Skip to content

Fix model configuration schema to consistently use [models]#207

Closed
gregorriegler wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
fix-model-config-schema-8337077536644701292
Closed

Fix model configuration schema to consistently use [models]#207
gregorriegler wants to merge 4 commits intomainfrom
fix-model-config-schema-8337077536644701292

Conversation

@gregorriegler
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Fix configuration parsing logic to parse default from the [models] section and updated configuration documentation and test examples.


PR created automatically by Jules for task 8337077536644701292 started by @gregorriegler

The configuration previously required `[model]` for the default setting and `[models.*]` for specific configurations. This was inconsistent and caused confusion as noted in the README.

This change updates `simple_agent/infrastructure/model_config.py` to parse the `default` key directly from the `[models]` section. All example configuration files and the README have been updated to reflect the new consistent schema. Test suites were also updated to pass with the new schema.

Co-authored-by: gregorriegler <5053662+gregorriegler@users.noreply.github.com>
@google-labs-jules
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.


For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

google-labs-jules bot and others added 3 commits March 6, 2026 23:13
Added `await pilot.pause()` immediately after entering the `app.run_test()` context in `test_continuation_tool_result_is_last_event`. This ensures the UI layout engine fully processes and renders docked widgets like `SmartInput` and inner `Markdown` elements before capturing the state, resolving an `Approval Mismatch` seen on Windows CI.

Co-authored-by: gregorriegler <5053662+gregorriegler@users.noreply.github.com>
Textual's `Markdown` widget parses its content asynchronously in a background worker. On slower systems (like Windows CI runners), `await pilot.pause()` wasn't sufficient to guarantee the worker had completed before capturing the golden UI state. This resulted in an `Approval Mismatch` where the DOM still had raw unparsed `Markdown` nodes instead of the expected `MarkdownParagraph` elements.

This change adds `await app.workers.wait_for_complete()` before `await pilot.pause()` in `continuation_ui_golden_test.py` to ensure all asynchronous Markdown parsing and rendering finishes before snapshotting the UI state.

Co-authored-by: gregorriegler <5053662+gregorriegler@users.noreply.github.com>
…on Windows CI.

Within the test checking that the application sends user input, the action method responsible for dispatching this input queues asynchronous work to expand the context and send the data. On slower CI runners (Windows), a basic `await pilot.pause()` was occasionally returning before the worker and message queue fully settled, leading to an assertion failure because the captured input records were empty.

I added `await app.workers.wait_for_complete()` and a short delay (`await pilot.pause(0.1)`) to ensure the dispatch event has time to fully process before assertions.

Co-authored-by: gregorriegler <5053662+gregorriegler@users.noreply.github.com>
@gregorriegler gregorriegler deleted the fix-model-config-schema-8337077536644701292 branch March 7, 2026 17:28
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.

1 participant