d0c2e87810
* ci: enable ruff preview rules under the budgeted strict gate
Turn on ruff preview in the strict-budget lane (ruff-strict.toml) only,
leaving the clean gate (ruff.toml) untouched so make lint-ruff stays at
zero. Enumerate the 118 firing codes explicitly with
explicit-preview-rules so the gate is deterministic and stable across
ruff upgrades rather than depending on preview auto-selecting the broad
catalog.
Grandfather the existing 58438 violations into ruff-strict-budget.json
as per-rule baselines with headroom, so only net-new violations fail CI.
The existing ten rules keep their hand-tuned slack; the new rules get
slack 10 when the baseline is 50 or more and 3 otherwise.
* ci: add ANN return-type rules to the budgeted strict gate
Add ANN201/202/204/205/206 (missing return annotations) to the strict
lane and grandfather the existing counts into ruff-strict-budget.json so
the codebase ratchets toward explicit return types without breaking CI.
* ci: add mypy (disallow_untyped_defs) and basedpyright strict gates with baselines
Add two type-check gates, each grandfathering the current tree so only
net-new violations fail CI, matching the ruff strict-budget ratchet.
mypy gains disallow_untyped_defs in litellm/mypy.ini (the config the CI
invocation actually reads; the root [tool.mypy] is not picked up from the
litellm/ working dir). The 4885 existing missing-annotation errors are
captured in litellm/.mypy-baseline.txt and the run is piped through
mypy-baseline filter so new untyped defs are rejected.
basedpyright runs in strict mode over litellm/, with
enableTypeIgnoreComments disabled so it only honors '# pyright: ignore'
and never polices mypy's '# type: ignore'. The existing strict diagnostics
are grandfathered into .basedpyright/baseline.json.
Both tools are pinned in the dev group and uv.lock; the lint workflow and
Makefile run them filtered through their baselines, with
lint-mypy-baseline-update and lint-basedpyright-baseline-update to ratchet.
* ci: raise lint job timeout to 15m for the basedpyright strict pass
* ci: pin pythonVersion 3.12 and regenerate baselines against merged base
Merge litellm_internal_staging so the baselines cover code the CI merge
includes (e.g. the cisco_ai_defense guardrail), which otherwise tripped
the mypy gate with 3 ungrandfathered no-untyped-def errors. Pin
pythonVersion 3.12 in pyrightconfig so basedpyright's strict analysis is
reproducible across interpreter versions (CI runs 3.12).
* ci: regenerate basedpyright baseline against the frozen lint env
The previous baseline was generated with optional provider deps (azure,
google, anthropic, mcp, numpydoc, google-genai) installed locally, so CI's
dev-only env surfaced ~3500 reportUnknown*/reportMissingTypeStubs errors
not in the baseline. Regenerate after uv sync --frozen so the baseline
reflects the same dependency set the lint job sees.
* ci: regenerate basedpyright baseline on python 3.12 frozen env
The prior baseline still carried proxy-dev packages (e.g. prisma) that the
lint job's dev-only, python 3.12 env lacks, leaving 2 unresolved-import
errors ungrandfathered. Regenerate in a python 3.12 venv synced to the
frozen lock with default groups only, so the baseline matches exactly what
CI sees.
* ci: replace type-check baselines with per-file count budgets
The mypy and basedpyright baselines were position-sensitive (and the
basedpyright one was a 27MB file), so ordinary line shifts churned them.
Replace both with a per-file count gate: scripts/type_check_gate.py reduces
each tool's output to errors-per-file and checks it against a committed
{file: max} budget, ignoring line and column numbers. A file fails only
when it gains more errors than its ceiling; debt can't be shuffled between
files because each file has its own cap and new files default to zero.
Budgets (mypy-file-budget.json 48K, basedpyright-file-budget.json 96K) are
generated in the python 3.12 frozen lint env so they match CI. Drops the
mypy-baseline dependency; basedpyright runs without its native baseline.
ratchet via make lint-mypy-budget-update / lint-basedpyright-budget-update.
* ci: add a small per-file slack to the type-check gate
Allow each file to drift PER_FILE_SLACK (5) errors past its recorded count
before failing, so a basedpyright inference ripple in an unrelated file
doesn't break the build over a couple of errors. Budgets still record exact
counts; the tolerance is applied at check time.
* ci: move type-check slack into the budget json and trim lint timeout
Make slack declarative: the budget is now {"slack": N, "files": {path: count}}
so the tolerance is tuned in JSON without editing the script, mirroring how
ruff-strict-budget.json carries its slack. --update preserves the existing
slack. Also drop the lint job timeout from 15m to 10m; the mypy and
basedpyright passes add ~2m, leaving the job around 4-5m, so 10m is a
comfortable margin.
* ci: collapse fully-adopted ruff categories and drop inert preview flag
ANN (all nine non-removed rules) and BLE (its only rule) were spelled out
code-by-code; replace each with its category selector, which is exactly
equivalent in 0.15.3 (the removed ANN101/ANN102 are skipped by a category
selector and error when named explicitly). explicit-preview-rules was inert:
every selected rule is stable and nothing is selected by category, so the flag
had nothing to gate. Verified the strict-rule counts are identical before and
after (62379 each, zero per-rule drift), so no budget change.
* ci: drop redundant pyright dev dependency
Nothing invokes bare pyright in the Makefile, the linting workflow, or
scripts; the basedpyright gate added on this branch is the only type
checker that runs. basedpyright is a superset fork that reads the same
pyrightconfig.json and honors the same "# pyright: ignore" comments, so
pyright==1.1.408 in the ci group was dead weight. Regenerated uv.lock
under the same exclude-newer cutoff so the only change is removing
pyright and its package stanza
* ci: un-weaken mypy and error on Any in basedpyright
mypy: enable warn_return_any, drop the valid-type silencer, and stop globally ignoring missing first-party imports via [mypy-litellm.*] ignore_missing_imports = False, which surfaced eight real broken litellm.* imports the blanket ignore was hiding; third-party imports stay ignored. The per-file budget moves 4888 -> 5799 (902 no-any-return, 1 valid-type, 8 import-not-found), all grandfathered so only net-new errors fail and the ceilings ratchet down
basedpyright: error on reportExplicitAny and reportAny. The per-file budget moves 117033 -> 148946 (6931 explicit-Any, 24954 Any-typed expressions), grandfathered the same way
* ci: add Any-discipline gate on changed lines under litellm/
Add scripts/check_any_discipline.py, a type-aware gate that fails when a
changed line holds a value typed Any -- including the X | Any unions that
mypy --strict / basedpyright accept (e.g. re.Match.group() -> str | Any,
json.loads() -> Any, bare dict -> dict[Any, Any]).
It reuses the repo's mypyc-compiled mypy 1.19 via a custom generic AST
walker (mypyc precludes subclassing TraverserVisitor), loads litellm/mypy.ini
for parity with lint-mypy, and uses a dedicated incremental cache
(.mypy_cache_any) with mtime+hash invalidation to force re-checks. Scope is
changed-lines-only so editing a legacy file never forces cleaning its
existing Any debt; suppress a genuine typed/untyped boundary with
# any-ok: <reason> (ANY002 requires the reason).
Wire it into the Makefile (lint-any, lint, lint-dev), a parallel
any-discipline CI job with its own actions/cache, .gitignore, and the
CLAUDE.md / CONTRIBUTING.md docs.
* ci: move Any-gate codes into the shared LIT namespace
Renumber the Any-discipline checker into the LIT*** scheme owned by
scripts/check_type_discipline.py (PR #30500) so the two checkers share one
rule namespace and suppression convention:
ANY001 -> LIT002 (Any-typed value; LIT002 was the retired/free slot)
ANY002 -> LIT005 (any-ok without a reason; the shared suppression-reason code)
ANY000 -> LIT000 (setup/build/read error; the shared error code)
Messages and behavior are unchanged; LIT005's text already matches the
"<token> requires a reason" shape used for cast-ok/guard-ok.
* ci: gate mypy and basedpyright per error rule, not per file
Switch the mypy/basedpyright budget gate from per-file error counts to
per-rule-code totals, mirroring the {rule: {baseline, slack}} shape of
ruff-strict-budget.json. A rule fails when its codebase-wide error count
exceeds baseline + slack, so violations are tracked by category rather
than by file location.
scripts/type_check_gate.py now parses mypy from its text output (trailing
[code]) and basedpyright from --outputjson (the JSON `rule` field), since
basedpyright's wrapped text diagnostics mis-attribute the rule on
continuation lines. Replace the *-file-budget.json files with freshly
captured *-code-budget.json baselines and update the Makefile, CI, and
CLAUDE.md accordingly.
* docs: prefer Pydantic validation over any-ok suppression
Point the Any-discipline guidance at validating Any with Pydantic (a model
or TypeAdapter that returns a typed value or raises) and frame
# any-ok as a last resort that should ideally never be used.
* chore: remove extraneous comment
* chore: make the CLAUDE.md more concise
* chore: clean up bloated CONTRIBUTING.md additions
* chore: make Makefile more concise
* ci: add the lint-budget-update target CLAUDE.md references
CLAUDE.md tells contributors to run make lint-budget-update, but the
target was never defined. Add it as an aggregate that re-captures the
ruff, mypy, and basedpyright budgets in one shot.
