feat(ui): add per-model rate limits to team edit/info views by ryan-crabbe-berri · Pull Request #25144 · BerriAI/litellm

ryan-crabbe-berri · 2026-04-04T20:35:41Z

Summary

Adds a new Model-Specific Rate Limits form section to the team Settings tab, allowing admins to set per-model TPM/RPM limits on a team (alongside the existing team-level TPM/RPM).
Displays per-model limits in the Overview tab Rate Limits card and in the Settings tab view mode, so admins can see configured limits without entering edit mode.
Model picker is scoped to the team's currently-selected models, with wildcard unfurling and a fallback to userModels when the team uses all-proxy-models / all-team-models.

Screenshots

Test plan

Edit a team in the UI, click Add Model Limit, pick a model, set TPM=1000 / RPM=100, Save
Inspect the POST /team/update request body in DevTools — verify model_tpm_limit / model_rpm_limit are sent top-level
Verify persistence: psql -c "SELECT metadata->'model_tpm_limit' FROM \"LiteLLM_TeamTable\" WHERE team_id='<id>'"
Refresh the page, re-open edit mode — verify saved rows reappear
Overview tab Rate Limits card shows the per-model limits
Settings tab (view mode) shows the per-model limits
Delete a row, Save, refresh — verify removal persists
Duplicate-model validator blocks submission
Create a key under the team, hit /chat/completions exceeding RPM — receive 429; other models on same key still allowed

Exposes the backend's existing model_tpm_limit/model_rpm_limit fields (which lived in team.metadata) through a new "Model-Specific Rate Limits" form section on the team Settings tab. Limits round-trip through the team-update API and render on the Overview card and Settings view. Model picker is scoped to the team's currently-selected models (unfurls wildcards, falls back to userModels for all-proxy-models / all-team-models).

vercel · 2026-04-04T20:35:47Z

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

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
litellm	Ready	Preview, Comment	Apr 4, 2026 8:51pm

codspeed-hq · 2026-04-04T20:37:29Z

Merging this PR will not alter performance

✅ 16 untouched benchmarks

_{Comparing litellm_feat-per-team-per-model-rate-limit-ui (f0bbd41) with main (4c06e43)}

greptile-apps · 2026-04-04T20:41:42Z

Greptile Summary

This PR adds per-model TPM/RPM rate limits to the team Settings and Overview tabs in the UI. The feature adds a dynamic Form.List for model-rate-limit rows in edit mode, displays configured limits in both the Overview Rate Limits card and the Settings view tab, and correctly scopes the model picker to the team's selected models (with wildcard/all-proxy-models fallback to userModels).

The backend integration uses the existing _update_metadata_fields pipeline — the UI sends model_tpm_limit/model_rpm_limit as top-level fields in the POST /team/update body, and _update_metadata_field then moves them into the metadata JSON column, which is where the UI reads them back via info.metadata?.model_tpm_limit. This is consistent with how the backend stores and enforces these limits.

Key observations:

The data flow (write via top-level → store in metadata → display from metadata) is correct and consistent with the existing backend conventions.
The metadata textarea correctly excludes model_tpm_limit/model_rpm_limit via the destructure-rest pattern on line 861, preventing double-write or conflict with the separate top-level fields.
The previous threads identified three UX/validation concerns (silent data loss for all-blank rows, stale duplicate-model validity state across sibling rows, and the stale availableRateLimitModels when switching teams) — those remain open.
No new security or data-integrity regressions are introduced by this change.

Confidence Score: 4/5

Safe to merge with awareness that three previously-flagged UX/validation edge cases remain open; no regressions or security issues introduced.

The data flow is architecturally correct and consistent with the existing backend conventions. The three previously flagged issues (silent data loss for all-blank rows, stale sibling-row duplicate validation, and stale availableRateLimitModels when switching teams) are still present and unresolved, warranting a 4 rather than 5. No new P0/P1 bugs were found in this review pass.

ui/litellm-dashboard/src/components/team/TeamInfo.tsx — specifically the Form.List validation logic and the Form.useWatch placement relative to isEditing mode.

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
ui/litellm-dashboard/src/components/team/TeamInfo.tsx	Adds per-model rate limit form section (Form.List), read-only displays in Overview and Settings tabs, and correct metadata exclusion during save. The data flow is sound but a few UX/validation edge cases from previous threads remain unresolved.

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant UI as TeamInfo.tsx (UI)
    participant API as POST /team/update
    participant META as _update_metadata_fields
    participant DB as LiteLLM_TeamTable

    UI->>UI: Build modelTpmLimit/modelRpmLimit dicts from Form.List rows
    UI->>UI: Exclude model_tpm_limit/model_rpm_limit from raw metadata textarea
    UI->>API: { model_tpm_limit: {…}, model_rpm_limit: {…}, metadata: {…rest} }
    API->>META: _update_metadata_fields(updated_kv)
    META->>META: Pop model_tpm_limit from updated_kv
    META->>META: merged_metadata["model_tpm_limit"] = value
    META->>DB: UPDATE SET metadata = merged_metadata
    DB-->>UI: GET /team/info → { metadata: { model_tpm_limit: {…} } }
    UI->>UI: Display from info.metadata?.model_tpm_limit (Overview & Settings tabs)
    UI->>UI: Init Form.List from info.metadata?.model_tpm_limit (edit mode)

_{Reviews (2): Last reviewed commit: "fix(ui): require TPM or RPM when adding ..." | Re-trigger Greptile}

greptile-apps · 2026-04-04T20:41:46Z

+      const modelTpmLimit: Record<string, number> = {};
+      const modelRpmLimit: Record<string, number> = {};
+      for (const entry of (values.modelLimits ?? []) as { model?: string; tpm?: number; rpm?: number }[]) {
+        if (entry?.model) {
+          if (entry.tpm != null) modelTpmLimit[entry.model] = entry.tpm;
+          if (entry.rpm != null) modelRpmLimit[entry.model] = entry.rpm;
+        }
+      }
+
      const updateData: any = {
        team_id: teamId,
        team_alias: values.team_alias,
        models: values.models,
        tpm_limit: sanitizeNumeric(values.tpm_limit),
        rpm_limit: sanitizeNumeric(values.rpm_limit),
+        model_tpm_limit: modelTpmLimit,
+        model_rpm_limit: modelRpmLimit,


Silent data loss when both TPM and RPM are blank

An entry where the user selects a model but leaves both tpm and rpm blank will be silently excluded from model_tpm_limit and model_rpm_limit because both if (entry.tpm != null) checks fail. The form row passes validation (neither field is required), so the user sees no error, but the row is not persisted. On the next page refresh the row simply disappears with no indication that anything went wrong.

Either require at least one of tpm/rpm to be filled in per row, or skip blank rows at the form level with a visible warning.

greptile-apps · 2026-04-04T20:41:47Z

+                                    {
+                                      validator: (_, value) => {
+                                        if (!value) return Promise.resolve();
+                                        const all = form.getFieldValue("modelLimits") ?? [];
+                                        const dupes = all.filter(
+                                          (entry: { model?: string }) => entry?.model === value,
+                                        );
+                                        if (dupes.length > 1) {
+                                          return Promise.reject(new Error("Duplicate model"));
+                                        }
+                                        return Promise.resolve();
+                                      },


Duplicate-model validation doesn't re-validate sibling rows

The custom validator reads form.getFieldValue("modelLimits") and rejects if dupes.length > 1. However, Ant Design only re-runs the validator for the field that just changed — not for the other row that became a duplicate. This means form.submit() can succeed even when a sibling row still holds a stale "duplicate" cached validity state. A Form.List-level rules validator is needed to reliably block duplicates at submit time.

