Skip to content

fix(xiaomi-token-plan): remove mimo-v2-omni (not served by token-plan endpoints)#3058

Open
kelvinq wants to merge 1 commit into
anomalyco:devfrom
kelvinq:fix/xiaomi-token-plan-ghost-mimo-v2-omni
Open

fix(xiaomi-token-plan): remove mimo-v2-omni (not served by token-plan endpoints)#3058
kelvinq wants to merge 1 commit into
anomalyco:devfrom
kelvinq:fix/xiaomi-token-plan-ghost-mimo-v2-omni

Conversation

@kelvinq

@kelvinq kelvinq commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The three xiaomi-token-plan-* providers list mimo-v2-omni, but their endpoints don't serve it. Requests return:

{"error": {"code": "400", "message": "Param Incorrect", "param": "Not supported model mimo-v2-omni"}}

mimo-v2-omni is pay-as-you-go only and lives under providers/xiaomi/. The token-plan endpoints serve only the v2.5 family.

Probed the SGP token-plan endpoint on 2026-07-06:

  • GET /v1/models returns 6 models, all v2.5-family: mimo-v2.5, mimo-v2.5-asr, mimo-v2.5-pro, mimo-v2.5-tts, mimo-v2.5-tts-voiceclone, mimo-v2.5-tts-voicedesign. No mimo-v2-omni.
  • POST /v1/chat/completions with mimo-v2.5-pro returns HTTP 200 (positive control).
  • POST /v1/chat/completions with mimo-v2-omni returns HTTP 400 with the body above.

I only probed the SGP endpoint live. The three token-plan providers share one upstream catalog. The ams and sgp model files are symlinks to the cn file, so this removes the model from all three in one change.

This mirrors the earlier mimo-v2-flash removal (earendil-works/pi#5075), which removed a pay-as-you-go-only model from the token-plan providers. That entry also came up in a comment, so this PR updates the three provider.toml comments that mentioned "V2 Omni".

Tracked upstream in earendil-works/pi#6204.

Validated with bun validate.

… endpoints)

The token-plan endpoints do not serve mimo-v2-omni. Requests return
HTTP 400 "Not supported model mimo-v2-omni". The model is pay-as-you-go
only and stays under providers/xiaomi/. Also drop the stale "V2 Omni"
mention from the three token-plan provider.toml comments.

Validated with bun validate.

@nathannli nathannli left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

don't think this is right. you should be deprecating models when they're no longer provided, not deleting them:

status (optional): String — Supported status:
alpha - Indicate the model is in alpha testing
beta - Indicate the model is in beta testing
deprecated - Indicate the model is no longer served by the provider's public API

@kelvinq

kelvinq commented Jul 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Hi @nathannli. They have been deprecated since 30 Jun 2026. See: https://mimo.mi.com/docs/en-US/quick-start/summary/model

@rekram1-node

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

generally we have been making models as deprecated if they have been deprecated but still serve traffic but if the model is completely dead and wont work at all we drop it

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