YAshhh29 commented on code in PR #71575:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/71575#discussion_r4105747768


##########
providers/common/ai/docs/operators/agent.rst:
##########
@@ -300,6 +300,23 @@ cache:
    never replays responses that belong to a different conversation.
 4. After successful completion, the cached steps are deleted.
 
+Fingerprints are computed from values normalized through pydantic, so ordinary
+types that are not JSON -- a ``datetime`` or ``Decimal`` tool argument, a
+dataclass in ``tool_choice`` -- still fingerprint normally. If a value cannot 
be
+serialized even then, that step is not cached, and on retry it runs live rather
+than replaying an unverified entry.
+
+On the model path this is rarely confined to a single step: the causes are 
such a
+value in ``model_settings``, which is attached to every request, or in the 
message
+history, which every later request carries forward. Either one degrades all
+subsequent model steps the same way, leaving durable execution with nothing to
+replay, so the retry re-runs the agent at full cost. The
+``could not fingerprint model request`` warning names the step where this 
began.
+
+A tool call is fingerprinted from its name, arguments and call id alone, so
+neither of those causes reaches it. One that cannot be fingerprinted is 
reported
+as ``could not fingerprint tool call`` and costs only that call.

Review Comment:
   You're right — and it contradicted step 3 two paragraphs up. It now says a 
tool call that can't be fingerprinted costs that call and, if the live re-run 
returns something different from the first attempt, the model steps after it 
too, since the result becomes part of the history they fingerprint. It points 
back to step 3 rather than describing the cascade twice.
   



-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to