Skip to content

feat: add extraction_mode parameter to MemoryClient.create_event#550

Open
gel-work wants to merge 1 commit into
aws:mainfrom
gel-work:feature/extraction-mode
Open

feat: add extraction_mode parameter to MemoryClient.create_event#550
gel-work wants to merge 1 commit into
aws:mainfrom
gel-work:feature/extraction-mode

Conversation

@gel-work

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

  • Adds extraction_mode optional parameter to MemoryClient.create_event()
  • When set to "SKIP", the event is stored in short-term memory but excluded from long-term extraction
  • Includes unit tests verifying the parameter is passed through (and omitted when not set)

Test plan

  • New unit tests pass: test_create_event_with_extraction_mode, test_create_event_without_extraction_mode
  • Existing test_create_event and test_create_event_with_metadata still pass
  • Verified end-to-end with boto3 directly against live AgentCore (us-east-1)

Exposes the extractionMode field on CreateEvent, allowing callers to
skip long-term memory extraction for specific events (e.g. sensitive
data, bulk imports, system messages).
@gel-work gel-work requested a review from a team June 25, 2026 20:28
@gel-work gel-work changed the title Add extraction_mode parameter to MemoryClient.create_event feat: add extraction_mode parameter to MemoryClient.create_event Jun 25, 2026
@codecov-commenter

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (main@1eabc67). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #550   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   89.40%           
=======================================
  Files           ?       98           
  Lines           ?     8582           
  Branches        ?     1273           
=======================================
  Hits            ?     7673           
  Misses          ?      585           
  Partials        ?      324           
Flag Coverage Δ
unittests 89.40% <100.00%> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@jariy17 jariy17 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants