fix: thread RunnableConfig to analyze_files LLM call for proper span parenting #552
+5
−2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…parenting Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
saksharthakkar
changed the title
cristian-groza
approved these changes
Feb 11, 2026
cristian-groza
requested changes
Feb 11, 2026
src/uipath_langchain/agent/tools/internal_tools/analyze_files_tool.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…hierarchy Thread RunnableConfig from LangGraph node through wrapper chain to tool.ainvoke() so inner LLM calls (e.g. Analyze_Files) produce correctly nested spans instead of orphaned siblings. - tool_node.py: accept config param, pass to tool.invoke() or set contextvar - job_attachment_wrapper.py: read config from contextvar, pass to tool.ainvoke() Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Comment on lines
89
to
90
| config = var_child_runnable_config.get(None) | ||
| tool_result = await tool.ainvoke(call, config=config) |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
since we have this system in place? why even pass it through the structured tool? We could retrieve it like this right before the LLM invoke. Is there any reason why we need to pass it through structured tool? Does it affect the way the Tool spans integrate with the LLM span?
I have certain opinions on Langchain's system with RunnableConfig being passed everywhere (though it's nowhere near as an offender as ToolRuntime in that regard), so i'm reluctant to mix it in with our node.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good call! Now we just read var_child_runnable_config.get(None) directly in analyze_files_tool.py right before llm.ainvoke(). No RunnableConfig in the node/wrapper layer at all.
…les_tool Instead of threading RunnableConfig through tool_node.py and wrappers, read it from the LangGraph-managed context variable where it's needed. This simplifies the code and avoids mixing config into the tool node layer. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
# Conflicts: # pyproject.toml # uv.lock
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
RunnableConfigfromBaseToolthroughtool_fntollm.ainvoke()in the Analyze Files toolparent_run_idwhentool_fndeclares aconfig: RunnableConfigparamTest plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code