fix: valdiate watsonX key and enable tool calling for Watson X models #11264

HimavarshaVS · 2026-01-09T22:09:32Z

Summary by CodeRabbit

Bug Fixes
- Fixed IBM WatsonX API credential validation, which was previously unavailable due to missing required parameters. The validation now functions properly with necessary configuration.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

coderabbitai · 2026-01-09T22:09:53Z

Important

Review skipped

Auto incremental reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Walkthrough

Implemented IBM WatsonX validation in the validate_model_provider_key function by adding a conditional branch that imports ChatWatsonx locally, constructs an LLM instance with provided credentials and default parameters, and executes a test call to verify the API key validity.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
WatsonX provider validation `src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py`	Added validation logic for IBM WatsonX provider. Imports ChatWatsonx, instantiates LLM with api_key, default URL, model_id, and token limits, then invokes test call to verify credentials. Replaces previous skipped validation due to missing parameters.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~10 minutes

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 3

❌ Failed checks (1 error, 2 warnings)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Test Coverage For New Implementations	❌ Error	PR adds IBM WatsonX API key validation to validate_model_provider_key function but includes no corresponding tests.	Add comprehensive unit tests for validate_model_provider_key() function covering IBM WatsonX validation scenarios including mocking, success cases, error handling, and timeout scenarios.
Test Quality And Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Pull request lacks direct unit tests for IBM WatsonX API key validation implementation despite critical implementation flaws.	Create dedicated unit tests for validate_model_provider_key covering success/failure cases, error handling, and network scenarios; fix implementation issues with api_key parameter and hardcoded URLs.
Test File Naming And Structure	⚠️ Warning	PR modifies validate_model_provider_key() for IBM WatsonX but lacks unit tests for the new functionality and actual implementation validation.	Add dedicated unit test file with tests for valid/invalid API keys, edge cases, error handling, and proper validation logic for all providers including IBM WatsonX.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.
Excessive Mock Usage Warning	✅ Passed	PR modifies only production code in unified_models.py with no test file changes, so no excessive mock usage to assess within PR scope.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main changes: adding WatsonX key validation and enabling tool calling for Watson X models, which aligns with the code modifications shown in the summary.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests
Post copyable unit tests in a comment
Commit unit tests in branch lfoss-3249

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

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

coderabbitai

Actionable comments posted: 2

🤖 Fix all issues with AI agents

In @src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py:
- Line 333: Remove the trailing whitespace on the blank line causing Ruff W293
in src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py (around the reported location
near line 333); delete the spaces on that empty line so it's truly empty, then
re-run ruff/formatting (or pre-commit) to confirm the W293 warning is resolved.

📜 Review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a59ade4 and dd766ab.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py

🧰 Additional context used

🪛 GitHub Actions: Ruff Style Check

src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py

[error] 333-333: Ruff: W293 Blank line contains whitespace. Command: uv run --only-dev ruff check --output-format=github .

🪛 GitHub Check: Ruff Style Check (3.13)

src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py

[failure] 333-333: Ruff (W293)
src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py:333:1: W293 Blank line contains whitespace

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (2)

GitHub Check: Update Component Index
GitHub Check: Update Starter Projects

src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py

github-actions · 2026-01-12T16:02:03Z

Frontend Unit Test Coverage Report

Coverage Summary

Lines	Statements	Branches	Functions
	17.44% (4977/28526)	10.76% (2364/21957)	11.55% (722/6246)

Unit Test Results

Tests	Skipped	Failures	Errors	Time
1989	0 💤	0 ❌	0 🔥	25.777s ⏱️

codecov · 2026-01-12T16:02:58Z

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 4 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 34.14%. Comparing base (3166d1f) to head (977eb35).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your patch status has failed because the patch coverage (0.00%) is below the target coverage (40.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.
❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (40.80%) is below the target coverage (60.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #11264      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   34.14%   34.14%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1408     1408              
  Lines       66770    66773       +3     
  Branches     9858     9858              
==========================================
- Hits        22801    22799       -2     
- Misses      42777    42781       +4     
- Partials     1192     1193       +1

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	`53.31% <ø> (-0.01%)`	⬇️
frontend	`15.99% <ø> (ø)`
lfx	`40.80% <0.00%> (-0.02%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/watsonx_constants.py	`100.00% <ø> (ø)`
src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py	`23.95% <0.00%> (-0.16%)`	⬇️

... and 6 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

deon-sanchez

at some point when all this is merged in we need to write some e2e test to validate ibm watsonx. but code looks good.

valdiate watsonX key

dd766ab

[autofix.ci] apply automated fixes

fc0bc62

github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Jan 9, 2026

coderabbitai bot reviewed Jan 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

src/lfx/src/lfx/base/models/unified_models.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Merge branch 'main' into lfoss-3249

c9ac473

github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Jan 12, 2026

enable tool calling

827a1ad

HimavarshaVS changed the title ~~fix: valdiate watsonX key~~ fix: valdiate watsonX key and enable tool calling for Watson X models Jan 12, 2026

github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Jan 12, 2026

[autofix.ci] apply automated fixes

977eb35

github-actions bot added bug Something isn't working and removed bug Something isn't working labels Jan 12, 2026

deon-sanchez approved these changes Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

github-actions bot added the lgtm This PR has been approved by a maintainer label Jan 12, 2026

HimavarshaVS added this pull request to the merge queue Jan 12, 2026

Merged via the queue into main with commit 8da8fdc Jan 12, 2026
56 of 58 checks passed

HimavarshaVS deleted the lfoss-3249 branch January 12, 2026 20:11

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

fix: valdiate watsonX key and enable tool calling for Watson X models #11264

fix: valdiate watsonX key and enable tool calling for Watson X models #11264

Uh oh!

HimavarshaVS commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Review skipped

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 12, 2026

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

deon-sanchez left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

fix: valdiate watsonX key and enable tool calling for Watson X models #11264

fix: valdiate watsonX key and enable tool calling for Watson X models #11264

Uh oh!

Conversation

HimavarshaVS commented Jan 9, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Review skipped

Walkthrough

Changes

Estimated code review effort

Uh oh!

coderabbitai bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Jan 12, 2026

Frontend Unit Test Coverage Report

Coverage Summary

Unit Test Results

Uh oh!

codecov bot commented Jan 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

deon-sanchez left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

HimavarshaVS commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai bot

Loading

coderabbitai bot commented Jan 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov bot commented Jan 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading