suggestions' section, emphasize the following: - Does the code logic cover relevant edge cases? - Is the code logic clear and easy to understand? - Is the code logic efficient? ... """ Use triple quotes to write multi-line instructions. Use bullet points to make the instructions more readable.

How to enable\disable automation When you first install PR-Agent app, the default mode for the review tool is: pr_commands = ["/review", ...] meaning the review tool will run automatically on every PR, with the default configuration. Edit this field to enable/disable the tool, or to change the used configurations

Auto-labels The review tool can auto-generate two specific types of labels for a PR: a possible security issue label, that detects possible security issues (enable_review_labels_security flag) a Review effort [1-5]: x label, where x is the estimated effort to review the PR (enable_review_labels_effort flag)

Extra sub-tools The review tool provides a collection of possible feedbacks about a PR. It is recommended to review the possible options, and choose the ones relevant for your use case. Some of the feature that are disabled by default are quite useful, and should be considered for enabling. For example: require_score_review, require_soc2_ticket, and more.

More PR-Agent commands To invoke the PR-Agent, add a comment using one of the following commands: /review: Request a review of your Pull Request. /describe: Update the PR title and description based on the contents of the PR. /improve [--extended]: Suggest code improvements. Extended mode provides a higher quality feedback. /ask <QUESTION>: Ask a question about the PR. /update_changelog: Update the changelog based on the PR's contents. /add_docs 💎: Generate docstring for new components introduced in the PR. /generate_labels 💎: Generate labels for the PR based on the PR's contents. /analyze 💎: Automatically analyzes the PR, and presents changes walkthrough for each component. See the tools guide for more details. To list the possible configuration parameters, add a /config comment.

See the review usage page for a comprehensive guide on using this tool.

[CodiumAI-Agent]

Persistent review updated to latest commit a8e85ae

[ajar98]

can we consolidate style in a Prettier config? much of this PR is changing formatting

[arpagon]

can we consolidate style in a Prettier config? much of this PR is changing formatting
Hi @ajar98 I want to thank you for taking the time to review this PR.

I'm aware of the formatting changes in this PR because I've used Black, as stated in our contribution guide. In fact, now it's mandatory to do this as part of our process, which includes running

poetry run pre-commit install 8441abe

I believe it's important to discuss how we can further align our code formatting processes to ensure consistency and efficiency in our future contributions.

I'm open to suggestions and would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this