-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 44
fix(code-review): split cached token usage #4086
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
alex-alecu
wants to merge
2
commits into
main
Choose a base branch
from
fix/code-review-token-breakdown
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
WARNING: "Input" token count has inconsistent semantics between the two return paths of
getReviewUsageData.The billing path (line 609) returns
tokensIn: billing.totalUncachedTokens(cache-exclusive), so the footer/details renderInput 200 · Cached 800. This fallback returnstokensIn: review.total_tokens_in, which is cache-inclusive: for v2 reviews it is back-filled frombilling.totalTokensIn(the rawinput_tokenssum, line 600), and for v1 reviews it is the SSE-accumulatedprompt_tokens(cache-inclusive per OpenRouter convention, seeprocessUsage.ts:755).Consequently two reviews with identical actual usage render very differently depending on whether billing rows are still available: a new review shows
Input 200 · Cached 800while an older one showsInput 1000 · Cached —. Since the stated goal of this PR is to stop cached work from looking like new work, the fallback silently re-introduces that confusion for old reviews. Consider normalizing the fallback (e.g. only showtotal_tokens_inas a combined input when no cached breakdown exists, or relabel itInput (incl. cached)), so the "Input" label means the same thing across reviews.Reply with
@kilocode-bot fix itto have Kilo Code address this issue.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sounds like something you want to fix?