Conversation
|
@codex review this |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: f631fab246
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up! ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback". |
| existing_models.push(model); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| *self.remote_models.write().await = existing_models; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
self.remote_models now stores a merged catalog (bundled models.json + /models overrides/additions), not just the remote response. Consider renaming to something like cached_models or merged_models (and update related comments) to avoid misleading future readers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
true. but in a way models.json is also cached remote models and is different from the hot cache. This needs simplification I agree.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ack yeah just a suggestion, feel free to not do. My read is a distinction btwn remote vs bundled vs cached
2 participants
We have
models.jsonand/modelsresponseBehavior:
models.jsonbut not/modelsare kept