-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347

17 views

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347

GitHub · issue

#21347 Validate LiteLLM output and provider mappings using API specs

State: open
Author: @Chesars
Labels: llm translation

## Summary

LiteLLM's core value proposition is: call any LLM provider, get OpenAI-compatible output. Today, this compatibility is verified indirectly — through integration tests that make real API calls and check specific fields manually. There is no systematic validation that the output format matches the OpenAI specification.

## OpenAI publishes their full API spec

OpenAI maintains an OpenAPI 3.1.0 specification (~75,000 lines YAML) at [openai/openai-openapi](https://github.com/openai/openai-openapi) with every endpoint's request and response schemas, including: - All field names, types, required/optional markers - Enum values (e.g., `finish_reason`: `stop`, `length`, `tool_calls`, `content_filter`, `function_call`) - Nested object structures (streaming chunks, tool calls, usage, etc.)

LiteLLM does not use this spec anywhere.

## Why this matters — real example

PR #19558 merged code that passes Vertex AI/Gemini finish reasons (`malformed_function_call`, `finish_reason_unspecified`) directly to users. This was flagged during review:

> @krrishdholakia: "isn't this bad, since it breaks openai consistency?"

The OpenAI SDK throws `literal_error` — the entire response is lost, i…

GitHub resolver

Import GitHub neighbors on demand. Results are saved as system ingests.

vote history (14 events)

#0 of 0 · 31d17h55m19s ago — entered · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #2931

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐8:1-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/34104

The left issue spans specification ingestion, schema validation, provider normalization, streaming and compatibility test infrastructure, and broad regression coverage. The right issue appears localized to profiling and optimizing a slow command, with scope and root cause still narrow.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h37m36s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3240

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐8:1-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/20933

The right-side work spans specification ingestion, response/schema validation, provider normalization, and broad regression-test infrastructure, creating substantial cross-cutting scope and compatibility risk. The left-side work is comparatively localized to runtime dependency and event-loop compatibility handling.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h35m14s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3279

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐4:1-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/27883

#21347 is harder because it requires broad, ongoing compatibility infrastructure across schemas, providers, response paths, tests, and likely generated or evolving specifications. #27883 is comparatively narrower: implementing centralized configuration handling and enforcement for a limited set of tools.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h35m11s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3280

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/3126320:1-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐

The left issue is substantially harder: it entails a broad cross-language platform migration, preserving behavior and compatibility across many execution paths while meeting stringent performance and deployment goals. The right issue is primarily a bounded standards-validation and test-infrastructure effort, with narrower implementation and rollout risk.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h35m8s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3281

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐5:2-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/30460

Issue 21347 has substantially broader scope: it requires designing and maintaining spec-driven validation across many providers, endpoints, schemas, streaming formats, and mappings, with extensive test infrastructure and compatibility decisions. Issue 30460 is a narrower distributed-state debugging and correction effort, despite meaningful concurrency and failure-mode risk.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h35m3s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3282

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/342415:4-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐

#34241 is harder because it requires a broad architectural reorganization with cross-cutting dependency, packaging, compatibility, and legal-risk implications. #21347 is also substantial, but can be approached as an extensible validation and conformance-testing framework layered over existing provider mappings.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h34m57s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3284

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐4:1-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/34733

Issue 21347 is harder because it requires designing and integrating broad schema-conformance validation across many providers, response shapes, streaming paths, and ongoing compatibility workflows. Issue 34733 is narrower, focused on making an accounting update path concurrency-safe and reliably persisted, though it still carries distributed-systems testing risk.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h34m9s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3297

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐5:2-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/30421

Issue 21347 has substantially broader cross-provider compatibility scope, schema integration, test coverage, and maintenance risk; issue 30421 is primarily a bounded CLI orchestration and configuration feature.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h33m35s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3307

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐3:1-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/29320

Issue 21347 is harder because it requires broad schema-driven validation across providers, translations, streaming behavior, and ongoing compatibility maintenance; issue 29320 is a substantial but more self-contained integration with defined configuration, lifecycle, and observability changes.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h32m24s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3326

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐4:1-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/31824

Cross-cutting contract validation would require substantial schema integration, normalization across many providers, broad fixture and CI coverage, and ongoing compatibility maintenance. The other request is a bounded proxy feature involving authorization, usage queries, and UI work, with less systemic risk.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h31m10s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3348

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐5:3-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/30043

Issue 21347 is harder because it requires designing and integrating a broad, specification-driven validation framework across many schemas, providers, response paths, and ongoing tests. Issue 30043 is substantial but comparatively bounded to stabilizing specific routing and compatibility behaviors.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h30m32s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3359

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐4:1-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/26237

The left issue is harder because it requires broad specification ingestion, schema-validation infrastructure, provider-normalization coverage, and extensive compatibility testing. The right issue is comparatively narrower, centered on worker lifecycle, state readiness, and recovery behavior.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h29m17s ago · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3377

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐5:3-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/28168

Issue 21347 is harder because it requires broad schema-generation or validation infrastructure, provider normalization coverage, and sustained compatibility testing across many response paths. Issue 28168 has substantial resource coverage and migration/security concerns, but is more bounded as an export/import workflow.

#0 of 0 · 31d17h19m52s ago — current · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3527

-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/351094:1-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/21347⭐

Multi-tenant isolation spans authentication, request routing, configuration, and multiple storage/provider integrations, creating substantially broader security and compatibility risks. The validation work is also cross-cutting, but is more bounded as specification-driven test and tooling infrastructure.

discussed in #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm

ranked child groups
scope depth

no voted pairs yet in this scope

cli

spread