agent: support any json for function call input

[robfig]

Fixes https://github.com/deepgram/deepgram-go-sdk/issues/279

Proposed changes

Agent API - Function call input supports arbitrary JSON, but the current type is a map[string]string, which is too limiting to even support the function call example in the documentation:

https://developers.deepgram.com/docs/voice-agents-function-calling#server-messages-sent-by-deepgram

This could be addressed by either using map[string]any (since a JSON object is required, and primitives are not) or json.RawMessage. I updated the type to the latter because my software passes it around without needing to unmarshal it, which will probably be a common case.

I also removed an apparently-unused Output field. In testing function calling, I did not see it populated, and a comment in the code indicated as such. Removing it until such a time as it's populated by the server seems prudent.

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to the community Go SDK? Put an x in the boxes that apply

• [ ] Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [x] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• [ ] Documentation update or tests (if none of the other choices apply)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

• [x] I have read the CONTRIBUTING doc
• [x] I have lint'ed all of my code using repo standards
• [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• [x] I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate) -- No docs beyond godoc is necessary

I do not see any tests of function calling, and this change is sufficiently lean that I don't believe it merits building one out.

[coderabbitai[bot]]

Walkthrough

The changes modify type declarations in the WebSocket interface. Specifically, the FunctionCallRequestResponse struct now uses a json.RawMessage for its Input field instead of a map[string]string, and the FunctionCallingResponse struct has had its Output field removed. These updates allow for more dynamic JSON handling and alter the response structure for function calls.

Changes

File	Change Summary
pkg/api/agent/v1/websocket/interfaces/types.go	- Updated FunctionCallRequestResponse.Input type from map[string]string to json.RawMessage - Removed Output field from FunctionCallingResponse struct

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 2a89eda52bdc2142fae5b116c7556d6872c79348 and 8a34d74b1e87c14b2edfe492b2e421cdf2224c17.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• pkg/api/agent/v1/websocket/interfaces/types.go (2 hunks)

🔇 Additional comments (2)

pkg/api/agent/v1/websocket/interfaces/types.go (2)

107-111: Great choice using json.RawMessage for the Input field!

This change effectively supports arbitrary JSON structures for function call inputs while maintaining backward compatibility. The use of json.RawMessage allows for:

• Flexible handling of any JSON structure
• Deferred parsing until the specific structure is known
• Support for nested objects and arrays

---

114-116:

❓ Verification inconclusive

Please document the removal of the Output field.

The removal of the Output field from FunctionCallingResponse is a breaking change that could affect existing clients. Could you please:

1. Document why this field was removed
2. Explain how existing clients should handle function call outputs
3. Update the PR description with migration guidance if needed

Let's check for any existing usages of this field:

---

🏁 Script executed:

#!/bin/bash
# Search for usages of FunctionCallingResponse.Output
rg -A 5 "FunctionCallingResponse.*Output"

Length of output: 43

---

Clarify and Document the Removal of the Output Field

The removal of the Output field in FunctionCallingResponse is a breaking change that may affect external clients. Although our initial search did not reveal any internal references to this field, please:

• Document the rationale behind removing the Output field.
• Explain how clients using this API are expected to handle function call outputs going forward.
• Update the PR description with any necessary migration guidance.

✨ Finishing Touches

• [ ] 📝 Generate Docstrings (Beta)

---

Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media?

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

• Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
  • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
  • Generate unit testing code for this file.
  • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
• Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
  • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
• PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
  • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
  • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
  • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
  • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

• @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
• @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
• @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
• @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
• @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
• @coderabbitai generate docstrings to generate docstrings for this PR. (Beta)
• @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
• @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
• @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

• Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
• Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
• Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

CodeRabbit Configuration File (.coderabbit.yaml)

• You can programmatically configure CodeRabbit by adding a .coderabbit.yaml file to the root of your repository.
• Please see the configuration documentation for more information.
• If your editor has YAML language server enabled, you can add the path at the top of this file to enable auto-completion and validation: # yaml-language-server: $schema=https://coderabbit.ai/integrations/schema.v2.json

Documentation and Community

• Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
• Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
• Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

[robfig]

@jpvajda here you go -- I don't seem to be able to add you as a reviewer, so just tagging you here.

[robfig]

Hi @lukeocodes -- any thoughts or feedback on this?