Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
WalkthroughThis change removes the Changes
Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant User
participant SettingsForm
participant ModelFetcher
User->>SettingsForm: Open AI settings page
SettingsForm->>ModelFetcher: Fetch models (if provider is OPEN_AI)
ModelFetcher-->>SettingsForm: Return models (OPEN_AI only)
User->>SettingsForm: Select model (from fetched list or none)
User->>SettingsForm: Submit settings
SettingsForm->>SettingsForm: Validate (API key required unless DEFAULT_PROVIDER)
SettingsForm-->>User: Show success toast with Assistant page prompt
Possibly related PRs
Poem
Warning There were issues while running some tools. Please review the errors and either fix the tool's configuration or disable the tool if it's a critical failure. 🔧 ESLint
apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/settings/ModelSection.tsxOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 9.28.0 ESLint couldn't find an eslint.config.(js|mjs|cjs) file. From ESLint v9.0.0, the default configuration file is now eslint.config.js. https://eslint.org/docs/latest/use/configure/migration-guide If you still have problems after following the migration guide, please stop by apps/web/utils/actions/settings.validation.tsOops! Something went wrong! :( ESLint: 9.28.0 ESLint couldn't find an eslint.config.(js|mjs|cjs) file. From ESLint v9.0.0, the default configuration file is now eslint.config.js. https://eslint.org/docs/latest/use/configure/migration-guide If you still have problems after following the migration guide, please stop by ✨ Finishing Touches
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
SupportNeed help? Create a ticket on our support page for assistance with any issues or questions. Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
![cursor[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1210556?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✅ BugBot reviewed your changes and found no bugs!
BugBot free trial expires on June 9, 2025
You have used $0.00 of your $50.00 spend limit so far. Manage your spend limit in the Cursor dashboard.
Was this report helpful? Give feedback by reacting with 👍 or 👎
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
📒 Files selected for processing (4)
apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/settings/ModelSection.tsx(3 hunks)apps/web/utils/actions/settings.validation.ts(1 hunks)apps/web/utils/llms/config.ts(0 hunks)version.txt(1 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (1)
- apps/web/utils/llms/config.ts
🧰 Additional context used
🧬 Code Graph Analysis (1)
apps/web/utils/actions/settings.validation.ts (1)
apps/web/utils/llms/config.ts (1)
DEFAULT_PROVIDER(5-5)
🔇 Additional comments (4)
version.txt (1)
1-1: LGTM: Version increment follows semantic versioning.The version bump from v1.3.8 to v1.3.9 appropriately reflects the minor feature changes in this PR.
apps/web/utils/actions/settings.validation.ts (1)
28-28:Details
❓ Verification inconclusive
Verify this breaking change and its impact on existing users.
The API key requirement logic has changed from exempting
Provider.ANTHROPICto only exemptingDEFAULT_PROVIDER. This means Anthropic users will now be required to provide an API key, which is a breaking change.Please confirm:
- This breaking change is intentional and aligns with the new model selection approach
- Existing users with Anthropic provider but no API key have been properly migrated or notified
- Documentation has been updated to reflect this change
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Search for any remaining references to the old Anthropic exemption logic rg -A 3 -B 3 "Provider\.ANTHROPIC.*apikey|apikey.*Provider\.ANTHROPIC" --ignore-caseLength of output: 86
To be safe, let’s double-check how
DEFAULT_PROVIDERis defined and whether there are any other references to Anthropic in docs or code paths:
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # 1. Locate DEFAULT_PROVIDER constant rg -n "DEFAULT_PROVIDER" . # 2. Confirm the aiProvider validation logic in settings.validation.ts rg -C3 "if (!val.aiApiKey" -n apps/web/utils/actions/settings.validation.ts # 3. Search for any Anthropic mentions (docs, comments, migrations, etc.) rg -i "Anthropic" -n .Length of output: 8674
Verify the Anthropic API-key requirement change
The condition in apps/web/utils/actions/settings.validation.ts now only exempts
DEFAULT_PROVIDER, so users selectingProvider.ANTHROPICwill be forced to provide an API key. Please confirm:
- This behavioral change is intentional and aligns with the new default‐model approach
- All existing Anthropic users without an API key are being migrated or notified
- Documentation and onboarding guides have been updated (e.g., README.md, ARCHITECTURE.md) to reflect that Anthropic now requires a key
Files to review:
- apps/web/utils/actions/settings.validation.ts (line 28)
- README.md
- ARCHITECTURE.md
apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/settings/ModelSection.tsx (2)
93-96: Good UX improvement: prompting users to verify functionality.The expanded success message appropriately guides users to test their configuration on the Assistant page, which is helpful given the significant changes to model selection logic.
