Skip to content

revert: undo teamless all-team-models denial from #32022 and #29746 (#32032) [backport 1.90.x] - #32378

Draft
devin-ai-integration[bot] wants to merge 2 commits into
stable/1.90.xfrom
litellm_backport_32032_1_90_x
Draft

revert: undo teamless all-team-models denial from #32022 and #29746 (#32032) [backport 1.90.x]#32378
devin-ai-integration[bot] wants to merge 2 commits into
stable/1.90.xfrom
litellm_backport_32032_1_90_x

Conversation

@devin-ai-integration

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Relevant issues

Backports #32032 to stable/1.90.x. Original issue #30737

Linear ticket

Pre-Submission checklist

  • I have added meaningful tests
  • My PR passes all CI/CD checks (e.g., lint, format, unit tests)
  • My PR's scope is as isolated as possible; it only solves 1 specific problem
  • I have received a Greptile Confidence Score of at least 4/5 before requesting a maintainer review

Screenshots / Proof of Fix

This is a backport of the already-merged revert #32032; the end-to-end proof of fix (live proxy, teamless all-team-models key both listing and calling models) is covered by the source change and the dedicated e2e test in #32372. Here the guarantee is the hardened unit regression tests, which I mutation-tested against this branch: restoring either teamless denial (the _resolve_key_models_for_auth_check teamless branch returning the sentinel list, or the get_key_models team_id is not None guard) makes test_resolve_key_models_teamless_all_team_models_returns_empty and test_get_key_models_teamless_all_team_models_returns_unrestricted fail. The full auth + batch suites pass (219 passed) on this branch

Type

🐛 Bug Fix
✅ Test

Changes

A teamless key scoped to all-team-models must inherit the full proxy model list, exactly as if its models field were left empty; that is the intended contract per #30737. #29746 tightened this to deny such keys, and #32022 mirrored the denial on the inference path. Both were reverted on staging in #32032. This backports that revert to stable/1.90.x

The behavioral change is confined to two spots. _resolve_key_models_for_auth_check now returns [] (unrestricted) instead of the unresolved sentinel list for a teamless all-team-models key, and get_key_models drops the team_id is not None guard so the sentinel expands the same way regardless of team assignment. The inference skip check in user_api_key_auth.py already lacked the guard on this line, so it needed no change

Scope note: the source revert also carried staging-only test coverage (team-sentinel expansion for can_team_access_model, and expand_wildcard_deployments_for_model_info cases) that depends on code paths not present on stable/1.90.x. Those were omitted since they exercise behavior this line doesn't have; the ported tests are the ones that pin the teamless regression itself

Version bumped to 1.90.4 in its own commit

Link to Devin session: https://app.devin.ai/sessions/68804be8677b4a0c9033e7c2663281bc
Requested by: @mateo-berri

mateo-berri and others added 2 commits July 7, 2026 20:41
…32032)

Backport of #32032 to stable/1.90.x.
Cherry-picked from 5ece78f (litellm_internal_staging).
Scoped to the teamless all-team-models regression fix; staging-only test
coverage (team-sentinel expansion, wildcard deployment expansion) that depends
on changes not present on this line was omitted.

Co-Authored-By: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
@mateo-berri mateo-berri self-assigned this Jul 7, 2026
@devin-ai-integration

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

🤖 Devin AI Engineer

I'll be helping with this pull request! Here's what you should know:

✅ I will automatically:

  • Address comments on this PR. Add '(aside)' to your comment to have me ignore it.
  • Look at CI failures and help fix them

Note: I can only respond to comments from users who have write access to this repository.

⚙️ Control Options:

  • Disable automatic comment, CI, and merge conflict monitoring

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.

1 participant