fix: apply history_length for message/send requests

[kthota-g]

Description

changes to honor historyLength param passed for message/send requests

Fixes #497 🦕

Release-As: 0.3.9

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @kthota-g, 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 addresses an issue where the history_length parameter was not consistently applied across different request types. It centralizes the logic for truncating task history into a new utility function, which is then used in both task retrieval and message sending operations. This ensures that the history presented to the user or in notifications accurately reflects the requested length, while also improving code maintainability and adding robust test coverage for this functionality.

Highlights

• Refactored History Limiting Logic: The logic for applying the history_length parameter has been extracted from default_request_handler.py into a new, reusable utility function named apply_history_length in a2a.utils.task.py.
• Consistent Application of History Length: The history_length parameter is now consistently applied when retrieving tasks via on_get_task and when processing message/send requests, specifically before sending push notifications, ensuring that the returned task history respects the specified length.
• New Test Coverage: Two new test cases have been added to test_default_request_handler.py to verify that the history_length parameter is correctly honored for both on_message_send and on_get_task operations, including scenarios where history is completely truncated.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The 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 /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

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 .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

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

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request effectively addresses the issue by ensuring the history_length parameter is honored in message/send requests. The refactoring of the history-limiting logic into a reusable apply_history_length utility function is a significant improvement, enhancing code clarity and maintainability. The addition of new tests is also commendable, as they thoroughly validate the new functionality and ensure that the underlying data in the task store remains complete. Overall, this is a well-executed change. I have a couple of minor suggestions for further improvement.