[ENH] Add validation when multiple embedding functions set on client

[jairad26]

Description of changes

This PR adds validation on create, get, and get_or_create collection to ensure that if embedding functions are provided in both places, it raises an error for the user

Test plan

How are these changes tested?

• Tests pass locally with pytest for python, yarn test for js, cargo test for rust

Documentation Changes

Are all docstrings for user-facing APIs updated if required? Do we need to make documentation changes in the docs section?

[github-actions]

Reviewer Checklist

Please leverage this checklist to ensure your code review is thorough before approving

Testing, Bugs, Errors, Logs, Documentation

• Can you think of any use case in which the code does not behave as intended? Have they been tested?
• Can you think of any inputs or external events that could break the code? Is user input validated and safe? Have they been tested?
• If appropriate, are there adequate property based tests?
• If appropriate, are there adequate unit tests?
• Should any logging, debugging, tracing information be added or removed?
• Are error messages user-friendly?
• Have all documentation changes needed been made?
• Have all non-obvious changes been commented?

System Compatibility

• Are there any potential impacts on other parts of the system or backward compatibility?
• Does this change intersect with any items on our roadmap, and if so, is there a plan for fitting them together?

Quality

• Is this code of a unexpectedly high quality (Readability, Modularity, Intuitiveness)

[jairad26]

• [ENH] Add validation when multiple embedding functions set on client #4507 👈 (View in Graphite)
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[propel-code-bot]

Add Validation for Multiple Embedding Function Configurations

This PR implements validation across Python and JavaScript clients to prevent conflicts when embedding functions are provided in multiple places. It adds checks to create, get, and get_or_create collection methods to ensure that when embedding functions are specified both in the function parameters and configuration object, they are either identical or an error is raised.

Key Changes:
• Add validation in Python client (sync and async) to detect conflicting embedding functions
• Add validation in JavaScript client to check for duplicate embedding functions
• Add comprehensive test cases to verify validation behavior
• Improve error messaging to help users identify the issue

Affected Areas:
• Python sync/async client APIs
• JavaScript client
• Collection creation, retrieval, and get_or_create flows
• Test configurations

Potential Impact:

Functionality: Users who previously provided embedding functions in multiple places may now receive errors, forcing them to use a single, consistent embedding function specification.

Performance: Minimal impact - only adds small validation checks during collection operations

Security: No security implications

Scalability: No scalability implications

Review Focus:
• Implementation consistency between Python and JavaScript clients
• Thoroughness of validation logic across different client methods
• Potential edge cases in equality checking of embedding functions
• Error message clarity and helpfulness

Testing Needed

• Test using matching embedding functions in both places (should succeed)
• Test using different embedding functions in both places (should fail)
• Test typical use cases with embedding function in only one place
• Verify error messages are clear and actionable

Code Quality Assessment

chromadb/api/client.py: Good validation logic with clear error messaging

chromadb/api/async_client.py: Maintains consistent validation approach with sync client

clients/js/packages/chromadb-core/src/ChromaClient.ts: Potential issue with object equality checking using !== instead of deep comparison

Best Practices

Error Handling:
• Clear error messages
• Validation at API boundaries

Testing:
• Comprehensive test cases for both success and failure paths

Potential Issues

• JavaScript equality check uses !== which may not correctly identify equal objects with different references
• Default embedding functions might need special handling

This summary was automatically generated by @propel-code-bot

[propel-code-bot]

[DataTypeCheck]

The check for equality of embedding function configurations in the TypeScript client uses efConfig !== collConfigEfConfig (and similarly for .name). This will almost always be true for different objects with identical contents. Use a deep comparison method to accurately compare the configs, such as JSON.stringify() or a dedicated deep-equality utility.

Suggested change

	efConfig.name !== embeddingFunction.name ||
	efConfig !== collConfigEfConfig
	if (
	efConfig.name !== embeddingFunction.name ||
	JSON.stringify(efConfig) !== JSON.stringify(collConfigEfConfig)
	) {
	throw new Error(
	"Multiple embedding functions provided. Please provide only one.",
	);
	}

⚡ Committable suggestion

Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.

[propel-code-bot]

[DataTypeCheck]

The equality check between efConfig and collConfigEfConfig on lines 246 and 333 will not work as expected for objects in JavaScript, since !== only checks reference equality. Use a deep comparison function (like lodash's isEqual) or JSON serialization for robust configuration checks.

Suggested change

	embeddingFunction.name !== configuration.embedding_function.name ||
	efConfig !== collConfigEfConfig
	if (
	embeddingFunction.name !== configuration.embedding_function.name ||
	JSON.stringify(efConfig) !== JSON.stringify(collConfigEfConfig)
	) {
	throw new Error(
	"Multiple embedding functions provided. Please provide only one.",
	);
	}

Repeat this update for all similar blocks checking configuration equality.

⚡ Committable suggestion

Carefully review the code before committing. Ensure that it accurately replaces the highlighted code, contains no missing lines, and has no issues with indentation.

[propel-code-bot]

[BestPractice]

The logic for validating embedding function conflicts (checking names and configurations if both an embedding_function parameter and an embedding function from the configuration dictionary are present and non-default) is duplicated in create_collection (here, lines 193-207), get_collection (lines 245-259), and get_or_create_collection (lines 285-299). This pattern also exists in the synchronous chromadb/api/client.py. Consider extracting this validation into a private helper method within each class to improve maintainability and reduce redundancy. The helper could handle the comparison of names and configurations and raise the appropriate ValueError.