-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.1k
Replace Azure.AI.Projects and add Azure.AI.Agents [V2]. #53594
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
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.
Pull Request Overview
This PR replaces Azure.AI.Projects with Azure.AI.Agents (V2 SDK) by moving files from a private repository. The main changes include adding the new Azure.AI.Agents SDK, modifying Azure.AI.Projects to work with agents V2, and removing the dependency on Azure.AI.OpenAI.
Key Changes
- Added Azure.AI.Agents SDK with support for Agents V2
- Modified Azure.AI.Projects to work with agents V2
- Removed Azure.AI.OpenAI dependency from Azure.AI.Projects
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 63 out of 940 changed files in this pull request and generated 9 comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| sdk/ai/Azure.AI.Agents/src/Custom/*.cs | Core custom implementations for agents, conversations, memory stores, and API interactions |
| sdk/ai/Azure.AI.Agents/src/Custom/Internal/*.cs | Internal helper classes for telemetry, collections, pipeline policies, and serialization |
| sdk/ai/Azure.AI.Agents/samples/*.md | Sample documentation for various agent scenarios |
| sdk/ai/Azure.AI.Agents/src/Azure.AI.Agents.csproj | Project configuration with dependencies on Azure.Core, System.Text.Json, and OpenAI |
| sdk/ai/Azure.AI.Agents/README.md | Library documentation and usage examples |
| sdk/ai/Azure.AI.Agents/CHANGELOG.md | Version 2.0.0 changelog placeholder |
sdk/ai/Azure.AI.Agents/src/Custom/Internal/InternalOpenAICollectionResultOptions.cs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
78194be to
e97ad52
Compare
API Change CheckAPIView identified API level changes in this PR and created the following API reviews |
e97ad52 to
637124d
Compare
| "reportgenerator" | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| "azure.sdk.tools.testproxy": { |
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.
@m-redding: I'm guessing this is related to the SCM test framework. Can you confirm and give a quick look for review?
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.
Yep this is needed for the unbranded test framework. Azure.Core.TestFramework takes advantage of the fact that all the test libraries use a project reference on it in order to access the test proxy, which doesn't work for the SCM test framework.
| "gleu", | ||
| "ubinary" | ||
| "ubinary", | ||
| "agentic" |
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.
Feels like agentic is going to come up reasonably often in many contexts going forward and would be a good candidate for promotion to the general section. Do you mind bumping this up?
| <PackageReference Update="Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Features" Version="[2.1.1,6.0)" /> | ||
| </ItemGroup> | ||
|
|
||
| <ItemGroup Condition="$(MSBuildProjectName.StartsWith('Azure.AI.Agents'))"> |
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.
Is the intent to allow these to evolve independently? Seems that we could bundle the floating version into a single group with a compound condition.
| @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | |||
| # Runsettings file | |||
| *.runsettings | |||
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.
This file is redundant to the /sdk/ai root version.
| @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ | |||
| # Release History | |||
|
|
|||
| ## 2.0.0 (Unreleased) | |||
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.
| ## 2.0.0 (Unreleased) | |
| ## 2.0.0-beta.1 (Unreleased) |
By convention, we always leave change logs and projects anchored at a beta until we're ready to release.
| // Replace Microsoft.Test with the correct resource provider namepace for your service and uncomment. | ||
| // See https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/management/azure-services-resource-providers | ||
| // for the list of possible values. | ||
| [assembly: Azure.Core.AzureResourceProviderNamespace("Microsoft.Template")] |
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.
This needs to be updated for the project.
| @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ | |||
| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> | |||
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.
I don't think we want this in the repo. Looks like a local testing asset for AOT.
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.
@m-redding: Please correct me if I'm mistaken here.
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.
I'm not familar with this, I've never seen this needed for AOT testing. Maybe there's something I'm not aware of but otherwise I agree that it doesn't seem like something we want
| <ItemGroup> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="Azure.Identity" /> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="Microsoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces" VersionOverride="9.0.0" /> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="NUnit" VersionOverride="4.4.0" /> |
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.
//cc: @m-redding, for awareness during the NUnit v4 global update.
| <PackageReference Include="Moq" /> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Console" /> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="System.Linq.Async" /> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="Microsoft.ClientModel.TestFramework" VersionOverride="1.0.0-alpha.20251023.1"/> |
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.
@m-redding: This feels like the wrong approach to including for a project in the SDK repo. Should we be taking a project ref like we do with the Azure test framework? If not, we should add this to the central versions rather than local "forever" overrides.
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.
Either way would be fine, I will add it to the central packages references, I think that would be preferable to using project references
| </ItemGroup> | ||
| <ItemGroup> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="Azure.Identity" /> | ||
| <PackageReference Include="Microsoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces" VersionOverride="9.0.0" /> |
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.
Why do we need an override for AsyncInterfaces?
|
@m-redding: Would you please give this a pass and take point on the approval for central files? |
* Add File search test and sample. * Fix
Move the files from private repository.
Contributing to the Azure SDK
Please see our CONTRIBUTING.md if you are not familiar with contributing to this repository or have questions.
For specific information about pull request etiquette and best practices, see this section.