test chat completions api in e2e case

[delavet]

Adds /chat/completions API e2e test case.

Fixes: #814

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for gateway-api-inference-extension ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	f88626f
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/projects/gateway-api-inference-extension/deploys/683ad511985e8c000886176d
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-868--gateway-api-inference-extension.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: delavet
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign arangogutierrez for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @delavet. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[nirrozenbaum]

/ok-to-test

[nirrozenbaum]

@delavet does it make sense to separate different tests into different ginkgo.It statements?
I'd expect moving some parts to the BeforeEach section, e.g., this part:

ginkgo.By("Creating an InferenceModel resource")
infModel := newInferenceModel(nsName)	
gomega.Expect(cli.Create(ctx, infModel)).To(gomega.Succeed())	

ginkgo.By("Ensuring the InferenceModel resource exists in the namespace")
gomega.Eventually(func() error {
	return cli.Get(ctx, types.NamespacedName{Namespace: infModel.Namespace, Name: infModel.Name}, infModel)	}, 
existsTimeout, interval).Should(gomega.Succeed())

I'd also expect creating some helper functions to extract the common code.
I think the e2e tests should include (each in a different ginkgo.It statement):

• completions with prompt
• chat completions with a single [role, message].
• chat completions with multiple [role, message] entries.

[delavet]

@delavet does it make sense to separate different tests into different ginkgo.It statements? I'd expect moving some parts to the BeforeEach section, e.g., this part:

ginkgo.By("Creating an InferenceModel resource")
infModel := newInferenceModel(nsName)	
gomega.Expect(cli.Create(ctx, infModel)).To(gomega.Succeed())	

ginkgo.By("Ensuring the InferenceModel resource exists in the namespace")
gomega.Eventually(func() error {
	return cli.Get(ctx, types.NamespacedName{Namespace: infModel.Namespace, Name: infModel.Name}, infModel)	}, 
existsTimeout, interval).Should(gomega.Succeed())

I'd also expect creating some helper functions to extract the common code. I think the e2e tests should include (each in a different ginkgo.It statement):

• completions with prompt
• chat completions with a single [role, message].
• chat completions with multiple [role, message] entries.

This does make more sense! I will try refactoring this ASAP.

[danehans]

@delavet does it make sense to separate different tests into different ginkgo.It statements?

Another option is to move the ginkgo.By() statement within the range and include the name of the API endpoint so a user can see that each endpoint is being tested?

[danehans]

Can you have both cases use the same "Write as if you were a critic: San Francisco" prompt?

[delavet]

@nirrozenbaum @danehans I have refined this PR, and now the e2e tests include coverage for both /completion and /chat/completions. The tests for /chat/completions encompass two scenarios: single-turn chat and multi-turn chat. For the single-turn chat, the same prompt used in /completion, "Write as if you were a critic: San Francisco," is applied. Regarding the organization of the tests, I finally decided to use a single It block that contains multiple By blocks through a loop. This approach appears more semantically coherent.

[danehans]

@delavet CI is failing due to #901. Please rebase to include #902.

[nirrozenbaum]

/retest