-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 445
fix(opencode-provider): correct z.ai coding plan model mapping #512
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
The model mapping for 'z.ai coding plan' was incorrectly pointing to 'z-ai' instead of 'zai-coding-plan', which would cause model resolution failures when users selected the z.ai coding plan provider. This fix ensures the correct model identifier is used for z.ai coding plan, aligning with the expected model naming convention. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Summary of ChangesHello @USerik, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request resolves a critical bug where the 'z.ai coding plan' provider was misconfigured with an incorrect model identifier. The fix updates this mapping to the correct value, preventing potential model resolution failures and ensuring the system functions as expected for users of this specific provider. Highlights
🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console. Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here. You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension. Footnotes
|
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughA provider mapping value in OpencodeProvider is updated to correct the identifier for 'z.ai coding plan' from 'z-ai' to 'zai-coding-plan', affecting the internal providerIdMap used during provider output parsing. Changes
Estimated code review effort🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3✅ Passed checks (3 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. ✨ Finishing touches
📜 Recent review detailsConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro 📒 Files selected for processing (1)
🧰 Additional context used📓 Path-based instructions (3)**/*.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)
Files:
apps/server/src/**/*.{ts,tsx}📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)
Files:
**/*.{ts,tsx}📄 CodeRabbit inference engine (CLAUDE.md)
Files:
🔇 Additional comments (1)
✏️ Tip: You can disable this entire section by setting Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code Review
This pull request correctly fixes a model mapping for 'z.ai coding plan' in the OpenCode provider, which was causing model resolution failures. The change is straightforward and addresses the issue described. My main feedback is to improve test coverage for the parseProvidersOutput method to prevent similar issues in the future.
| lmstudio: 'lmstudio', | ||
| opencode: 'opencode', | ||
| 'z.ai coding plan': 'z-ai', | ||
| 'z.ai coding plan': 'zai-coding-plan', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While this change correctly fixes the mapping, the parseProvidersOutput function lacks unit tests. To prevent regressions and ensure the robustness of provider parsing, I recommend adding tests for this logic in apps/server/tests/unit/providers/opencode-provider.test.ts. A test case could verify that 'z.ai coding plan' correctly maps to 'zai-coding-plan' and that other providers are also mapped as expected.
The model mapping for 'z.ai coding plan' was incorrectly pointing to 'z-ai' instead of 'zai-coding-plan', which would cause model resolution failures when users selected the z.ai coding plan provider.
This fix ensures the correct model identifier is used for z.ai coding plan, aligning with the expected model naming convention.
Summary by CodeRabbit
✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.