fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution - #707

Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Jul 2, 2026
Merged

fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution#707
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage

Conversation

@jarvis9443

@jarvis9443jarvis9443 commented Jul 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Problem

Audit finding #699 (parent: api7/AISIX-Cloud#950). Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no UsageEvent on success or failure. /passthrough traffic never appeared in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any observability exporter, breaking the #655 convention every typed handler follows.

Fix

  • Success arm: emit one zero-token UsageEvent per request — the raw tunnel parses neither request nor response, so token/model fields stay empty; the event records the verbatim-relayed upstream status, latency, caller api_key and the lent ProviderKey's attribution tags (apply_pk_telemetry), and fans out to the per-env exporters. inbound_protocol = \"passthrough\" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
  • Error arm: the shared usage_attr::emit_error_usage_event (feat(health): add /readyz and return 503 (not 500) on graceful shutdown #655 zero-token failure event with status + bounded error class), label passthrough.

Tests

  • success: mock upstream 200 → exactly one event with inbound_protocol=passthrough, status 200, zero tokens, and the PK's pk_label attribution applied. Verified fail-before/pass-after.
  • failure: unknown provider → 404 + one zero-token event with a non-empty error_class.

Fixes#699

@jarvis9443
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attrib…
7663666
…ution
Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no
UsageEvent on success or failure, so /passthrough traffic never appeared
in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any
observability exporter.
Emit one zero-token event per request (the raw tunnel parses neither
body, so there are no token/model fields): the success arm records the
verbatim-relayed upstream status + latency + the lent ProviderKey's
attribution tags, and the error arm emits the shared #655-style
zero-token failure event (status + error class).
inbound_protocol="passthrough" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
Fixes#699
@coderabbitai

coderabbitaiBot commented Jul 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.

Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.

Next review available in:15 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: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: e424a227-e947-4d7c-830f-c50b0d00e161

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81800db and 7663666.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/src/passthrough.rs
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage

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

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443 merged commit 7e4cf31 into mainJul 2, 2026
10 checks passed
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443 deleted the fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage branch July 2, 2026 14:24
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

passthrough emits no UsageEvent at all (success or failure) — invisible to Logs, budget ledger and exporters

1 participant

@jarvis9443
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution - #707
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Jul 2, 2026
Merged
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution#707
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Problem
Audit finding #699 (parent: api7/AISIX-Cloud#950). Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no UsageEvent on success or failure. /passthrough traffic never appeared in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any observability exporter, breaking the #655 convention every typed handler follows.
Fix
  • Success arm: emit one zero-token UsageEvent per request — the raw tunnel parses neither request nor response, so token/model fields stay empty; the event records the verbatim-relayed upstream status, latency, caller api_key and the lent ProviderKey's attribution tags (apply_pk_telemetry), and fans out to the per-env exporters. inbound_protocol = \"passthrough\" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
  • Error arm: the shared usage_attr::emit_error_usage_event (feat(health): add /readyz and return 503 (not 500) on graceful shutdown #655 zero-token failure event with status + bounded error class), label passthrough.
Tests
  • success: mock upstream 200 → exactly one event with inbound_protocol=passthrough, status 200, zero tokens, and the PK's pk_label attribution applied. Verified fail-before/pass-after.
  • failure: unknown provider → 404 + one zero-token event with a non-empty error_class.
Fixes#699
@jarvis9443
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attrib…
7663666
…ution
Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no
UsageEvent on success or failure, so /passthrough traffic never appeared
in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any
observability exporter.
Emit one zero-token event per request (the raw tunnel parses neither
body, so there are no token/model fields): the success arm records the
verbatim-relayed upstream status + latency + the lent ProviderKey's
attribution tags, and the error arm emits the shared #655-style
zero-token failure event (status + error class).
inbound_protocol="passthrough" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
Fixes#699
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Warning
Review limit reached
You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.


Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.
Next review available in:15 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: e424a227-e947-4d7c-830f-c50b0d00e161
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81800db and 7663666.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/src/passthrough.rs
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 7e4cf31
into
mainJul 2, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage

branch
July 2, 2026 14:24
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

passthrough emits no UsageEvent at all (success or failure) — invisible to Logs, budget ledger and exporters


1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution - #707
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Jul 2, 2026
Merged
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution#707
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Problem
Audit finding #699 (parent: api7/AISIX-Cloud#950). Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no UsageEvent on success or failure. /passthrough traffic never appeared in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any observability exporter, breaking the #655 convention every typed handler follows.
Fix
  • Success arm: emit one zero-token UsageEvent per request — the raw tunnel parses neither request nor response, so token/model fields stay empty; the event records the verbatim-relayed upstream status, latency, caller api_key and the lent ProviderKey's attribution tags (apply_pk_telemetry), and fans out to the per-env exporters. inbound_protocol = \"passthrough\" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
  • Error arm: the shared usage_attr::emit_error_usage_event (feat(health): add /readyz and return 503 (not 500) on graceful shutdown #655 zero-token failure event with status + bounded error class), label passthrough.
Tests
  • success: mock upstream 200 → exactly one event with inbound_protocol=passthrough, status 200, zero tokens, and the PK's pk_label attribution applied. Verified fail-before/pass-after.
  • failure: unknown provider → 404 + one zero-token event with a non-empty error_class.
Fixes#699
@jarvis9443
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attrib…
7663666
…ution
Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no
UsageEvent on success or failure, so /passthrough traffic never appeared
in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any
observability exporter.
Emit one zero-token event per request (the raw tunnel parses neither
body, so there are no token/model fields): the success arm records the
verbatim-relayed upstream status + latency + the lent ProviderKey's
attribution tags, and the error arm emits the shared #655-style
zero-token failure event (status + error class).
inbound_protocol="passthrough" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
Fixes#699
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Warning
Review limit reached
You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.


Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.
Next review available in:15 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: e424a227-e947-4d7c-830f-c50b0d00e161
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81800db and 7663666.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/src/passthrough.rs
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 7e4cf31
into
mainJul 2, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage

branch
July 2, 2026 14:24
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

passthrough emits no UsageEvent at all (success or failure) — invisible to Logs, budget ledger and exporters


1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution - #707
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Jul 2, 2026
Merged
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution#707
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Problem
Audit finding #699 (parent: api7/AISIX-Cloud#950). Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no UsageEvent on success or failure. /passthrough traffic never appeared in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any observability exporter, breaking the #655 convention every typed handler follows.
Fix
  • Success arm: emit one zero-token UsageEvent per request — the raw tunnel parses neither request nor response, so token/model fields stay empty; the event records the verbatim-relayed upstream status, latency, caller api_key and the lent ProviderKey's attribution tags (apply_pk_telemetry), and fans out to the per-env exporters. inbound_protocol = \"passthrough\" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
  • Error arm: the shared usage_attr::emit_error_usage_event (feat(health): add /readyz and return 503 (not 500) on graceful shutdown #655 zero-token failure event with status + bounded error class), label passthrough.
Tests
  • success: mock upstream 200 → exactly one event with inbound_protocol=passthrough, status 200, zero tokens, and the PK's pk_label attribution applied. Verified fail-before/pass-after.
  • failure: unknown provider → 404 + one zero-token event with a non-empty error_class.
Fixes#699
@jarvis9443
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attrib…
7663666
…ution
Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no
UsageEvent on success or failure, so /passthrough traffic never appeared
in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any
observability exporter.
Emit one zero-token event per request (the raw tunnel parses neither
body, so there are no token/model fields): the success arm records the
verbatim-relayed upstream status + latency + the lent ProviderKey's
attribution tags, and the error arm emits the shared #655-style
zero-token failure event (status + error class).
inbound_protocol="passthrough" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
Fixes#699
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Warning
Review limit reached
You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.


Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.
Next review available in:15 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: e424a227-e947-4d7c-830f-c50b0d00e161
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81800db and 7663666.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/src/passthrough.rs
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 7e4cf31
into
mainJul 2, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage

branch
July 2, 2026 14:24
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

passthrough emits no UsageEvent at all (success or failure) — invisible to Logs, budget ledger and exporters


