add --mproj to support multimodal model packaging #524
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello @ilopezluna, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request enhances the Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces support for packaging multimodal models by adding a --mproj flag to include a multimodal projector file. The changes are consistently applied across the CLI command, its documentation, and the underlying packaging logic. The implementation is clear and follows existing patterns in the codebase. I have one suggestion regarding code duplication in path validation which could improve maintainability.
| if opts.mmprojPath != "" { | ||
| if !filepath.IsAbs(opts.mmprojPath) { | ||
| return fmt.Errorf( | ||
| "mmproj path must be absolute.\n\n" + | ||
| "See 'docker model package --help' for more information", | ||
| ) | ||
| } | ||
| opts.mmprojPath = filepath.Clean(opts.mmprojPath) | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This validation logic for mmprojPath is very similar to the validation for ggufPath (lines 69-77) and licensePaths (lines 110-118). To improve maintainability and reduce code duplication, consider extracting this logic into a helper function.
For example, you could create a function like this:
func validateAbsPath(path, name string) (string, error) {
if !filepath.IsAbs(path) {
return "", fmt.Errorf(
"%s path must be absolute.\n\n"+
"See 'docker model package --help' for more information",
name,
)
}
return filepath.Clean(path), nil
}This function could then be used for mmprojPath, ggufPath, and licensePaths, making the validation logic more concise and easier to maintain.
Adds support for including multimodal projector file when packaging a model via
docker model package.Fixes: #438