* ci: recapture mypy and basedpyright budgets in the lint env
The per-rule baselines were captured in a richer dependency env than the
CI lint job's uv sync --frozen, so CI resolved fewer types and reported
more errors than the budgets allowed (no-any-return 902 over cap 900, plus
several basedpyright reportUnknown* rules). Regenerate both in the frozen
env so they grandfather the true CI debt: mypy 5786 -> 5799 (no-any-return
890 -> 902, valid-type 1 restored), basedpyright 146213 -> 148942.
* ci: check out PR head sha in lint and any-discipline jobs
The default pull_request checkout uses refs/pull/N/merge, which folds the
latest base commits into HEAD. The diff-based gates (ruff delta, Any
discipline) then diff against the event's older base.sha and blame base's
own new commits on this branch; staging's otel-v2 and streaming changes
(#30326, #30485) tripped the Any gate on files this branch never touched.
Checking out the PR head sha makes the gates diff the real branch tip
against base, and pins the tree the mypy/basedpyright budgets were captured
against so their counts stay deterministic as the base advances.
* ci(lint): renumber Any-typed-value rule LIT002 -> LIT009
Free up LIT002 for the sibling type-discipline gate (check_type_discipline.py,
#30500), which groups its mutable-collection family at LIT001 (annotation) and
LIT002 (construction). This gate's Any-typed-value rule moves to LIT009 so the
shared LIT namespace stays contiguous with no holes; LIT000 and LIT005 are
unchanged.
* style: rename lint-strict-budget -> lint-ruff-budget
* ci: harden type-check gates against silent passes (greptile review)
type_check_gate.py: refuse to certify a vacuous run. The CI pipe swallows
the tool's exit code ('tool || true'), so a crashed mypy/basedpyright that
emits nothing would parse to zero errors, breach no ceiling, and pass.
is_vacuous_run() now fails when nothing was parsed but the budget expects
errors. Also wrap basedpyright's json.loads in a JSONDecodeError handler
that prints the offending output instead of dumping a raw traceback.
check_any_discipline.py: ALL_LINES was None, which dict.get() also returns
for a path absent from the line map, so a path-normalisation mismatch could
let a violation on an unchanged file pass the scope filter. Make ALL_LINES a
distinct sentinel object so 'whole file' and 'path missing' are unambiguous.
Adds tests for all three.
8.8 KiB
Do not write comments unless they are absolutely necessary to explain some very complex business logic. Please clean up if there are comments that are not absolutely necessary. Do not remove comments that are unrelated to the addition of the code of this PR
Explanation: code comments are, in a way, a violation of DRY code. You must update logic in two locations to change the code and "hard to change" is literally the definition of tech debt. We should instead aim to write code that is intuitive to the reader, while being both easy to maintain and high performance
Don't assume that the existing code is correct or the right way of doing things / good coding patterns. In fact, there are a lot of bad coding practices, overly complex code, code smells, etc. If something doesn't look right, speak up. Feel free to break existing patterns or question weird existing code to make new code high quality, as in:
- correct
- secure
- performant
- readable
- easy to maintain/change
- modern
In that order of importance
When adding new features, add meaningful tests. Don't add tests that don't check anything substantial and is there just to make the code coverage pass. Yes, code coverage is important, but I'd rather have no signal whether the code is working than tests that don't fail when code is broken. The goal is to have tests that would fail before the feature was added/if the code was mutated in a way that breaks the feature and succeed only when the feature is fully working. I should run mutation testing and see > 90% kill rate
Same thing for bug fixes. The tests should make it so that this specific bug can never happen again without failing tests (i.e., regression)
tests/test_litellm/ mirrors litellm/ in a parallel path (see tests/test_litellm/readme.md). Name tests test_<filename>.py, but always match the existing test file in the directory you touch — many provider dirs use longer descriptive names (e.g. test_anthropic_chat_transformation.py) to avoid ambiguity across sibling folders. For bug fixes, extend the existing mapped test file rather than creating a new one. Only create a new test file for a new feature (provider, endpoint, or transformation module) that has no mapped test yet, following that directory's naming convention (or test_<filename>.py if you're the first test there). One focused regression test beats many shallow ones
When creating PRs, don't set base to main. litellm_internal_staging serves that purpose
Always use @.github/pull_request_template.md as a guide for your PR body
Never use pytest commands or the like as "Screenshots / Proof of Fix". We prefer curl'ing a live proxy instance running on localhost:4000 (I like to run it with python litellm/proxy/proxy_cli.py --config litellm/proxy/dev_config.yaml --detailed_debug --reload --use_v2_migration_resolver 2>&1 | tee litellm.log) and showing both the command run and the output. Also, it should hit real LLM provider APIs, not mocks, and cost real $ because that is the most realistic test. The proof of fix should be exactly what the end user / customer would see / do. The run logs in PR #27703 is a prime example of how to do it (not a huge fan of using a python test script that future me and the team will have no visibility into; I prefer just curl commands or a short list of bash commands (e.g., using for)). If it's a UI thing, just tell me which URLs to go to (e.g., http://localhost:4000/ui/?page=logs), where to click, what fields to fill out, etc. along with the other commands to run in an ordered list, and I'll do it myself and post the screenshots after you make the PR
If you ever make public-facing PR descriptions, comments, issues, commit messages, etc., always follow these guidelines to sound less AI-y:
- don't use emojis
- don't use "—". Instead, reach for ";", ".", etc.
