4 views
-/https://github.com/berriai/litellm/issues/28168
GitHub · issue

#28168 [Feature]: Export UI-managed proxy state to a declarative file

  • State: open
  • Author: @michelligabriele
  • Labels: enhancement, proxy

### The Feature

Operators running multiple LiteLLM proxy environments (dev / staging / prod, or regional clusters) currently have no first-class way to export the proxy's UI-managed state into a declarative artifact that can be re-applied in another environment.

`config.yaml` is declarative for everything sourced at startup, but UI- and API-driven state — teams, organizations, virtual keys, credentials, MCP servers, agents, access groups, models added via the dashboard, and a chunk of `general_settings` (alerting, SMTP, etc., persisted into `LiteLLM_Config`) — lives only in the database. There is no single endpoint or CLI that emits all of that state in a redeployable form.

### Motivation

Multi-environment promotion ("apply what's in staging to prod") is a common operational need, especially for regulated deployments where every config change has to be reviewable and reproducible. Today this requires either:

1. Hand-stitching a backup script across the per-resource admin endpoints (`/team/list`, `/organization/list`, `/key/list`, `/credentials`, `GET /v1/mcp/server`, `GET /v1/agents`, `/v2/model/info`, plus the access-group endpoints and `/config/list` / `/ale…

GitHub resolver

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

Refresh page
vote history (12 events)
#0 of 0 · 31d18h18m39s ago — entered · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #2641
The left issue is substantially harder: it requires cross-cutting design across persistence, resource relationships, serialization, secret handling, portability, compatibility, and likely both API and CLI workflows, with broad integration and regression testing. The right issue is more likely a focused translation-path regression requiring diagnosis and a localized fix.
#28168 is harder because it spans many persisted proxy resource types, serialization and secret-handling rules, versioned declarative schemas, and likely consistency and re-import concerns across API, database, and dashboard layers. #32456 is comparatively localized to multipart request handling and provider-specific parameter translation, with narrower testing and compatibility risk.
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.
29320 requires cross-cutting hot-path integration, optional model/runtime handling, configuration precedence, failure isolation, and SDK/proxy observability, creating greater performance and regression risk than a mostly administrative export workflow
28168 spans many proxy subsystems and requires a coherent, portable, secret-safe, idempotent serialization and restore design. 31835 is also data-sensitive and needs auditability and pricing-policy correctness, but its implementation is more concentrated in spend calculation and administration flows.
Issue 28168 is harder because it spans a broad cross-resource export design, serialization and reapplication semantics, dependency ordering, sensitive data handling, compatibility, and likely extensive API/CLI and testing work. Issue 30421 is comparatively bounded to CLI orchestration, model discovery, and provider-specific agent configuration integrations.
30043 requires cross-provider protocol compatibility work across streaming, tool/reasoning semantics, token accounting, and production-path validation, creating substantial regression and integration risk. 28168 is broad in data coverage but is comparatively bounded to serialization, schema design, secret handling, and reproducible export behavior.
28168 spans many resource types, persistence layers, schemas, serialization rules, dependency ordering, and deployment/security concerns, creating substantially broader integration and compatibility risk. 28235 is a focused extension of existing budget-window mechanisms across user storage and enforcement paths.
The export capability spans many persisted resource types, serialization and re-application semantics, secret handling, compatibility, and likely CLI/API plus extensive integration testing. The credential-routing fix is security-critical and cross-provider, but is more narrowly bounded to credential resolution, validation, and regression coverage.
28168 is harder because it spans many persisted resource types, requires dependency-aware serialization and secure secret handling, and needs a stable portable format with compatibility and validation concerns. 25297 is narrower, mainly requiring an extensible routing hook, configuration surface, and safe integration with existing request and fallback paths.
28168 spans cross-resource state discovery, normalization, secret handling, dependency ordering, and reliable import/export semantics, creating substantially broader migration and correctness risk. 25255 is a focused provider integration with middleware and configuration work, but can follow existing guardrail extension patterns.
#0 of 0 · 31d17h26m49s ago — current · #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm post #3524
Cross-cutting tenant resolution, authorization, isolation guarantees, and provider-specific request rewriting create greater integration and security risk than assembling a consistent export pipeline over existing proxy resources.
discussed in #import:https:::github.com:berriai:litellm

ranked child groups

no voted pairs yet in this scope

cli
src
spread
search