chore(RHOAIENG-34909): Replace remote_provider_spec with RemoteProviderSpec

[christinaexyou]

Summary by Sourcery

Refactor provider definition to use RemoteProviderSpec constructor and update the llama-stack dependency version.

Enhancements:

• Replace remote_provider_spec function with RemoteProviderSpec class for provider configuration

Build:

• Bump llama-stack dependency from >=0.2.14 to >=0.2.22

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's guide (collapsed on small PRs)

Reviewer's Guide

Replaces the use of the remote_provider_spec helper with a direct RemoteProviderSpec instantiation and bumps the llama-stack dependency to version 0.2.22.

Class diagram for updated provider spec instantiation

classDiagram
    class RemoteProviderSpec {
        +Api api
        +str adapter_type
        +list pip_packages
        +str config_class
        +str module
    }
    class ProviderSpec
    RemoteProviderSpec --|> ProviderSpec
    class Api {
        <<enumeration>>
        eval
    }
    RemoteProviderSpec : api = Api.eval
    RemoteProviderSpec : adapter_type = "lmeval"
    RemoteProviderSpec : pip_packages = ["kubernetes"]
    RemoteProviderSpec : config_class = "llama_stack_provider_lmeval.config.LMEvalEvalProviderConfig"
    RemoteProviderSpec : module = "llama_stack_provider_lmeval"

Loading

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Switch from remote_provider_spec function to RemoteProviderSpec constructor	Replaced import of remote_provider_spec with RemoteProviderSpec Changed get_provider_spec() to return a RemoteProviderSpec instance Removed AdapterSpec wrapper and inlined adapter parameters	src/llama_stack_provider_lmeval/provider.py
Update llama-stack dependency version	Bumped llama-stack requirement from 0.2.14 to 0.2.22	pyproject.toml

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey there - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[nathan-weinberg]

Seems CI is failing due to missing credentials in the repo secrets https://github.com/trustyai-explainability/llama-stack-provider-lmeval/actions/runs/18135271893/job/51612245285?pr=61

[nathan-weinberg]

Why not 0.2.23?

[christinaexyou]

@nathan-weinberg double checking, but are we supposed to pin the LLS versions ?

[nathan-weinberg]

Yes, pinning is fine

[cdoern]

awesome, thank you @christinaexyou !

I think you need provider_type as well, right?

[nathan-weinberg]

Your CI is failing on pre-commit - you'll want to run it locally and commit those changes from ruff

I opened #63 around the other CI check since that seems to fail the majority of the time

[ruivieira]

@christinaexyou could you just fix the provider spec indentation?

Otherwise, LGTM.