Bump Cerebras

[ivanleomk]

This bumps cerebras to the latest 1.11 version

---

Important

Update cerebras_cloud_sdk to v1.11.0, refactor from_cerebras function, and adjust tests in modes.py.

• Dependencies:
  • Update cerebras_cloud_sdk to version ^1.11.0 in pyproject.toml.
• Functionality:
  • Remove use_async parameter from from_cerebras in client_cerebras.py.
  • Use isinstance to determine async behavior in from_cerebras.
• Tests:
  • Update test_cerebras_json_streaming and test_cerebras_tool_error in modes.py to use create_iterable instead of create.
  • Modify test messages and response models in modes.py to align with new functionality.

^{This description was created by for 6620dfa. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Reviewed everything up to 802a34a in 35 seconds

More details

• Looked at 101 lines of code in 3 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. tests/llm/test_cerebras/modes.py:140

• Draft comment:
  The response_model should be Iterable[User] to match the expected response type.

        response_model=Iterable[User],

• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment suggests reverting a change that might have been intentional. The test logic seems to expect individual User objects, not an iterable, which supports the change to User. The comment might be based on an assumption rather than the actual test logic. The change to create_iterable might not necessarily require Iterable[User] if the test logic expects User.
  I might be missing the broader context of how create_iterable is expected to behave. If it inherently returns an iterable, the change to User might be incorrect. However, the test logic should be the primary guide here.
  The test logic is a strong indicator of the expected behavior. If it checks for User objects, the change to User is likely correct, regardless of the function name.
  The comment should be deleted as the test logic supports the change to User, and the comment seems to be based on an assumption rather than the actual test logic.

2. tests/llm/test_cerebras/modes.py:194

• Draft comment:
  The response_model should be Iterable[User] to match the expected response type.

            response_model=Iterable[User],

• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

3. tests/llm/test_cerebras/modes.py:185

• Draft comment:
  Assertions should have descriptive error messages. For example:

with pytest.raises(ValueError, match="Expected error message"):

This applies to other assertions in this file as well.

• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 80%
  The assertion error messages in the test cases should be more descriptive to help identify the cause of the failure.

Workflow ID: wflow_jErPR16w1fZRV1v8

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[cloudflare-workers-and-pages]

Deploying instructor-py with    Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit:	e832bc2
Status:	⚡️  Build in progress...

View logs

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on e631b95 in 14 seconds

More details

• Looked at 12 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 1 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. instructor/client_cerebras.py:3

• Draft comment:
  Literal is used in the code but the import statement for it was removed. Re-add the import for Literal.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable:
  The comment suggests re-adding an import for Literal, but there is no evidence in the provided code that Literal is used. The function overloads are defined without Literal, and the code seems to function correctly without it. Therefore, the comment is likely incorrect.
  I might be missing some context about how Literal could be used elsewhere or in a different way that isn't immediately obvious. However, based on the provided code, there is no indication of its necessity.
  The absence of Literal usage in the provided code is strong evidence that the import is unnecessary. Without any usage, the comment is not valid.
  The comment should be deleted because there is no usage of Literal in the code, making the import unnecessary.

Workflow ID: wflow_XqZ8RV9EDGmY4Zgb

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.

[ellipsis-dev]

👍 Looks good to me! Incremental review on 6620dfa in 20 seconds

More details

• Looked at 22 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 1 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 2 drafted comments based on config settings.

1. pyproject.toml:41

• Draft comment:
  The cerebras_cloud_sdk version should be updated to ^1.11.0 as per the PR description, not ^1.5.0.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful.

2. pyproject.toml:41

• Draft comment:
  The version of cerebras_cloud_sdk should be updated to ^1.11.0 as mentioned in the PR description.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Marked as duplicate.

Workflow ID: wflow_137hcDAp6GmNBWj7

---

You can customize Ellipsis with 👍 / 👎 feedback, review rules, user-specific overrides, quiet mode, and more.