Skip to content

Formatting Guess_the_shape.ipynb.ipynb Notebook #654

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

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

omkenge
Copy link
Contributor

@omkenge omkenge commented Apr 4, 2025

No description provided.

Copy link

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.


Powered by ReviewNB

@github-actions github-actions bot added status:awaiting review PR awaiting review from a maintainer component:examples Issues/PR referencing examples folder labels Apr 4, 2025
Copy link

review-notebook-app bot commented Apr 4, 2025

View / edit / reply to this conversation on ReviewNB

andycandy commented on 2025-04-04T16:39:10Z
----------------------------------------------------------------

Line #3.        model = MODEL_ID,

As @giom V. mentioned, function params don't need extra spaces, so it should always be be:

response = client.models.generate_content(
  model=MODEL_ID,
  contents=contents,
  config=config
)

@andycandy
Copy link
Contributor

This notebook was already migrated a few weeks ago, you might need to rename this PR to something more appropriate.

@omkenge omkenge changed the title Updated Guess_the_shape.ipynb.ipynb to use google-genai Formatting Guess_the_shape.ipynb.ipynb Notebook Apr 5, 2025
Copy link

review-notebook-app bot commented Apr 7, 2025

View / edit / reply to this conversation on ReviewNB

Giom-V commented on 2025-04-07T12:34:56Z
----------------------------------------------------------------

Line #2.    contents = [

Nit: can you add a line line between the import and the code?


Copy link

review-notebook-app bot commented Apr 7, 2025

View / edit / reply to this conversation on ReviewNB

Giom-V commented on 2025-04-07T12:36:11Z
----------------------------------------------------------------

I think we should keep >=1.0.0 whenever it works and only indicate a higher minimum value when the notebooks are using recent features.


@Giom-V Giom-V self-assigned this Apr 7, 2025
@omkenge
Copy link
Contributor Author

omkenge commented Apr 8, 2025

@Giom-V Thanks for the Review ;)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
component:examples Issues/PR referencing examples folder status:awaiting review PR awaiting review from a maintainer
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants