fix(cli): mark local models (Ollama) available in models list without auth by liuhao1024 · Pull Request #92228 · openclaw/openclaw

liuhao1024 · 2026-06-11T17:24:14Z

What does this PR do?

Fixes openclaw models list showing available: false for local Ollama models that are running and working. Local providers serve on loopback addresses without API keys, so auth-based availability checks should not gate them.

Related Issue

Fixes #92224

Type of Change

Bug fix (non-breaking)

Changes Made

src/commands/models/list.model-row.ts: Local models (loopback baseUrl) are now always marked available regardless of auth profile status. The existing isLocalBaseUrl() check was already computed (local) but not used in the availability logic.
src/commands/models/list.model-row.test.ts: Added 2 regression tests — (1) local model without auth keys is available, (2) local model excluded from availableKeys set is still available.

How to Test

Have Ollama running with a model loaded
Run openclaw models list --json
Verify "available": true for ollama models

Unit test alternative:

npx vitest run src/commands/models/list.model-row.test.ts --reporter=verbose

Real behavior proof

Behavior or issue addressed:
openclaw models list --json shows "available": false for local Ollama models that work fine in active sessions.

Root cause:
toModelRow() derives available from hasConfiguredAuth() via availableKeys. Local providers (Ollama, LM Studio, etc.) don't require API keys, so auth checks always return false.

Fix:
Use the already-computed local flag (from isLocalBaseUrl()) to bypass auth-based availability for local providers: const available = local || authFallbackAvailable.

Real environment tested:

macOS 26.4.1 (Darwin arm64)
Node v25.8.2
vitest 4.1.5

Exact steps or command run after the patch:

cd openclaw && npx vitest run src/commands/models/list.model-row.test.ts --reporter=verbose

Evidence after fix:

RUN  v4.1.5 /Users/liuhao/.hermes/workdir/openclaw

 ✓  unit-fast  src/commands/models/list.model-row.test.ts > toModelRow > keeps native context metadata and effective runtime context tokens distinct 1ms
 ✓  unit-fast  src/commands/models/list.model-row.test.ts > toModelRow > marks models available from auth profiles without loading model discovery 0ms
 ✓  unit-fast  src/commands/models/list.model-row.test.ts > toModelRow > marks bracketed IPv6 loopback base URLs as local 0ms
 ✓  unit-fast  src/commands/models/list.model-row.test.ts > toModelRow > marks local models available even without auth 0ms
 ✓  unit-fast  src/commands/models/list.model-row.test.ts > toModelRow > marks local models available even when availableKeys excludes them 0ms

 Test Files  1 passed (1)
      Tests  5 passed (5)
   Start at  01:39:51
   Duration  426ms (transform 150ms, setup 0ms, import 356ms, tests 2ms, environment 0ms)

Observed result after fix:
All 5 tests pass. The 2 new regression tests confirm that:

Local models (127.0.0.1 loopback) with no auth keys → available: true
Local models (localhost) with empty availableKeys set → available: true

What was not tested:
Manual end-to-end testing with a live Ollama instance (no Ollama daemon on this machine). The fix is a one-line boolean change (local || authFallbackAvailable) and the existing isLocalBaseUrl() helper is already tested for IPv4/IPv6 loopback addresses.

Checklist

… auth Local providers like Ollama serve on loopback addresses without API keys. The models list command was showing available: false for these models because hasConfiguredAuth() returns false when no auth profile exists. Since local providers don't need authentication, always mark them as available. Fixes openclaw#92224

clawsweeper · 2026-06-11T17:26:24Z

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed June 11, 2026, 1:28 PM ET / 17:28 UTC.

Summary
Review failed before ClawSweeper could summarize the requested change.

PR surface: Source +2, Tests +32. Total +34 across 2 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:

Decide the mitigation before merge
Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.
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 internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 575cae59d486.

Label changes

Label changes:

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

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 +2, Tests +32. Total +34 across 2 files.

View PR surface stats

Area	Files	Added	Removed	Net
Source	1	3	1	+2
Tests	1	32	0	+32
Docs	0	0	0	0
Config	0	0	0	0
Generated	0	0	0	0
Other	0	0	0	0
Total	2	35	1	+34

What I checked:

failure reason: retryable codex transport failure.
codex failure detail: Codex review failed for this PR with exit 1.
codex stderr: ] fix ci.

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.

liuhao1024 · 2026-06-11T17:33:34Z

Closing — cannot provide real behavior proof without a live Ollama instance. The CI Real behavior proof check requires evidence from an actual OpenClaw setup. Will not re-submit without proper testing environment.

openclaw-barnacle Bot added commands Command implementations size: XS triage: needs-real-behavior-proof Candidate: external PR needs after-fix proof from a real setup. labels Jun 11, 2026

clawsweeper Bot added the rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool PR readiness rating does not apply to this item. label Jun 11, 2026

liuhao1024 closed this Jun 11, 2026

liuhao1024 deleted the fix/models-list-local-available branch June 11, 2026 17:38

openclaw-barnacle Bot added proof: supplied External PR includes structured after-fix real behavior proof. and removed triage: needs-real-behavior-proof Candidate: external PR needs after-fix proof from a real setup. labels Jun 11, 2026

clawsweeper Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 19, 2026

#92224: fix(models): report local models as available in CLI list output #92363

Closed

clawsweeper Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2026

fix(models): mark local Ollama rows available #97491

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fix(cli): mark local models (Ollama) available in models list without auth#92228

fix(cli): mark local models (Ollama) available in models list without auth#92228
liuhao1024 wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
liuhao1024:fix/models-list-local-available

liuhao1024 commented Jun 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

liuhao1024 commented Jun 11, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

liuhao1024 commented Jun 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What does this PR do?

Related Issue

Type of Change

Changes Made

How to Test

Real behavior proof

Checklist

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

liuhao1024 commented Jun 11, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

liuhao1024 commented Jun 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading