spring ai bedrock converse properties auto completion doesn't auto complete

[joshlong]

spring.ai.bedrock.converse.chat.options.model=amazon.nova-lite-v1:0
spring.ai.bedrock.converse.chat.enabled=true

hi - just noticed the properties above dont autocomplete in application.properties in intellij which makes me think that either we forgot to add the configuration processor to that jar or we're not using @ConfigurationProperties for those properties and the processor doesn't have anything to pick up and add to the index that intellij uses

[sunyuhan1998]

Actually, the reason causing this issue is that the options property of BedrockConverseProxyChatProperties is defined as an interface rather than a concrete implementation class:

spring-ai/auto-configurations/models/spring-ai-autoconfigure-model-bedrock-ai/src/main/java/org/springframework/ai/model/bedrock/converse/autoconfigure/BedrockConverseProxyChatProperties.java

Lines 30 to 51 in 8107612

	@ConfigurationProperties(BedrockConverseProxyChatProperties.CONFIG_PREFIX)
	public class BedrockConverseProxyChatProperties {
	public static final String CONFIG_PREFIX = "spring.ai.bedrock.converse.chat";
	@NestedConfigurationProperty
	private ToolCallingChatOptions options = ToolCallingChatOptions.builder()
	.temperature(0.7)
	.maxTokens(300)
	.topK(10)
	.build();
	public ToolCallingChatOptions getOptions() {
	return this.options;
	}
	public void setOptions(ToolCallingChatOptions options) {
	Assert.notNull(options, "ToolCallingChatOptions must not be null");
	this.options = options;
	}
	}

ToolCallingChatOptions uses the DefaultToolCallingChatOptions implementation by default.

Can we directly change the type of the options property in BedrockConverseProxyChatProperties to DefaultToolCallingChatOptions? This might potentially cause some unexpected side effects.

Another approach is to truly create a dedicated BedrockChatOptions class for Bedrock, just like we've done for other models. So far, the content of this BedrockChatOptions class would be exactly the same as DefaultToolCallingChatOptions.

@ilayaperumalg @ThomasVitale What do you think? Please share your opinions and suggestions. If possible, I'd like to contribute a PR for this, thx!

[ilayaperumalg]

@sunyuhan1998 Thanks for the analysis and suggestions. I would suggest to go with creating a dedicated BedrockChatOptions as this approach is similar to what we have in other models. Let us know if you would like to contribute a PR. Thanks!

[sunyuhan1998]

@sunyuhan1998 Thanks for the analysis and suggestions. I would suggest to go with creating a dedicated BedrockChatOptions as this approach is similar to what we have in other models. Let us know if you would like to contribute a PR. Thanks!

No problem. I will submit a PR soon, aiming to create a BedrockChatOptions for Bedrock. Since it currently uses DefaultToolCallingChatOptions, I believe most of the behavior of BedrockChatOptions should be similar to DefaultToolCallingChatOptions. Once I submit the PR, I'll ask for your help to review it here!