1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution - #707
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Jul 2, 2026
Merged
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution#707
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Problem
Audit finding #699 (parent: api7/AISIX-Cloud#950). Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no UsageEvent on success or failure. /passthrough traffic never appeared in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any observability exporter, breaking the #655 convention every typed handler follows.
Fix
  • Success arm: emit one zero-token UsageEvent per request — the raw tunnel parses neither request nor response, so token/model fields stay empty; the event records the verbatim-relayed upstream status, latency, caller api_key and the lent ProviderKey's attribution tags (apply_pk_telemetry), and fans out to the per-env exporters. inbound_protocol = \"passthrough\" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
  • Error arm: the shared usage_attr::emit_error_usage_event (feat(health): add /readyz and return 503 (not 500) on graceful shutdown #655 zero-token failure event with status + bounded error class), label passthrough.
Tests
  • success: mock upstream 200 → exactly one event with inbound_protocol=passthrough, status 200, zero tokens, and the PK's pk_label attribution applied. Verified fail-before/pass-after.
  • failure: unknown provider → 404 + one zero-token event with a non-empty error_class.
Fixes#699
@jarvis9443
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attrib…
7663666
…ution
Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no
UsageEvent on success or failure, so /passthrough traffic never appeared
in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any
observability exporter.
Emit one zero-token event per request (the raw tunnel parses neither
body, so there are no token/model fields): the success arm records the
verbatim-relayed upstream status + latency + the lent ProviderKey's
attribution tags, and the error arm emits the shared #655-style
zero-token failure event (status + error class).
inbound_protocol="passthrough" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
Fixes#699
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Warning
Review limit reached
You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.


Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.
Next review available in:15 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: e424a227-e947-4d7c-830f-c50b0d00e161
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81800db and 7663666.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/src/passthrough.rs
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 7e4cf31
into
mainJul 2, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage

branch
July 2, 2026 14:24
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

passthrough emits no UsageEvent at all (success or failure) — invisible to Logs, budget ledger and exporters


1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution - #707
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Jul 2, 2026
Merged
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution#707
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Problem
Audit finding #699 (parent: api7/AISIX-Cloud#950). Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no UsageEvent on success or failure. /passthrough traffic never appeared in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any observability exporter, breaking the #655 convention every typed handler follows.
Fix
  • Success arm: emit one zero-token UsageEvent per request — the raw tunnel parses neither request nor response, so token/model fields stay empty; the event records the verbatim-relayed upstream status, latency, caller api_key and the lent ProviderKey's attribution tags (apply_pk_telemetry), and fans out to the per-env exporters. inbound_protocol = \"passthrough\" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
  • Error arm: the shared usage_attr::emit_error_usage_event (feat(health): add /readyz and return 503 (not 500) on graceful shutdown #655 zero-token failure event with status + bounded error class), label passthrough.
Tests
  • success: mock upstream 200 → exactly one event with inbound_protocol=passthrough, status 200, zero tokens, and the PK's pk_label attribution applied. Verified fail-before/pass-after.
  • failure: unknown provider → 404 + one zero-token event with a non-empty error_class.
Fixes#699
@jarvis9443
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attrib…
7663666
…ution
Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no
UsageEvent on success or failure, so /passthrough traffic never appeared
in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any
observability exporter.
Emit one zero-token event per request (the raw tunnel parses neither
body, so there are no token/model fields): the success arm records the
verbatim-relayed upstream status + latency + the lent ProviderKey's
attribution tags, and the error arm emits the shared #655-style
zero-token failure event (status + error class).
inbound_protocol="passthrough" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
Fixes#699
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Warning
Review limit reached
You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.


Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.
Next review available in:15 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: e424a227-e947-4d7c-830f-c50b0d00e161
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81800db and 7663666.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/src/passthrough.rs
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 7e4cf31
into
mainJul 2, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage

branch
July 2, 2026 14:24
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

passthrough emits no UsageEvent at all (success or failure) — invisible to Logs, budget ledger and exporters


1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution - #707
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Jul 2, 2026
Merged
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution#707
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Problem
Audit finding #699 (parent: api7/AISIX-Cloud#950). Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no UsageEvent on success or failure. /passthrough traffic never appeared in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any observability exporter, breaking the #655 convention every typed handler follows.
Fix
  • Success arm: emit one zero-token UsageEvent per request — the raw tunnel parses neither request nor response, so token/model fields stay empty; the event records the verbatim-relayed upstream status, latency, caller api_key and the lent ProviderKey's attribution tags (apply_pk_telemetry), and fans out to the per-env exporters. inbound_protocol = \"passthrough\" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
  • Error arm: the shared usage_attr::emit_error_usage_event (feat(health): add /readyz and return 503 (not 500) on graceful shutdown #655 zero-token failure event with status + bounded error class), label passthrough.
Tests
  • success: mock upstream 200 → exactly one event with inbound_protocol=passthrough, status 200, zero tokens, and the PK's pk_label attribution applied. Verified fail-before/pass-after.
  • failure: unknown provider → 404 + one zero-token event with a non-empty error_class.
Fixes#699
@jarvis9443
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attrib…
7663666
…ution
Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no
UsageEvent on success or failure, so /passthrough traffic never appeared
in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any
observability exporter.
Emit one zero-token event per request (the raw tunnel parses neither
body, so there are no token/model fields): the success arm records the
verbatim-relayed upstream status + latency + the lent ProviderKey's
attribution tags, and the error arm emits the shared #655-style
zero-token failure event (status + error class).
inbound_protocol="passthrough" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
Fixes#699
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Warning
Review limit reached
You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.


Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.
Next review available in:15 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: e424a227-e947-4d7c-830f-c50b0d00e161
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81800db and 7663666.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/src/passthrough.rs
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 7e4cf31
into
mainJul 2, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage

branch
July 2, 2026 14:24
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

passthrough emits no UsageEvent at all (success or failure) — invisible to Logs, budget ledger and exporters


1 participant

@jarvis9443

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution - #707
Merged
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Jul 2, 2026
Merged
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attribution#707
jarvis9443 merged 1 commit into
mainfrom 
fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Conversation
@jarvis9443
@jarvis9443jarvis9443
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
Problem
Audit finding #699 (parent: api7/AISIX-Cloud#950). Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no UsageEvent on success or failure. /passthrough traffic never appeared in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any observability exporter, breaking the #655 convention every typed handler follows.
Fix
  • Success arm: emit one zero-token UsageEvent per request — the raw tunnel parses neither request nor response, so token/model fields stay empty; the event records the verbatim-relayed upstream status, latency, caller api_key and the lent ProviderKey's attribution tags (apply_pk_telemetry), and fans out to the per-env exporters. inbound_protocol = \"passthrough\" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
  • Error arm: the shared usage_attr::emit_error_usage_event (feat(health): add /readyz and return 503 (not 500) on graceful shutdown #655 zero-token failure event with status + bounded error class), label passthrough.
Tests
  • success: mock upstream 200 → exactly one event with inbound_protocol=passthrough, status 200, zero tokens, and the PK's pk_label attribution applied. Verified fail-before/pass-after.
  • failure: unknown provider → 404 + one zero-token event with a non-empty error_class.
Fixes#699
@jarvis9443
fix(passthrough): emit UsageEvents (success + failure) with PK attrib…
7663666
…ution
Passthrough recorded only an access log + a request metric — no
UsageEvent on success or failure, so /passthrough traffic never appeared
in the dashboard Logs, the budget ledger, per-PK telemetry, or any
observability exporter.
Emit one zero-token event per request (the raw tunnel parses neither
body, so there are no token/model fields): the success arm records the
verbatim-relayed upstream status + latency + the lent ProviderKey's
attribution tags, and the error arm emits the shared #655-style
zero-token failure event (status + error class).
inbound_protocol="passthrough" distinguishes the rows in /logs.
Fixes#699
@coderabbitai
coderabbitaiBot
commented
Jul 2, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Warning
Review limit reached
You’ve reached a temporary PR review limit under our Fair Usage Limits Policy.


Your recent review volume is higher than typical usage, so adaptive limits are currently applied.
Next review available in:15 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: Organization UI
Review profile: CHILL
Plan: Pro
Run ID: e424a227-e947-4d7c-830f-c50b0d00e161
📥 Commits
Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 81800db and 7663666.
📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • crates/aisix-proxy/src/passthrough.rs
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  •  Create PR with unit tests
  •  Commit unit tests in branch fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage
Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.
@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
merged commit 7e4cf31
into
mainJul 2, 2026

10 checks passed

@jarvis9443
jarvis9443
deleted the

fix/issue-699-passthrough-usage

branch
July 2, 2026 14:24
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

passthrough emits no UsageEvent at all (success or failure) — invisible to Logs, budget ledger and exporters


1 participant

@jarvis9443