Allows Mistral byok to be used for Codestral by chrarnoldus · Pull Request #4000 · Kilo-Org/cloud

chrarnoldus · 2026-06-12T15:39:22Z

No description provided.

kilo-code-bot · 2026-06-12T15:42:15Z


-  const byokProviderKey = fimProvider === 'mistral' ? 'codestral' : 'inception';
+  const byokProviderKeys: UserByokProviderId[] =
+    fimProvider === 'mistral' ? ['codestral', 'mistral'] : ['inception'];


WARNING: BYOK key priority not honoured — DB orderBy(created_at) overrides the ['codestral', 'mistral'] intent

getBYOKforUser/getBYOKforOrganization query with inArray(byok_api_keys.provider_id, providerIds) and orderBy(byok_api_keys.created_at). SQL's IN (…) clause does not preserve the input array order, so when a user has both a codestral key and a mistral key the DB returns them oldest-first.

userByok?.at(0) (line 237) then picks the oldest key regardless of which provider it is. If the mistral key was created before the codestral key, the codestral key is silently ignored and the user's Mistral La Plateforme key is used with api.mistral.ai — the correct endpoint for that key type, but the codestral key preference is lost.

To honour the priority ordering, consider re-sorting the returned entries client-side by their position in byokProviderKeys before calling .at(0):

const sorted = userByok?.slice().sort( (a, b) => byokProviderKeys.indexOf(a.providerId) - byokProviderKeys.indexOf(b.providerId) ); const userByokEntry = sorted?.at(0);

_{Reply with @kilocode-bot fix it to have Kilo Code address this issue.}

kilo-code-bot · 2026-06-12T15:42:31Z

Code Review Summary

Status: No Issues Found | Recommendation: Merge

Executive Summary

All previously flagged issues have been resolved; the FIM route now correctly honours the ['codestral', 'mistral'] priority ordering when selecting a user BYOK key.

Previously Resolved Issues

File	Issue	Status
`apps/web/src/app/api/fim/completions/route.ts`	BYOK key priority not honoured — `userByok?.at(0)` picked oldest key by DB insertion order	✅ Fixed: now iterates `byokProviderKeys` in priority order and finds first match
`apps/web/src/lib/ai-gateway/byok/index.ts`	`Array.prototype.splice` → prefer `unshift`	✅ Fixed in earlier commit

Files Reviewed (4 files)

apps/web/src/app/api/fim/completions/route.ts — WARNING resolved
apps/web/src/lib/ai-gateway/byok/index.ts — no issues
apps/web/src/components/organizations/byok/BYOKKeysManager.tsx — no issues
apps/web/src/routers/byok-router.ts — no issues

Fix these issues in Kilo Cloud

Previous Review Summaries (2 snapshots, latest commit 9ab1e0d)

Current summary above is authoritative. Previous snapshots are kept for context only.

Previous review (commit `9ab1e0d`)

Status: 1 Issue Found | Recommendation: Address before merge

Executive Summary

The ['codestral', 'mistral'] priority ordering in the FIM route is still silently defeated by the DB query's orderBy(created_at), meaning a user with both keys may not get the expected key-to-endpoint routing.

Overview

Severity	Count
CRITICAL	0
WARNING	1
SUGGESTION	0

Issue Details (click to expand)

WARNING

File	Line	Issue
`apps/web/src/app/api/fim/completions/route.ts`	158	BYOK key priority ordering `['codestral', 'mistral']` not honoured — DB returns rows by `created_at`, so `userByok?.at(0)` picks the oldest key, not the preferred `codestral` key

Previously Resolved Issues

File	Issue	Status
`apps/web/src/lib/ai-gateway/byok/index.ts`	`Array.prototype.splice` → prefer `unshift`	✅ Fixed in latest commit

Files Reviewed (4 files)

apps/web/src/app/api/fim/completions/route.ts — 1 issue (WARNING, unchanged from previous review)
apps/web/src/lib/ai-gateway/byok/index.ts — suggestion resolved (splice → unshift)
apps/web/src/components/organizations/byok/BYOKKeysManager.tsx — no issues
apps/web/src/routers/byok-router.ts — no issues

Fix these issues in Kilo Cloud

Previous review (commit `34536a8`)

Status: 2 Issues Found | Recommendation: Address before merge

Executive Summary

The ['codestral', 'mistral'] priority ordering in the FIM route is silently defeated by the DB query's orderBy(created_at), meaning a user with both keys may not get the expected key-to-endpoint routing.

Overview

Severity	Count
CRITICAL	0
WARNING	1
SUGGESTION	1

Issue Details (click to expand)

WARNING

File	Line	Issue
`apps/web/src/app/api/fim/completions/route.ts`	158	BYOK key priority ordering `['codestral', 'mistral']` not honoured — DB returns rows by `created_at`, so `userByok?.at(0)` picks the oldest key, not the preferred `codestral` key

SUGGESTION

File	Line	Issue
`apps/web/src/lib/ai-gateway/byok/index.ts`	32	`providers.splice(0, 0, 'codestral')` — unconventional; prefer `providers.unshift('codestral')` or `['codestral', ...providers]`

Files Reviewed (4 files)

apps/web/src/app/api/fim/completions/route.ts — 1 issue
apps/web/src/lib/ai-gateway/byok/index.ts — 1 issue
apps/web/src/components/organizations/byok/BYOKKeysManager.tsx — no issues (rename of codestral entry to Legacy Codestral-only key and removal of (other models) suffix from mistral label)
apps/web/src/routers/byok-router.ts — no issues (removal of Codestral model filter from fetchSupportedModels so Codestral models now appear in the mistral provider list)

Fix these issues in Kilo Cloud

_{Reviewed by claude-4.6-sonnet-20260217 · 278,093 tokens}

_{Review guidance: REVIEW.md from base branch main}

Allows Mistral byok to be used for Codestral

34536a8

chrarnoldus self-assigned this Jun 12, 2026

kilo-code-bot Bot reviewed Jun 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

chrarnoldus commented Jun 15, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread apps/web/src/lib/ai-gateway/byok/index.ts Outdated

chrarnoldus and others added 2 commits June 15, 2026 11:33

Apply suggestion from @chrarnoldus

9ab1e0d

fix(ai-gateway): preserve FIM BYOK provider priority

8cb7536

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Allows Mistral byok to be used for Codestral#4000

Allows Mistral byok to be used for Codestral#4000
chrarnoldus wants to merge 3 commits into
mainfrom
christiaan/allow-codestral-mistral

chrarnoldus commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

kilo-code-bot Bot Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kilo-code-bot Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Previous review (commit `9ab1e0d`)

Executive Summary

Overview

WARNING

Previous review (commit `34536a8`)

Executive Summary

Overview

WARNING

SUGGESTION

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Conversation

chrarnoldus commented Jun 12, 2026

Uh oh!

kilo-code-bot Bot Jun 12, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

kilo-code-bot Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Review Summary

Executive Summary

Previous review (commit 9ab1e0d)

Executive Summary

Overview

WARNING

Previous review (commit 34536a8)

Executive Summary

Overview

WARNING

SUGGESTION

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

kilo-code-bot Bot commented Jun 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Previous review (commit `9ab1e0d`)

Previous review (commit `34536a8`)