Skip to content

Conversation

@b4s36t4
Copy link
Contributor

@b4s36t4 b4s36t4 commented Jan 19, 2026

Description: (required)

Tests Run/Test cases added: (required)

  • Description of test case

Type of Change:

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
  • Documentation update
  • Refactoring (no functional changes)

azaccor and others added 4 commits December 23, 2025 09:00
- Add support for Databricks AI Gateway as a Portkey provider
- Implements chat completions, text completions, and embeddings
- Uses unified /invocations endpoint for all operations
- Maintains OpenAI-compatible request/response format
- Supports workspace-based and custom base URLs
- Bearer token authentication with Databricks PATs
- Tested with Meta Llama, Anthropic Claude, and embedding models
narengogi
narengogi previously approved these changes Jan 19, 2026
export const IO_INTELLIGENCE: string = 'iointelligence';
export const AIBADGR: string = 'aibadgr';
export const OVHCLOUD: string = 'ovhcloud';
export const DATABRICKS_AI: string = 'databricks-ai';
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I registered the provider as 'databricks' in providers/index.ts. I have a relatively strong preference that the provider identifier be just 'databricks' to match the pattern of other major providers like 'openai', 'anthropic', etc. Can we keep it as 'databricks' instead of 'databricks-ai'?

@azaccor
Copy link

azaccor commented Jan 20, 2026

Hello @b4s36t4 and @narengogi , thanks so much for your reviews!
This makes sense to me to remove the baseURL and only keep the workspace based URLs. My only question is on the naming convention if we're able to keep it as 'databricks' rather than 'databricks-ai'?
Thanks again!

@azaccor
Copy link

azaccor commented Jan 26, 2026

Hi all, following up on the above. Anything I can do to expedite the review?
Thanks so much!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants