yetone
55544f09f6
Aiirobyte: a routing group of many accounts took so much of the page that editing the groups below it was a long scroll. The stage folded only runs of three or more API keys (#1319). Now: - Three or more accounts of one provider side by side for one model fold into one row the way keys do: the count, the lit one and what it does, how many are available and resting. A request to a folded account flies to the fold. - A group in the group's heading folds from a click, Enter or Space (it is a button now, with a chevron). Folded, it says "{n} on" and what its seats do together; requests under it fly to the heading and a failure tags it. - Accounts and keys sums a provider's accounts up in one row too. - Keys start folded as before. Accounts and group headings start open under six, folded from six. What the reader opens is kept in magpie.routingKeysOpen as before, what they fold in the new magpie.routingFolded, so both directions survive a reload. - Redraws go through steady(), so a click keeps the page where it is. - Strings in en, zh, zh-TW, ja, de. Display only: the gateway's order and choice don't change. routing-account-order now opens the relay's key fold by :not(.open), since the account folds there start open. Run: new internal/gui/tests/routing-group-fold.test.cjs (defaults, click and Enter in place with the page not moving, kept across reloads both ways, a live request to a folded group heading with its tag, Accounts and keys folds, 420px fit) in Chromium and WebKit, en/zh/zh-TW/ja/de, 40/40. On origin/main's assets it fails (no account fold, heading not foldable). All routing-* tests, panel-routing, click-scroll, gui-ja, gui-de, gui-zh-tw and i18n-keys: 255/255 in Chromium and 255/255 in WebKit. Not tried in the real window with a live gateway.
Subsystem design references
These pages describe current responsibilities, runtime paths, state, and contracts. Start with the subsystem relevant to your task, then follow its source links to verify the implementation you change.
| Subsystem | Reference |
|---|---|
| Built-in subscriptions moving to plugins | Provider and plugin ownership |
| Plugins that run on the gateway's requests and replies | Gateway middleware |
| Claude subscription turns across Claude Code runs | Claude subscription bridge |
| How the gateway picks a provider, key or account, and falls back | Gateway routing and fallback |
| Connecting an agent's config to the gateway, drift, disconnect, WSL twins | Agent wiring |
| Providers, keys, subscription accounts, refresh and allowance | Providers and accounts |
| Instructions, MCP servers, skills and RTK written into agents | Library |
Tray, panel, window, magpie web and the page's JSON API |
GUI app shell |
A subsystem can span several packages or repositories. Its reference describes the behavior those parts provide together; it does not need to list every function.
Maintain a reference
Update the owning reference in the same PR when a change alters a documented responsibility, interface, state transition, runtime path, compatibility rule, or failure behavior. An internal refactor that preserves these contracts does not require a prose change.
Keep each fact in one reference and link to it from agent instructions or other pages. Link to source files and named symbols rather than copying implementation details that change frequently. Explain field meanings and constraints that signatures alone do not express.
For a new reference, include the responsibilities and boundaries, source of truth, main runtime paths, state transitions, important constraints, and existing verification commands. Include failure and compatibility behavior where relevant. Document current behavior separately from proposed changes; the proposal belongs in its issue or PR.
Describe a PR's semantic changes
For each affected subsystem, explain the observable change with its trigger and before/after behavior. Include changes to interfaces, state, compatibility, and failure behavior when relevant. Link the affected reference, implementation, and verification evidence. State when a refactor preserves the documented behavior.
For example, a change to plugin adoption should explain which migration state and account condition trigger it, which implementation handles requests before and after adoption, and which test exercises that transition.
This is an author-provided explanation that a reviewer verifies against the diff and surrounding code. It is not an automatically proven compatibility verdict.
Review a change
- Identify the affected subsystem and the actual runtime path, including plugin or built-in ownership.
- Compare the claimed before/after behavior with the base and head implementation. Trace relevant callers and state transitions beyond the changed lines.
- Check that changed contracts appear in the owning reference and that source links still resolve.
- Check that the cited tests or runtime evidence exercise the claimed behavior. Report checks that were not run.
A documentation update alone does not prove the implementation. Existing tests and runtime evidence remain necessary for behavior changes.