Skip to content

feat(internal-plugin-llm): llmrefactor - renamed disconnectLLM in channel#5083

Open
shnaaz wants to merge 2 commits into
llmrefactorfrom
shnaaz/feat/SPARK-827598
Open

feat(internal-plugin-llm): llmrefactor - renamed disconnectLLM in channel#5083
shnaaz wants to merge 2 commits into
llmrefactorfrom
shnaaz/feat/SPARK-827598

Conversation

@shnaaz

@shnaaz shnaaz commented Jul 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

COMPLETES #< INSERT LINK TO ISSUE >

https://jira-eng-gpk2.cisco.com/jira/browse/SPARK-827598

This pull request addresses

< DESCRIBE THE CONTEXT OF THE ISSUE >

by making the following changes

< DESCRIBE YOUR CHANGES >
renamed disconnectLLM in llm.ts to disconnect

Change Type

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • Documentation update
  • Tooling change
  • Internal code refactor

The following scenarios were tested

< ENUMERATE TESTS PERFORMED, WHETHER MANUAL OR AUTOMATED >

The GAI Coding Policy And Copyright Annotation Best Practices

  • GAI was not used (or, no additional notation is required)
  • Code was generated entirely by GAI
  • GAI was used to create a draft that was subsequently customized or modified
  • Coder created a draft manually that was non-substantively modified by GAI (e.g., refactoring was performed by GAI on manually written code)
  • Tool used for AI assistance (GitHub Copilot / Other - specify)
    • Github Copilot
    • Other - Please Specify
  • This PR is related to
    • Feature
    • Defect fix
    • Tech Debt
    • Automation

I certified that

  • I have read and followed contributing guidelines
  • I discussed changes with code owners prior to submitting this pull request
  • I have not skipped any automated checks
  • All existing and new tests passed
  • I have updated the documentation accordingly

Make sure to have followed the contributing guidelines before submitting.

@shnaaz shnaaz requested review from a team as code owners July 7, 2026 12:25
@shnaaz shnaaz added the validated If the pull request is validated for automation. label Jul 7, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot removed the validated If the pull request is validated for automation. label Jul 7, 2026

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 2a70cb7ac2

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

  • Open a pull request for review
  • Mark a draft as ready
  • Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".

this.ownerMeetingId = undefined;
});
};
public async disconnect(options?: {code: number; reason: string}): Promise<void> {

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

P2 Badge Preserve the channel disconnectLLM alias

Because this class is still exported as the package default, any direct LLMChannel consumer that still calls the pre-existing disconnectLLM() method will now get a runtime TypeError; the commit only updates LLMPlugin internals, so this is a breaking change for direct channel users. Please keep a small disconnectLLM() wrapper that delegates to the new disconnect() while allowing disconnect() to clear LLM-specific state.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this is fine, we can break the APIs for LLM

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.

2 participants