Skip to content

Why was the per-model provider mapping removed from the OpenCode Go page, and can it be restored? #39857

Closed as not planned

Description

@aquariuz07

Question

Why was the per-model provider mapping removed from the OpenCode Go page,
and will provider/upstream information be restored or exposed again on the
website, in /zen/go/v1/models, and in the TUI model picker?

Context

  • Until 2026-07-16, opencode.ai/go displayed each Go model's provider source.
    For example, GLM-5.2 was listed as "DeepInfra, Fireworks AI, Z.ai" and
    DeepSeek V4 Flash as "DeepSeek".
  • The mapping was hardcoded in packages/console/app/src/routes/go/index.tsx
    as models = [{ name, provider }] and was removed by commit 5121352
    ("go: grok 4.5 and kimi k3", 2026-07-16). The page now shows model names
    and request limits only.
  • The public API https://opencode.ai/zen/go/v1/models also returns model IDs
    without any provider field, and the Go docs page only lists models + endpoints.

Specific questions

  1. Was removing the provider column intentional? If so, why?
  2. Do Go models actually route through the providers that were previously
    listed (e.g. DeepInfra / Fireworks AI / Z.AI for GLM-5.2), or are all Go
    requests now served by one internal gateway? If they are still served by
    those upstreams, why hide them?
  3. V2 TUI: simplify provider labels in prompt and model picker #36270 (V2 TUI) notes subscription models do not expose their backing
    provider as structured metadata and suggests adding an
    upstreamProviderID field. Is this planned?
  4. Will provider information be restored on the website, in
    /zen/go/v1/models, and in the TUI model picker?

Environment

  • OpenCode version: 1.18.9
  • OS: Windows 11
  • Terminal: Windows Terminal

References

Activity

  1. github-actions commented on Jul 31, 2026

    @github-actions
    Contributor

    This issue doesn't fully meet our contributing guidelines.

    What needs to be fixed:

    • No standard issue template was used. This appears to be a question/discussion — please use the Question template, which requires the Question field to be filled in with your actual question(s).
    • The Description field is present but empty. If using the Bug Report template, this field must have real content.

    Please edit this issue to address the above within 2 hours, or it will be automatically closed.


    This issue might be a duplicate of existing issues. Please check:

    If you believe this was flagged incorrectly, please let a maintainer know.

  2. added
    needs:complianceThis means the issue will auto-close after 2 hours.
    and removed
    needs:complianceThis means the issue will auto-close after 2 hours.
    on Jul 31, 2026
  3. github-actions commented on Jul 31, 2026

    @github-actions
    Contributor

    Thank you for updating the issue and reposting it correctly! It now follows the Question template with real content, proper context, and environment details. The needs:compliance label has been removed.

  4. github-actions commented on Oct 1, 2026

    @github-actions
    Contributor

    To stay organized issues are automatically closed after 60 days of no activity. If the issue is still relevant please open a new one.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

No labels
No labels

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions