docs(proxy): require model_info.id and drop the status code from the PTU page - #968
Merged
Merged
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
Some invalid PTU configurations answer 422 rather than 400, so naming a single code on the page is misleading. The behaviour that matters is that the rejection names the offending field.
BerriAI/litellm#37794 refuses a config-declared PTU deployment that does not carry an id, so the page can no longer present pinning one as advice. Adds the upgrade note, since setting a fresh name rather than the id the deployment already uses strands the charges already written
yucheng-berri
force-pushed
the
litellm_ptu_docs_drop_status_code
branch
from
August 21, 2026 18:56
035118d to
6d76fd9
Compare
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 PTU page says a rejected rate answers
400. Some invalid PTU configurations answer422instead, so naming one code sends readers looking for a response they may not getRemoves the code and keeps the part that is reliably true, that the rejection names the field it refused. No behaviour change is implied here; this is a docs correction only, and whether the endpoints should be normalised onto a single code is a separate question