77-77:Details
✅ Verification successful
Ensure empty string default doesn't cause validation issues.
The default
aiModelvalue is now an empty string instead of a computed default. Verify that this doesn't cause validation errors when users haven't selected a model yet, especially if the model field is required in the schema.
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Check if aiModel field has required validation in the schema ast-grep --pattern 'aiModel: z.string()$_'Length of output: 44
I couldn’t locate a Zod schema for
aiModelwith the initial pattern. Let’s search for all occurrences ofaiModelin the repo to find where it’s defined or validated:
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash # Find all occurrences of aiModel to locate its validation/schema rg "aiModel" -n -C 3Length of output: 31317
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash sed -n '1,100p' apps/web/utils/actions/settings.validation.tsLength of output: 1169
Empty-string default for aiModel will not break validation
The
saveAiSettingsBodyschema declaresaiModelasz.string(), which accepts empty strings—so defaulting to""won’t trigger any Zod errors at submit time. At runtime,selectModeltreats an empty string as falsy and falls back to its built-in default model.If you intend to force users to make an explicit selection, consider changing the schema to:
aiModel: z.string().nonempty("Please select a model"),• apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/settings/ModelSection.tsx: defaultValues ▶ aiModel: props.aiModel ?? ""
• apps/web/utils/actions/settings.validation.ts:aiModel: z.string()
| value: m.id, | ||
| })) || [] | ||
| : modelOptions[aiProvider]; | ||
| : []; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Verification agent
🧩 Analysis chain
Verify the impact of restricting model options to OpenAI only.
The model selection logic now only provides dropdown options for OpenAI with a valid API key, while other providers require manual model name entry. This supports the "allow setting any model" objective but represents a significant UX change.
Please confirm:
- Users of other providers (Anthropic, Google, Groq, etc.) understand they need to manually enter model names
- There's adequate documentation or UI guidance for valid model names for each provider
- The manual entry approach doesn't introduce potential for typos or invalid model names
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any documentation or help text about valid model names
rg -A 5 -B 5 "model.*name|valid.*model" --type tsx --type tsLength of output: 90
🏁 Script executed:
#!/bin/bash
# Search code and markdown docs for any guidance on valid model names or related UI text
rg -A5 -B5 "model.*name|valid.*model" -g "*.ts*" -g "*.md"
rg -A5 -B5 "Enter.*model" -g "*.ts*" -g "*.md"Length of output: 814
Add UI guidance and documentation for manual model entry for non-OpenAI providers
I didn’t find any existing placeholder text, tooltips, or docs explaining how to enter model names for Anthropic, Google, Groq, etc. Without this, users may be confused or prone to typos. Please:
• In apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/settings/ModelSection.tsx (around line 112), add a placeholder or helper text on the model-name input for non-OpenAI providers (e.g. placeholder="e.g. anthropic-model-v1" or a tooltip icon).
• Update your user documentation (e.g. in docs/ or README.md) with a “Model name conventions” section listing valid example names per provider.
• Optionally, implement simple validation or a dropdown of common models per provider to reduce errors.
🤖 Prompt for AI Agents
In apps/web/app/(app)/[emailAccountId]/settings/ModelSection.tsx around line
112, add a placeholder or helper text to the model-name input field for
non-OpenAI providers to guide users on valid model name formats (e.g.,
placeholder="e.g. anthropic-model-v1" or a tooltip). Additionally, update the
user documentation in docs/ or README.md to include a “Model name conventions”
section with example valid model names for each provider. Optionally, consider
adding simple validation or a dropdown of common models per provider to minimize
user errors.
1 participant
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes
Refactor
Chores