Skip to content

fix: Set parameters in the prediction request. #2208

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged

Conversation

jismailyan-google
Copy link
Contributor

Set the parameters in the VTO prediction request.

  • Follow the CONTRIBUTING Guide.
  • You are listed as the author in your notebook or README file.
    • Your account is listed in CODEOWNERS for the file(s).
  • Make your Pull Request title in the https://www.conventionalcommits.org/ specification.
  • Ensure the tests and linter pass (Run nox -s format from the repository root to format).
  • Appropriate docs were updated (if necessary)

@jismailyan-google jismailyan-google requested a review from a team as a code owner July 28, 2025 18:20
Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Summary of Changes

Hello @jismailyan-google, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request implements a crucial fix in the Virtual Try-On (VTO) example notebook. The change ensures that the client.predict method correctly receives and applies user-defined parameters, resolving an issue where prediction requests were being sent without the intended configurations. This improves the functionality and configurability of the VTO example.

Highlights

  • Prediction Request Parameters: Modified the Virtual Try-On (VTO) prediction request within the virtual_try_on.ipynb notebook to correctly pass the parameters variable instead of a hardcoded empty dictionary. This ensures that any defined prediction parameters are properly utilized when making API calls.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments or fill out our survey to provide feedback.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Code Review

This pull request addresses a bug in the Virtual Try-On notebook where prediction parameters were not being passed to the API. The change correctly replaces a hardcoded empty dictionary with the parameters variable in the client.predict call, ensuring that user-defined settings are applied. The fix is correct and effectively resolves the issue.

@holtskinner holtskinner merged commit bc0f442 into GoogleCloudPlatform:main Jul 28, 2025
5 checks passed
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