-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
feat: Add user_id property to ReadonlyContext #2875
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
Open
ammmr
wants to merge
1
commit into
google:main
Choose a base branch
from
ammmr:ammmr-add-user_id-property-to-readonly-context
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
The
user_id
property is typed to return astr
. While the underlyingInvocationContext
also types it asstr
, it's common for user identifiers to be optional (e.g., for anonymous sessions). If_invocation_context.user_id
were to returnNone
, this property would violate its type hint, potentially leading to runtime errors in client code.To make the API more robust, I suggest changing the return type to
Optional[str]
. This makes it explicit thatuser_id
can be missing and requires consumers to handle this case.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.
Thank you for the feedback. I understand your concern about the robustness of the API. However, I believe the current implementation with
str
return type is correct based on the codebase design.Looking at the
Session
base class and its implementations (specificallyInMemorySessionService
), theuser_id
is a required field that cannot beNone
:Session
base class definesuser_id
as a non-optionalstr
fieldInMemorySessionService
, sessions are created with a requireduser_id
parameter (line 106 insrc/google/adk/sessions/in_memory_session_service.py
)InvocationContext
that wraps the session also treatsuser_id
as a requiredstr
This architectural decision means that anonymous sessions are not supported in the current design - every session must have an associated user_id. Making it
Optional[str]
would imply that anonymous sessions are possible, which would be misleading given the current implementation constraints.If anonymous sessions become a requirement in the future, it would need to be a broader architectural change affecting the
Session
base class and all its implementations, not just this readonly accessor.Therefore, keeping the return type as
str
accurately reflects the current API contract and ensures type consistency throughout the codebase.