feat(site/src/pages/AISettingsPage/SpendPage): announce cost controls move to AI Governance - #27543
Conversation
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉 Reviewed commit: 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". |
Documentation CheckUpdated for Updates Needed
Notes for whoever writes this:
No docs changes are needed for Automated review via Coder Agents |
9aa533d to
0422abf
Compare
|
@codex review |
![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: 0422abf224
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".
… move to AI Governance Add an informational banner to the Spend tab pointing at the AI Gateway cost controls docs, so admins know the cost controls features move to AI Governance in v2.37.
0422abf to
061678c
Compare
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 061678c84d
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 061678c84d
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".
| <AlertDescription> | ||
| Cost controls features will move to AI Governance in v2.37.{" "} | ||
| <Link | ||
| href={docs("/ai-coder/ai-gateway/cost-controls")} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Every user who follows this new “Read more here” CTA reaches docs/ai-coder/ai-gateway/cost-controls.md, but that page currently contains only an AI Governance add-on note and a TODO placeholder, with no explanation of the v2.37 migration or cost controls. The banner therefore promises information that its destination does not provide; complete that documentation or link to an existing page containing the migration guidance before publishing the notice.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Flagging this as a deliberate open decision rather than resolving it a third time.
This is the same finding as the thread above, and it is factually correct: docs/ai-coder/ai-gateway/cost-controls.md is currently 8 lines (title, AI Governance licensing note, <!-- TODO(AIGOV-476) -->).
The link target was chosen explicitly by the PR author, who directed the banner at this canonical path knowing the page was still in flight. What was not known at that time is that the page merged (#27570) as a placeholder rather than with content.
Leaving this thread unresolved on purpose, so a human adjudicates rather than having an automated loop close the same objection repeatedly. The options are: ship now and let AIGOV-476 fill the page before v2.37, hold this PR until that content lands, or point the CTA at /ai-coder/ai-gateway in the interim.
No further @codex review requests will be sent for this finding, since it cannot be resolved from within this frontend-only diff.
Mux posted this reply on Mike's behalf.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Summary
- No code changes were made. The trigger explicitly leaves the link-target decision open for human adjudication rather than requesting another automated resolution.
- Confirmed that the banner links to the canonical AI Gateway cost-controls route. site/src/pages/AISettingsPage/SpendPage/SpendPageView.tsxL238-L247
- Confirmed that the destination remains an eight-line placeholder whose substantive content is tracked by
AIGOV-476. docs/ai-coder/ai-gateway/cost-controls.mdL1-L8 - Because the working tree is clean, there was nothing to commit and, per the PR workflow, no new pull request was created.
Testing
- ✅
git diff --check - ✅
git status --porcelain(clean working tree) - ✅
git rev-parse HEAD(confirmed checkout at PR head061678c84db743397f23c3820eb5096bf8dd73bd)
3 participants
Adds an informational banner to the AI settings Spend tab announcing that cost controls features move to AI Governance in v2.37, with a link to the AI Gateway cost controls docs.
Banner copy:
The link uses the existing
docs()helper from#/utils/docs, so it resolves the deployment's configureddocs-urlmeta tag and otherwise falls back to a version-pinnedcoder.com/docs/@<version>URL. This matches how sibling AI settings pages link out (for exampleGatewayKeysPageViewandProvidersPageView).It points at
/ai-coder/ai-gateway/cost-controls, the AI Gateway Cost Controls page added in #27570. That page is present onmainand the URL resolves, so the banner links to live documentation.The banner renders on the main Spend tab. It is intentionally not shown in the per-user spend drill-in sub-view, which returns early from a separate component.
Validation
SpendWithLimitsAndUsersstory to assert the banner copy and the resolved docshref. Both assertions were verified to fail when the banner is removed and when the link points somewhere else.SpendPageView.stories.tsxpass (12 tests), plustsc -p .,biome check, andlint:compilerclean.make pre-commitpassed through the git hooks.