- don't use the pattern "It's not X, it's Y", "You're not X, you're Y", etc.
- don't use bulleted or numbered lists unless it would be nonsensical not to. Instead, prefer prose
- don't add a trailing "." at the end of paragraphs (just like this file)
- don't use →. Instead, prefer not to use arrows, and if need be, use -> instead
Don't hesitate to use values in .env to get needed API keys and other secrets, as long as you never add them to conversation history, commit them, or include them in GitHub issues / PRs
Run tests, format your code, and lint your code before each commit
When you fix violations gated by ruff-strict-budget.json, mypy-code-budget.json, or basedpyright-code-budget.json, run make lint-budget-update and commit the lowered baselines so the ceilings ratchet down instead of leaving stale headroom
If you're trying to create a new function that relies on untyped stuff, instead of adding more Any's and bringing it closer to the max, just validate it in the caller with Pydantic (a model or TypeAdapter that returns the typed thing or raises will do) and then pass the now typed variable in
The Any-discipline gate (make lint-any, also a CI job) fails when a line you changed under litellm/ holds a value typed Any, including the X | Any. Ideally # any-ok: <reason> is never used; treat it as a last resort for a genuine typed/untyped boundary that Pydantic truly can't model
Ask to commit and push your work when you're done (or if you're confident that your code is good and works, just do it)
When you must use real LLM models to, for example, write e2e tests, write a QA runbook, etc., make sure to use the latest models (doesn't have to be smartest, can also be a modern small, fast one. No strong preference for smart vs fast here, just use something modern) as of the year and month of the current date. Do a web search as necessary to figure that out
If you're an internal contributor, when creating a new PR, the typical flow is to branch off litellm_internal_staging and create a branch prefixed with litellm_. Do not create a branch prefixed with claude/ and generally do not have / in your branch names
Do not add Co-Authored-By: Claude or any Claude attribution to commit messages. Never use a claude/ prefix or put a / in a branch name. Do not add "Generated with Claude Code" (or any similar attribution) to PR descriptions or comments. Do not create a new PR/branch off the existing PR to fix/add something that is related and could've just been committed directly to the existing PR's branch
When working on a PR, keep the PR description in sync with new commits being made
Monkeypatching attributes of a class to do testing is an anti-pattern. Prefer dependency-injecting things into classes. That way, at unit test time, you can pass a mocked dependency in
Do not put names of customers or customer company names in code, PRs, and issues. The codebase is public
CI supply-chain safety: Never pipe a remote script into a shell (curl ... | bash, wget ... | sh); download the artifact to a file, verify its SHA-256 checksum, then install. Pin every external tool to a specific version with a full URL (not latest or stable). Verify checksums for all downloaded binaries, using the provider's official .sha256 / .sha256sum sidecar when available. These rules apply to every download in CI
Follow these coding conventions for new/updated code (a three-line fix in a legacy file shouldn't trigger huge drive-by refactors):
- Composition over inheritance
- Never-nester: early returns over deep nesting
- Don't throw; model failures as values (One function (e.g., raise_public) maps error union to existing public exception contracts via exhaustive match + assert_never)
- No mutation; don't reassign variables, global or local. Instead of mutable lists and dicts, prefer tuples, frozen dataclasses (with slots=True), etc.
- Use dependency injection
- Fully typed; no
Anyor coarse types likedict[str, Any]or justdict. Every function parameter must be strongly typed - Use tagged unions + match
- No monster files or god objects
- No file sprawl: deliberate file and folder structure
- Standard over hand-rolled: use the official SDK or a library where one exists; where none does, follow industry standards instead of inventing local conventions
Follow conventional commits for commit names and PR titles
Think Before Coding
Don't assume. Don't hide confusion. Surface tradeoffs
Before implementing:
- State your assumptions explicitly. If uncertain, ask
- If multiple interpretations exist, present them. Don't pick silently
- If a simpler approach exists, say so. Push back when warranted
- If something is unclear, stop. Name what's confusing. Ask
Simplicity First
Minimum code that solves the problem. Nothing speculative
- No features beyond what was asked
- No abstractions for single-use code
- No "flexibility" or "configurability" that wasn't requested
- No error handling for impossible scenarios
- If you write 200 lines and it could be 50, rewrite it
Ask yourself: "Would a senior engineer say this is overcomplicated?" If yes, simplify