fix(opencode-provider): correct z.ai coding plan model mapping

[USerik]

The model mapping for 'z.ai coding plan' was incorrectly pointing to 'z-ai' instead of 'zai-coding-plan', which would cause model resolution failures when users selected the z.ai coding plan provider.

This fix ensures the correct model identifier is used for z.ai coding plan, aligning with the expected model naming convention.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes

  • Fixed provider identifier mapping so "z.ai coding plan" is correctly recognized as "zai-coding-plan", improving provider recognition.

• Tests

  • Added extensive unit tests covering provider name mapping, alias handling, ANSI/formatting robustness, authentication detection, and numerous edge cases to ensure parsing reliability.

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

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @USerik, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request resolves a critical bug where the 'z.ai coding plan' provider was misconfigured with an incorrect model identifier. The fix updates this mapping to the correct value, preventing potential model resolution failures and ensuring the system functions as expected for users of this specific provider.

Highlights

• Model Mapping Correction: The model mapping for 'z.ai coding plan' was incorrectly set to 'z-ai'.
• Resolution of Model Failures: The incorrect mapping could cause model resolution failures when users selected the 'z.ai coding plan' provider.
• Updated Mapping: The mapping has been corrected to 'zai-coding-plan' to align with the expected model naming convention.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[coderabbitai]

Note

Other AI code review bot(s) detected

CodeRabbit has detected other AI code review bot(s) in this pull request and will avoid duplicating their findings in the review comments. This may lead to a less comprehensive review.

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

A single entry in OpencodeProvider's internal providerIdMap was changed: the key 'z.ai coding plan' now maps to 'zai-coding-plan' instead of 'z-ai'. A comprehensive new test suite for provider output parsing was added; no other functional changes.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Provider ID Mapping Update apps/server/src/providers/opencode-provider.ts	Updated providerIdMap entry: 'z.ai coding plan' → 'zai-coding-plan' (was 'z-ai').
Unit Tests Added apps/server/tests/unit/providers/opencode-provider.test.ts	Added ~313 lines of tests covering parsing, mapping (including the updated mapping), ANSI stripping, auth detection, edge cases, duplicates, and real-world CLI outputs.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

Poem

🐇 I hopped through maps to set things right,
'z.ai' became a clearer sight,
A tiny change, a tidy plan,
Now called zai-coding-plan—hip-hop, I ran! 🥕✨

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title accurately describes the main change: correcting the z.ai coding plan provider mapping from 'z-ai' to 'zai-coding-plan'. It is concise, specific, and clearly communicates the fix.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.

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

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

---

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 and usage tips.}

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly fixes a model mapping for 'z.ai coding plan' in the OpenCode provider, which was causing model resolution failures. The change is straightforward and addresses the issue described. My main feedback is to improve test coverage for the parseProvidersOutput method to prevent similar issues in the future.

[gemini-code-assist]

While this change correctly fixes the mapping, the parseProvidersOutput function lacks unit tests. To prevent regressions and ensure the robustness of provider parsing, I recommend adding tests for this logic in apps/server/tests/unit/providers/opencode-provider.test.ts. A test case could verify that 'z.ai coding plan' correctly maps to 'zai-coding-plan' and that other providers are also mapped as expected.