fix(audit): union providers for shared model ids in the gap audit#823
Open
Erin McNulty (erin2722) wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
fix(audit): union providers for shared model ids in the gap audit#823Erin McNulty (erin2722) wants to merge 2 commits into
Erin McNulty (erin2722) wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
The gap audit worked provider-by-provider and attributed a shared owner/model id (e.g. zai-org/GLM-5.2, served by both baseten and together) to a single provider, then deduped the rest — so zai-org/GLM-5.1 was together-only despite baseten serving it, and GLM-5.2 was filed together-only (#819) even though baseten serves it too. Instruct the audit to: (1) for a shared id, check every inventory provider that serves that exact id and report the full available_providers set; (2) treat a provider that serves an already-cataloged id but is missing from its available_providers as a fileable provider-mapping gap (not suppressed by the duplicate check); and (3) report only the model_list.json available_providers set — index.ts may be intentionally narrower (a model pinned to one provider for pricing), so a difference there is not a gap. This fixes the source (model_list available_providers) where the human/bot can judge intent, rather than auto-rewriting index.ts (which would clobber intentional single-provider mappings like openai/gpt-oss-20b's groq-only entry). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 926a1e1798
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "Codex (@codex) review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "Codex (@codex) address that feedback".
…existing ids A provider-mapping gap filed for an id already in model_list.json must set kind: "stale_metadata" in the fix-bot-issue metadata block. fix_bot_issue.ts defaults absent/missing_model issues to the add path and closes them as already_present without applying changes when the named models exist, so a provider-union gap filed as missing_model would be silently dropped without updating available_providers. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Ken Jiang (knjiang)
approved these changes
Jun 18, 2026
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 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.
The gap audit worked provider-by-provider and attributed a shared owner/model id (e.g. zai-org/GLM-5.2, served by both baseten and together) to a single provider, then deduped the rest — so zai-org/GLM-5.1 was together-only despite baseten serving it, and GLM-5.2 was filed together-only (#819) even though baseten serves it too.
Instruct the audit to: (1) for a shared id, check every inventory provider that serves that exact id and report the full available_providers set; (2) treat a provider that serves an already-cataloged id but is missing from its available_providers as a fileable provider-mapping gap (not suppressed by the duplicate check); and (3) report only the model_list.json available_providers set — index.ts may be intentionally narrower (a model pinned to one provider for pricing), so a difference there is not a gap.
This fixes the source (model_list available_providers) where the human/bot can judge intent, rather than auto-rewriting index.ts (which would clobber intentional single-provider mappings like openai/gpt-oss-20b's groq-only entry).