[Doc] Server Root Path Regression Incident Doc#21853

[yuneng-jiang]

Relevant issues

Pre-Submission checklist

Please complete all items before asking a LiteLLM maintainer to review your PR

• I have Added testing in the tests/litellm/ directory, Adding at least 1 test is a hard requirement - see details
• My PR passes all unit tests on make test-unit
• My PR's scope is as isolated as possible, it only solves 1 specific problem
• I have requested a Greptile review by commenting @greptileai and received a Confidence Score of at least 4/5 before requesting a maintainer review

CI (LiteLLM team)

CI status guideline:

• 50-55 passing tests: main is stable with minor issues.
• 45-49 passing tests: acceptable but needs attention
• <= 40 passing tests: unstable; be careful with your merges and assess the risk.

• Branch creation CI run
  Link:

• CI run for the last commit
  Link:

• Merge / cherry-pick CI run
  Links:

Type

📖 Documentation

Changes

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
litellm	Error		Feb 22, 2026 1:23am

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Summary

This PR adds an incident report blog post documenting the SERVER_ROOT_PATH regression (issue #21853). The blog post describes how PR #19467 accidentally removed the root_path=server_root_path parameter from the FastAPI app initialization, breaking UI routing for deployments using SERVER_ROOT_PATH. The incident lasted ~4 days (Jan 22–26, 2026) and was fixed in PR #19790.

• Documentation-only change — no code modifications
• Well-structured incident report following existing conventions (matches format of model_cost_map_incident and vllm_embeddings_incident blog posts)
• All referenced artifacts verified: commit 73d49f8 exists, test file test_server_root_path.py exists, CI workflow test_server_root_path.yml exists, and root_path=server_root_path is currently present in proxy_server.py
• The PR description does not link to issue [Doc] Server Root Path Regression Incident Doc #21853 with a "Fixes [Doc] Server Root Path Regression Incident Doc #21853" statement, and the pre-submission checklist items are unchecked

Confidence Score: 4/5

• This is a documentation-only PR adding an incident report blog post with no code changes, making it safe to merge.
• Score of 4 reflects that this is a well-written, documentation-only change with no risk to application behavior. All referenced commits, PRs, test files, and CI workflows were verified to exist. Minor deduction because the PR does not include a linked issue reference ("Fixes [Doc] Server Root Path Regression Incident Doc #21853") and the pre-submission checklist is unchecked, though these are process concerns rather than content issues.
• No files require special attention — single documentation file with no code impact.

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
docs/my-website/blog/server_root_path/index.md	New incident report blog post documenting the SERVER_ROOT_PATH regression. Well-structured, follows existing incident report conventions, references verified PRs/commits/files. No code changes.

Flowchart

%%{init: {'theme': 'neutral'}}%%
flowchart TD
    A["PR #21857 opened"] --> B["New blog post added"]
    B --> C["docs/my-website/blog/server_root_path/index.md"]
    C --> D["Documents SERVER_ROOT_PATH regression"]
    D --> E["References PR #19467 (cause)"]
    D --> F["References PR #19790 (fix)"]
    D --> G["References CI workflow & tests"]

    style C fill:#d4edda,stroke:#28a745
    style E fill:#f8d7da,stroke:#dc3545
    style F fill:#d4edda,stroke:#28a745
    style G fill:#d4edda,stroke:#28a745

Loading

_{Last reviewed commit: 823bb02}

[greptile-apps]

_{1 file reviewed, no comments}

_{Edit Code Review Agent Settings | Greptile}