Skip to content

[codex] allow native google-vertex model provider configs#74914

Draft
aresxu8866-hue wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
aresxu8866-hue:fix/google-vertex-native-adc-config
Draft

[codex] allow native google-vertex model provider configs#74914
aresxu8866-hue wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
aresxu8866-hue:fix/google-vertex-native-adc-config

Conversation

@aresxu8866-hue

@aresxu8866-hue aresxu8866-hue commented Apr 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Summary

  • allow google-vertex as a configured model provider/model api value
  • regenerate the base config schema so openclaw config validate accepts native Vertex provider configs
  • add coverage that native Vertex configs validate and keep their Vertex transport during Google provider normalization

Why

OpenClaw already registers the bundled Google Vertex provider and can resolve ADC auth evidence with the gcp-vertex-credentials marker, but the config schema did not allow api: "google-vertex". Users configuring Vertex manually were pushed toward the OpenAI-compatible endpoint with api: "openai-completions", where the ADC marker can be treated like a literal key/header value instead of the native Vertex ADC flow.

Validation

  • pnpm config:schema:check
  • node scripts/test-projects.mjs src/config/config.secrets-schema.test.ts extensions/google/provider-policy-api.test.ts src/agents/models-config.providers.google-antigravity.test.ts src/agents/models-config.providers.policy.lookup.test.ts
  • pnpm check:test-types
  • pnpm exec oxfmt --check --threads=1 src/config/types.models.ts src/config/config.secrets-schema.test.ts extensions/google/provider-policy-api.test.ts src/config/schema.base.generated.ts

@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented Apr 30, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed May 30, 2026, 12:59 AM ET / 04:59 UTC.

Summary
Review failed before ClawSweeper could summarize the requested change.

PR surface: Source +1, Tests +49, Generated +2. Total +52 across 4 files.

Reproducibility: unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Review metrics: none identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Result: rating does not apply to this item.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Risk before merge

  • [P1] No close action taken because the review did not complete.

Maintainer options:

  1. Decide the mitigation before merge
    Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.
  2. Pause or close
    Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

  • [P1] Review did not complete, so no work-lane recommendation was made.
Review details

Best possible solution:

Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear. Retry the review first so ClawSweeper can evaluate the actual issue and fix direction.

AGENTS.md: unclear because the file could not be read completely.

Codex review notes: model gpt-5.5, reasoning high; reviewed against b352cb2d8e7f.

Label changes

Label justifications:

  • rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Overall readiness is 🌊 off-meta tidepool; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🌊 off-meta tidepool.
Evidence reviewed

PR surface:

Source +1, Tests +49, Generated +2. Total +52 across 4 files.

View PR surface stats
Area Files Added Removed Net
Source 1 1 0 +1
Tests 2 49 0 +49
Docs 0 0 0 0
Config 0 0 0 0
Generated 1 2 0 +2
Other 0 0 0 0
Total 4 52 0 +52

What I checked:

  • failure reason: codex execution failed.
  • codex failure detail: Codex review failed for this PR with exit 1.
  • codex stdout: Per-item Codex failure; continuing with the rest of the shard.

Likely related people:

  • unknown: Codex failed before it could trace repository history. (role: review did not complete; confidence: low)
What the crustacean ranks mean
  • 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
  • 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
  • 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
  • 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
  • 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
  • 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
  • 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

How this review workflow works
  • ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
  • Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
  • A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
  • PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
  • Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
  • Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
  • Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
  • Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

This was referenced May 5, 2026
Closed
Open
Open
This was referenced May 12, 2026
Closed
Open
Closed
@damianFelixPago damianFelixPago mentioned this pull request May 19, 2026
Merged
@openclaw-barnacle

openclaw-barnacle Bot commented May 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request has been automatically marked as stale due to inactivity.
Please add updates or it will be closed.

@openclaw-barnacle openclaw-barnacle Bot added stale Marked as stale due to inactivity triage: needs-real-behavior-proof Candidate: external PR needs after-fix proof from a real setup. labels May 30, 2026
@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added the rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool PR readiness rating does not apply to this item. label May 30, 2026
@barnacle-openclaw barnacle-openclaw Bot removed the stale Marked as stale due to inactivity label May 30, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool PR readiness rating does not apply to this item. size: S triage: needs-real-behavior-proof Candidate: external PR needs after-fix proof from a real setup.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant

@aresxu8866-hue