Skip to content

valiate reqeust to gpt-5 series as reasoning #1061

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

Closed

Conversation

phosae
Copy link

@phosae phosae commented Aug 8, 2025

image

valiate reqeust to gpt-5 series as reasoning to avoid these errors:

  • Unsupported parameter: 'logprobs' is not supported with this model.
  • Unsupported parameter: 'top_p' is not supported with this model.
  • Unsupported value: 'temperature' does not support 0.7 with this model. Only the default (1) value is supported.
  • ...

@phosae
Copy link
Author

phosae commented Aug 8, 2025

/cc @sashabaranov

@phosae
Copy link
Author

phosae commented Aug 8, 2025

/s wr

Copy link

codecov bot commented Aug 8, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 99.59%. Comparing base (c4273cb) to head (b8fad4d).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1061   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   99.59%   99.59%           
=======================================
  Files          34       34           
  Lines        2205     2206    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits         2196     2197    +1     
  Misses          6        6           
  Partials        3        3           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@phosae phosae force-pushed the validate-gpt-5-req-as-reasoning branch from 81f5f28 to b8fad4d Compare August 8, 2025 03:54
@sashabaranov
Copy link
Owner

@phosae thank you for the PR! I've decided to merge #1062 as it's a bit more comprehensive

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants