Skip to content

fix: add missing fireworks models in cost map - #30580

Closed
mateo-berri wants to merge 2 commits into
litellm_internal_stagingfrom
litellm_cost_map_missing_models
Closed

fix: add missing fireworks models in cost map#30580
mateo-berri wants to merge 2 commits into
litellm_internal_stagingfrom
litellm_cost_map_missing_models

Conversation

@mateo-berri

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Copy of #30564 on an in-repo branch so CircleCI runs against it (the original PR's head lives on a fork).

Relevant issues

LIT-3783

added pricing for missing models in cost map for accurate spend tracking
source:

Linear ticket

LIT-3783

Pre-Submission checklist

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

  • I have added meaningful tests
  • 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

Type

🐛 Bug Fix

Changes

Data-only additions to the model cost map JSON files; no runtime logic changes.

Fireworks AI: new entries for DeepSeek V4 Pro, Kimi K2.6, and Qwen 3.6 Plus, each under both the full accounts/fireworks/models/... path and the shorter fireworks_ai/... alias. Entries include per-token input/output (and cache-read where applicable), context limits, and capability flags such as reasoning, tools, and vision where relevant. DeepSeek V4 Pro caps max_output_tokens at 384000 to match the azure_ai/deepseek-v4-pro entry for the same underlying model, keeping the Fireworks 1048576 input context.

Mistral: adds mistral/voxtral-small-2507 with text pricing, 32K context, and supports_audio_input alongside standard chat/tool capabilities.


Generated by Claude Code

mubashir1osmani and others added 2 commits June 17, 2026 00:22
The Fireworks model page publishes only a ~1M context length and no
separate generation cap, so the entry set max_output_tokens and max_tokens
to the full 1048576 window. That equals max_input_tokens, which makes
get_modified_max_tokens treat it as a shared input+output budget and lets
callers request output sizes the model cannot actually produce.

Cap output at 384000 to match the azure_ai/deepseek-v4-pro entry for the
same underlying model (identical input/output costs), keeping the Fireworks
1048576 input context. Mirrored in the backup map.
@codecov

codecov Bot commented Jun 17, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

@devin-ai-integration

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

🚅 Hi, thanks for the PR! I'm Agent Shin, the automated triage bot for this repository. What's this and why am I getting it?

I read the description against our contribution rubric. Here's how it lined up:

What you got right:

  • ✅ Clear problem description
  • ✅ Expected vs. actual behavior

What's still missing:

  • a valid linked GitHub issue reference (the body only mentions a Linear ticket, not Fixes/Closes/Resolves/Refs to a GitHub issue)
  • end-to-end QA proof such as a screenshot, video, or real command output demonstrating the change works

The PR clearly explains the pricing-map problem and what the change adds, so context is present. However, it does not include acceptable end-to-end QA proof, and the only issue reference is a Linear ticket rather than a qualifying GitHub issue link, so it fails triage.

If the description isn't updated in the next 24 hours, I'll auto-close this PR. That's not us saying we don't care about the change; we want the open-PR list to mirror what a maintainer can act on right now, so contributors don't get lost in a backlog. A closed PR is a soft "park this for later," not a rejection. Take your time; everything below still works after the close.

During the grace period: just update the PR description with the missing pieces. No need to ping me; I'll re-check on the next sweep and skip the auto-close if it now passes. See what counts as QA proof for the full rubric (a linked issue alone isn't enough; it covers context, not proof).

If the PR does get auto-closed in 24 hours, you still have easy recovery paths:

  • Comment @agent-shin reconsider after updating the description. I'll re-evaluate and reopen the PR if it now passes.
  • Comment @greptileai to request a fresh Greptile review; that still works even after the PR is closed, and a stronger score is one of the signals that lifts the PR back into the queue. So a low Greptile score isn't a blocker either.

Internal BerriAI contributors: this rubric doesn't apply to you; ping a maintainer.

(I'm an LLM, so I'm not infallible. If you think I got this wrong, ping a maintainer; they'll override me.)

@devin-ai-integration

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Superseded by rolling registry audit #37902, which reverified and absorbed the provider-documented metadata changes at field level

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants