Add other backend authentication type to LLM Provider

[ashera96]

Purpose

• Resolves: [Bug]: Require "other" option for the LLM Provider backend authentication type #2686

This pull request adds support for a new upstream authentication type, "other", which allows authentication to be handled entirely by user-attached policies rather than by storing credentials in the platform. The changes ensure that when "other" is selected, credential fields are hidden in the UI, no credentials are stored, and the deployment artifact omits the auth block. Comprehensive backend and frontend updates, as well as tests, are included to support this new authentication flow.

Backend changes:

• Added "other" as a valid UpstreamAuthType throughout the API, OpenAPI spec, and normalization logic. [1] [2] [3] [4]
• Updated deployment artifact generation to omit the auth block if the type is "other", preventing the gateway from attaching header-setting policies. [1] [2]
• Added backend tests to verify that the auth block is omitted for "other" in both provider and proxy deployment YAML.

Frontend/UI changes:

• Updated provider creation and connection forms to include "other" as an authentication type, hide credential fields, and display a helper message when selected. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
• Ensured that switching to "other" clears any previously entered credential values in the form state. [1] [2]

Type definition updates:

• Extended the UpstreamAuth TypeScript interface to include "other" as a valid type.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@ashera96, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 54 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: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

Run ID: 47a24788-3914-4714-89d9-ebcd1c7fcb23

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 23c45fc and a461377.

📒 Files selected for processing (9)

• platform-api/api/generated.go
• platform-api/internal/service/llm.go
• platform-api/internal/service/llm_deployment.go
• platform-api/internal/service/llm_deployment_test.go
• platform-api/internal/service/llm_test.go
• platform-api/resources/openapi.yaml
• portals/ai-workspace/src/pages/appShell/appShellPages/serviceProvider/AddNewProvider/ProviderTemplateFormFields.tsx
• portals/ai-workspace/src/pages/appShell/appShellPages/serviceProvider/ServiceProviderConnectionTab.tsx
• portals/ai-workspace/src/utils/types.ts

✨ 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.}

[coderabbitai]

Caution

Failed to replace (edit) comment. This is likely due to insufficient permissions or the comment being deleted.

Error details

putComment timed out

[ashera96]

@coderabbitai please review

[coderabbitai]

The PR description image shows the "Add Provider" form in the LLM Providers UI with an Anthropic provider template, where "Authentication Type" is set to "other" and a helper message reads: "No credentials are stored for this provider. Use a policy to configure authentication."

The second PR description image shows the provider detail page for "BedrockTest" (AWS Bedrock), on the "Connection" tab, confirming the created provider has "Authentication" set to "other" with the same helper message, and a 3/4 setup progress indicator showing "Add Guardrails", "Deploy to Gateway" (done), and "Consume LLM Provider" (done).

@ashera96 Thanks for the context and screenshots — they clearly confirm the other authentication type UI behavior (hidden credential fields, helper text, and successful provider creation flow) matches the stated objectives. I'll kick off a full review of the PR changes now.

✅ Action performed

Review finished.

Note: CodeRabbit is an incremental review system and does not re-review already reviewed commits. This command is applicable only when automatic reviews are paused.