refactor(shared): use canonical profile provider identifiers

[WebMad]

Summary

• replace raw provider-name literals in profile model resolution with canonical providerIdentifiers values
• preserve every existing provider-to-model-field mapping and fallback behavior
• add focused registry-driven coverage for provider-specific model fields and missing-model fallback behavior

TDD

Implemented with iterative red-green triangulation:

1. Added an OpenAI canonical-identifier regression test and confirmed it failed.
2. Migrated the OpenAI case minimally and confirmed it passed.
3. Triangulated across apiModelId, OpenRouter, and VS Code LM mappings and confirmed the tests failed before migrating those cases.
4. Triangulated the remaining provider-specific mappings, then completed the canonical migration.
5. Covered fallback behavior for profiles without a model ID, including provider-level allowAll.

Verification

• cd src && npx vitest run shared/__tests__/ProfileValidator.spec.ts — 50 passed
• cd src && npx vitest run shared — 410 passed
• focused ESLint — passed
• cd src && npm run check-types — passed
• repository pre-commit lint — passed
• repository pre-push type checks — passed
• git diff --check — passed

Closes #956

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Improved profile validation across supported AI providers by resolving provider/model identifiers consistently.
  • Preserved existing fallback behavior for unknown providers and configurations where model lists are missing.

• Tests

  • Expanded automated coverage for provider-specific model resolution.
  • Added scenarios to verify correct “missing-model” handling when provider permissions are toggled and model lists are undefined.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@WebMad, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 6 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: defaults

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: f5ce79e1-f803-47a0-894e-389357e8218b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 965cea6 and 48687d6.

📒 Files selected for processing (3)

• src/eslint-suppressions.json
• src/shared/ProfileValidator.ts
• src/shared/__tests__/ProfileValidator.spec.ts

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

ProfileValidator.getModelIdFromProfile now uses shared providerIdentifiers constants instead of provider string literals. Tests add parameterized coverage for canonical identifier resolution, fallback behavior, and provider-specific model extraction.

Changes

Profile provider resolution

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Canonical provider resolution src/shared/ProfileValidator.ts	Imports providerIdentifiers and replaces hard-coded provider cases while preserving model selection and the undefined fallback.
Canonical resolution tests src/shared/__tests__/ProfileValidator.spec.ts	Adds parameterized validation and fallback tests, and updates provider-specific extraction cases to use canonical identifiers.

Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~15 minutes

Possibly related issues

• [ENHANCEMENT] Replace remaining production provider literals and verify canonical identifier coverage #960 — Similar migration from raw provider literals to canonical providerIdentifiers.

Possibly related PRs

• Zoo-Code-Org/Zoo-Code#952 — Introduces and exports the shared providerIdentifiers registry used here.
• Zoo-Code-Org/Zoo-Code#991 — Applies canonical identifiers to related provider/model resolution logic.
• Zoo-Code-Org/Zoo-Code#1012 — Migrates related provider routing logic to canonical identifiers.

Suggested labels: awaiting-review

Suggested reviewers: taltas, navedmerchant, hannesrudolph, jamesrobert20

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly describes the main change: switching profile model resolution to canonical provider identifiers.
Description check	✅ Passed	It includes the linked issue, change summary, testing details, and checklist context, though it uses custom headings instead of the exact template.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR migrates profile model resolution to canonical identifiers while preserving mappings, compatibility, and the requested tests for #956.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Changes are confined to ProfileValidator and its tests, with no unrelated behavior or files beyond the issue's scope.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.

📢 Thoughts on this report? Let us know!

[edelauna]

Thanks, had some feedback around test quality, but otherwise looks good.

[WebMad]

Thanks, had some feedback around test quality, but otherwise looks good.

Thank you! I’m still learning how to write good tests, so your feedback is very helpful to me. I may make mistakes or repeat them sometimes, partly because of the language barrier, but I’ll do my best to improve