refactor(go-models): route Bedrock ListModels through ParseListModel (#15853)#15956
Open
hunnyboy1217 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
refactor(go-models): route Bedrock ListModels through ParseListModel (#15853)#15956hunnyboy1217 wants to merge 1 commit into
hunnyboy1217 wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
…nfiniflow#15853) Bedrock's ListModels already signs and calls the AWS ListFoundationModels control-plane endpoint, but it hand-built bare ListModelResponse values. Map the AWS modelSummaries catalog into ModelList and enrich through the shared ParseListModel helper (issue infiniflow#15853), consistent with the other migrated providers. The empty-modelId guard is preserved (filtered before ParseListModel) so a malformed AWS response never leaks a blank entry to the UI. Also includes the shared gitee_test.go DSModelList->ModelList compile fix (infiniflow#15900 rename); it auto-resolves against the sibling infiniflow#15853 PRs. Existing TestBedrockListModelsParsesCatalog passes unchanged (names preserved; enrichment only adds fields). go build and go vet are clean.
Contributor
|
No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉 ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (2)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR consolidates model catalog parsing by refactoring Bedrock's ChangesModel list parsing consolidation
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~8 minutes Possibly related PRs
Suggested labels
Poem
🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1❌ Failed checks (1 warning)
✅ Passed checks (4 passed)
✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings. 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. Comment |
Haruko386
reviewed
Jun 12, 2026
Haruko386
left a comment
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hunnyboy1217 please show your output in RAGFlow CLI for your code tests
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What problem does this PR solve?
Part of #15853 (provider model-list refactor).
Bedrock's
ListModelsalready signs (SigV4) and calls the AWSListFoundationModelscontrol-plane endpoint, but it hand-built bareListModelResponse{Name}values. This maps the AWSmodelSummariescatalog intoModelListand enriches through the sharedParseListModelhelper, consistent with the other migrated providers.The empty-
modelIdguard is preserved (filtered beforeParseListModel) so a malformed AWS response never leaks a blank entry to the UI dropdown. Output is unchanged today (Bedrock model ids are not yet in all_models.json, so enrichment is a no-op), but Bedrock now benefits automatically once its models are added to the registry.Drive-by fix
Shared gitee_test.go
DSModelList->ModelListcompile fix (renamed in #15900); auto-resolves against the sibling #15853 PRs.Type of change
How has this been tested?