greptile-apps · 2026-04-04T20:41:48Z

    return org?.members?.some((m: any) => m.user_id === userId && m.user_role === "org_admin") ?? false;
  }, [teamData, userOrganizations, userId]);

+  // Models currently selected in the team edit form, used to scope the per-model
+  // rate limit dropdown to models this team actually has access to.
+  const selectedModelsInForm = Form.useWatch("models", form) as string[] | undefined;
+  const availableRateLimitModels = useMemo(() => {
+    const selected = selectedModelsInForm ?? teamData?.team_info?.models ?? [];
+    if (selected.includes("all-proxy-models") || selected.includes("all-team-models")) {
+      return userModels;
+    }
+    return unfurlWildcardModelsInList(selected, userModels);


availableRateLimitModels computed outside edit mode

Form.useWatch("models", form) is called at the top of the component — outside the isEditing guard. When the user switches to a different team while the edit form is already mounted, the stale form instance may briefly show the wrong model set in the rate-limit dropdown. Consider keying the Form on teamId to force a clean reset.

Previously, a row with a model selected but both limits blank was silently dropped on save (neither model_tpm_limit nor model_rpm_limit got the key), so the row disappeared on reload with no feedback. Now the TPM field's validator blocks submission with "Set at least one of TPM or RPM" when a row has a model but neither limit filled.

…er-model-rate-limit-ui feat(ui): add per-model rate limits to team edit/info views

vercel Bot deployed to Preview April 4, 2026 20:37 View deployment

greptile-apps Bot reviewed Apr 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

ryan-crabbe-berri had a problem deploying to integration-redis-postgres April 4, 2026 20:50 — with GitHub Actions Failure

ryan-crabbe-berri had a problem deploying to integration-postgres April 4, 2026 20:50 — with GitHub Actions Failure

vercel Bot deployed to Preview April 4, 2026 20:51 View deployment

ryan-crabbe-berri changed the base branch from main to litellm_ryan-apr-4 April 4, 2026 23:14

ryan-crabbe-berri merged commit cc867f1 into litellm_ryan-apr-4 Apr 4, 2026
102 of 116 checks passed

ryan-crabbe-berri deleted the litellm_feat-per-team-per-model-rate-limit-ui branch April 4, 2026 23:14

ryan-crabbe-berri mentioned this pull request Apr 4, 2026

Litellm ryan apr 4 #25156

Merged

fzowl pushed a commit to fzowl/litellm that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2026

Merge pull request BerriAI#25144 from BerriAI/litellm_feat-per-team-p…

daac0bf

…er-model-rate-limit-ui feat(ui): add per-model rate limits to team edit/info views

Navigation Menu

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

feat(ui): add per-model rate limits to team edit/info views - #25144

feat(ui): add per-model rate limits to team edit/info views#25144
ryan-crabbe-berri merged 2 commits into
litellm_ryan-apr-4from
litellm_feat-per-team-per-model-rate-limit-ui

ryan-crabbe-berri commented Apr 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Apr 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Apr 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

greptile-apps Bot commented Apr 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Important Files Changed

Uh oh!

greptile-apps Bot Apr 4, 2026

Uh oh!

greptile-apps Bot Apr 4, 2026

Uh oh!

greptile-apps Bot Apr 4, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

ryan-crabbe-berri commented Apr 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Screenshots

Test plan

Uh oh!

vercel Bot commented Apr 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

codspeed-hq Bot commented Apr 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Merging this PR will not alter performance

Uh oh!

greptile-apps Bot commented Apr 4, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Greptile Summary

Confidence Score: 4/5

Important Files Changed

Sequence Diagram

Uh oh!

greptile-apps Bot Apr 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

greptile-apps Bot Apr 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

greptile-apps Bot Apr 4, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

ryan-crabbe-berri commented Apr 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

vercel Bot commented Apr 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codspeed-hq Bot commented Apr 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading

greptile-apps Bot commented Apr 4, 2026 •

edited

Loading