Hey! 👋 PR for the LLM profiles FE is live: https://github.com/OpenHands/OpenHands/pull/14149 @quick-window-91705 @millions-afternoon-47582 would love your review when you have a chance! @hundreds-twilight-32833 @breezy-kilobyte-39430 I've addressed your feedbacks about the UI. I also included a video in the PR to show how it works. Let me know if I should change something.

Hello @modern-fireman-99755, I have left a comment on the pull request. Thank you very much! thankyou

@hundreds-twilight-32833 @breezy-kilobyte-39430 When you get the chance, I'd like your opinion on Issue 2 and Issue 3 raised by Hiep. (see PR) About Issue 3: I need a name for the LLM profile at creation time. Since we don't give the user the option to choose a name on the LLM page, I just create one by combining the provider and model name. But I'm open to changing that if it's misleading.

I'll take a look now

I have addressed all the open issues. I am a little confused about the distinctions between OSS, SaaS, and Org users. We have different user types, right? Specifically: OSS-private, SaaS-private, and SaaS-org. For instance, I believe this feature can be used in OSS-private and SaaS-private as-is, but for SaaS-org, things are a little different. I am thinking of a scenario where an admin decides which providers can be used by its org, or grants every user access to a specific profile. Is there an existing design for this use case? Also, should we handle that in a separate PR? Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood anything.

This might be a bit long-winded but I'll try to go through it all as much as I can. Organization Admins and Owners can CRUD the LLM view. Organization members can only View that screen. Right now, if an Admin/Owner sets a specific LLM as the Default then that is the only LLM the member would have access to because we do not have support for switching LLM profiles within conversations (or otherwise). So if an Admin or Owner adds 5 different LLMs, the default is the only one that is in-use and available for the whole organization. A single user has no way to change that or access the other profiles. Later, when we add model switching to conversations a member would have access to any profile that is added to the organization. If an organization doesn't want an LLM profile used they would need to delete it. As a single user in Local GUI or a single user on Saas the single user has Owner level permissions (even if not actually using the real permissions settings just for the sake of explanation within this conversation). A single user organization – Personal Workspace – which is created right now when a user is added to an Organization on the saas has the same CRUD permissions as single user in local or saas.

thanks for the answer

I will review the pull request today. Thank you very much! thankyou

I also need some clarification. What is the difference between OSS and SaaS modes? (I understand what OSS and SaaS mean, but what is the actual difference in the code?) Moreover, is there a difference between SaaS for a single user and SaaS for organizations/enterprise?

AFAIK there should be no difference in local gui or a single user on the cloud/saas for LLM profiles

I also need some clarification. What is the difference between OSS and SaaS modes? (I understand what OSS and SaaS mean, but what is the actual difference in the code?)

Moreover, is there a difference between SaaS for a single user and SaaS for organizations/enterprise?

@modern-fireman-99755, These questions are a bit difficult to address concisely, but I’d like to share a couple of suggestions for how we might proceed: • I can continue working on the pull request for SaaS mode. Once ready, you can review the changes or use OH to analyze them, which may help provide clearer answers. • Alternatively, we can treat the current pull request as OSS-focused. In that case, I would update the title from “feat(settings): add saved LLM profiles (FE)” to “feat(settings): add saved LLM profiles (FE) – OSS”, and then open a follow-up pull request for SaaS mode. You could then review or analyze those changes separately using OH. Please let me know which approach you prefer, or if you have another suggestion. Thank you very much! thankyou

Hey @millions-afternoon-47582 Could we go with option 2? Thanks PS: I changed the title

Yes, thank you very much! thankyou

Hello @millions-afternoon-47582 Thank you very much for your review. I’ve addressed all the issues and created a short video to show how it works now. (see comment in PR) Please let me know if I need to change anything else. Thank you!

I will review this pull request today. Thank you very much! thankyou

Hey @millions-afternoon-47582 thank you very much for your work on this PR. I addressed your last comments. I hope it is good.

Hello @modern-fireman-99755, I’ve left a comment on the pull request. Thank you very much! thankyou

Hey @millions-afternoon-47582 Oh yes, sorry my fault. I forgot to write tests for the components. I also double checked that I'm using typography everywhere correctly. Hope it is good now. Thank you very much

@modern-fireman-99755, I have merged the pull request. Thank you very much! thankyou