feat: Add generation_kwargs to run methods of Agent

[jdb78]

Related Issues

• fixes Support generation_kwargs for Agent #9615

Proposed Changes:

added a generation_kwargs parameter to Agent which are to be passed to LLM

How did you test it?

added generation_kwargs to unit test run

Checklist

• I have read the contributors guidelines and the code of conduct
• I have updated the related issue with new insights and changes
• I added unit tests and updated the docstrings
• I've used one of the conventional commit types for my PR title: fix:, feat:, build:, chore:, ci:, docs:, style:, refactor:, perf:, test: and added ! in case the PR includes breaking changes.
• I documented my code
• I ran pre-commit hooks and fixed any issue

[CLAassistant]

All committers have signed the CLA.

[sjrl]

Hey @jdb78 to help with the CI I'd also recommend checking out how to run our code-quality checks here and to add a release note to this PR as described here.

[github-actions]

This issue is stale because it has been open 30 days with no activity. Remove stale label or comment or this will be closed in 10 days.

[jdb78]

@sjrl I updated the PR, addressed your comments and added release notes. Hopefully ready to merge

[jdb78]

@sjrl any chance you find some minutes to look over it?

[sjrl]

Hey @jdb78 apologies for the slow response. We are discussing internally if we'd prefer to make this a more general chat_generator_kwargs than just generation_kwargs

[jdb78]

My personal opinion: generation_kwargs is just fine. generators always seem to refer to LLMs and so changing to chat_ generation_kwargs might as well trigger a change for all the chat generators that are in the code base which would likely cause confusion. I don't think there is a need to make it explicit if it is a generator or chat generator. For the agent, I don't see how you could have both at the same time.

[jdb78]

@sjrl : Any movement on this?

[sjrl]

Hey @jdb78 sorry for the slow response. After more discussion we agree that adding generation_kwargs makes sense. Could you go ahead and and resolve the conflict and we will give this a final review.

[vercel]

@jdb78 is attempting to deploy a commit to the deepset Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

[jdb78]

@sjrl done

[sjrl]

Looks good!

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 18848249981

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 9 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.005%) to 92.214%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
components/agents/agent.py	9	96.48%

Totals
Change from base Build 18846783538:	-0.005%
Covered Lines:	13467
Relevant Lines:	14604

---

💛 - Coveralls