langgenius/dify
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/langgenius/dify.git synced 2026-07-21 20:15:31 -04:00
Code Issues 775 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

All models with the same name will be disabled, when you add the same model name #7017

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-02-21 18:18:27 -05:00 by yindo · 3 comments
yindo commented 2026-02-21 18:18:27 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

Originally created by @dadastory on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024).

Self Checks

  • This is only for bug report, if you would like to ask a question, please head to Discussions.
  • I have searched for existing issues search for existing issues, including closed ones.
  • I confirm that I am using English to submit this report (我已阅读并同意 Language Policy).
  • [FOR CHINESE USERS] 请务必使用英文提交 Issue，否则会被关闭。谢谢！:）
  • Please do not modify this template :) and fill in all the required fields.

Dify version

0.12.1

Cloud or Self Hosted

Self Hosted (Docker)

Steps to reproduce

When I add models with the same name through the model provider configuration bar, such as the same (gpt-4o) model (another proxy provider), then when I disabled gpt4o model, the other model with the same model name gpt-4o will also be disabled, which I think is very unreasonable, regardless of whether I set the enterprise ID

✔️ Expected Behavior

When I disable a model, another model with the same name but a different configuration alias should not also be disabled, i think model configuration should support changing model's aliases rather than changing model's real name. i think add different model provider is more useful comparing with the loadbalance service for single ueser

❌ Actual Behavior

When I disable a gpt-4o model, all gpt-4o models with the same name will be disabled

Originally created by @dadastory on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024). ### Self Checks - [X] This is only for bug report, if you would like to ask a question, please head to [Discussions](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/discussions/categories/general). - [X] I have searched for existing issues [search for existing issues](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/issues), including closed ones. - [X] I confirm that I am using English to submit this report (我已阅读并同意 [Language Policy](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/issues/1542)). - [X] [FOR CHINESE USERS] 请务必使用英文提交 Issue，否则会被关闭。谢谢！:） - [X] Please do not modify this template :) and fill in all the required fields. ### Dify version 0.12.1 ### Cloud or Self Hosted Self Hosted (Docker) ### Steps to reproduce When I add models with the same name through the model provider configuration bar, such as the same (gpt-4o) model (another proxy provider), then when I disabled gpt4o model, the other model with the same model name gpt-4o will also be disabled, which I think is very unreasonable, regardless of whether I set the enterprise ID ### ✔️ Expected Behavior When I disable a model, another model with the same name but a different configuration alias should not also be disabled, i think model configuration should support changing model's aliases rather than changing model's real name. i think add different model provider is more useful comparing with the loadbalance service for single ueser ### ❌ Actual Behavior When I disable a gpt-4o model, all gpt-4o models with the same name will be disabled
yindo added the 🐞 bug label 2026-02-21 18:18:27 -05:00
yindo closed this issue 2026-02-21 18:18:27 -05:00
yindo commented 2026-02-21 18:18:27 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024):

The issue you're experiencing is related to how Dify handles models with the same name. When you disable a model, all models with the same name are also disabled, regardless of their configuration or provider. This behavior is due to the current logic in Dify's model provider configuration, which does not differentiate between models with the same name but different configurations or providers.

To address this, Dify would need a mechanism to assign unique identifiers or aliases to models, allowing them to be managed independently even if they share the same name. Unfortunately, there is no existing feature in Dify that allows for the assignment of unique identifiers or aliases to models to differentiate them beyond their names [1].

This limitation means that any model with the same name will be affected by actions such as disabling, unless the system is updated to support more granular model identification and management.

To continue talking to Dosu, mention @dosu.

@dosubot[bot] commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024): <!-- Answer --> The issue you're experiencing is related to how Dify handles models with the same name. When you disable a model, all models with the same name are also disabled, regardless of their configuration or provider. This behavior is due to the current logic in Dify's model provider configuration, which does not differentiate between models with the same name but different configurations or providers. To address this, Dify would need a mechanism to assign unique identifiers or aliases to models, allowing them to be managed independently even if they share the same name. Unfortunately, there is no existing feature in Dify that allows for the assignment of unique identifiers or aliases to models to differentiate them beyond their names <sup>[[1]](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/blob/main/api/core/entities/provider_configuration.py)</sup>. This limitation means that any model with the same name will be affected by actions such as disabling, unless the system is updated to support more granular model identification and management. <!-- Dosu Comment Footer --> *To continue talking to [Dosu](https://dosu.dev), mention @dosu.*
yindo commented 2026-02-21 18:18:27 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@dadastory commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024):

The issue you're experiencing is related to how Dify handles models with the same name. When you disable a model, all models with the same name are also disabled, regardless of their configuration or provider. This behavior is due to the current logic in Dify's model provider configuration, which does not differentiate between models with the same name but different configurations or providers.

To address this, Dify would need a mechanism to assign unique identifiers or aliases to models, allowing them to be managed independently even if they share the same name. Unfortunately, there is no existing feature in Dify that allows for the assignment of unique identifiers or aliases to models to differentiate them beyond their names [1].

This limitation means that any model with the same name will be affected by actions such as disabling, unless the system is updated to support more granular model identification and management.

To continue talking to Dosu, mention @dosu.

i absolutely agree with your explanation，i think maybe alias should be used to solve this question

@dadastory commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024): > The issue you're experiencing is related to how Dify handles models with the same name. When you disable a model, all models with the same name are also disabled, regardless of their configuration or provider. This behavior is due to the current logic in Dify's model provider configuration, which does not differentiate between models with the same name but different configurations or providers. > > To address this, Dify would need a mechanism to assign unique identifiers or aliases to models, allowing them to be managed independently even if they share the same name. Unfortunately, there is no existing feature in Dify that allows for the assignment of unique identifiers or aliases to models to differentiate them beyond their names [[1]](https://github.com/langgenius/dify/blob/main/api/core/entities/provider_configuration.py). > > This limitation means that any model with the same name will be affected by actions such as disabling, unless the system is updated to support more granular model identification and management. > > _To continue talking to [Dosu](https://dosu.dev), mention @dosu._ i absolutely agree with your explanation，i think maybe alias should be used to solve this question
yindo commented 2026-02-21 18:18:27 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link
Copy Source

@crazywoola commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024):

Please use the feature request template to open it instead, not bug report https://github.com/langgenius/dify/issues/11273

@crazywoola commented on GitHub (Dec 2, 2024): Please use the `feature request` template to open it instead, not `bug report` https://github.com/langgenius/dify/issues/11273
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
Knowledge Pipeline
Proposal
WIP
cloud
dependencies
feat:webapp
good first issue
outdated
performance
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 python:uv
refactor
size:L
stale
status: accepting prs
status: blocked
status: in discussion
stt & tts
vulnerablity
web
wont-fix
🌊 feat:workflow
🌚 invalid
🐞 bug
👻 feat:rag
💪 enhancement
📚 documentation
🔨 feat:tools
🙋‍♂️ question
🙏 help wanted
🤔 cant-reproduce
🤖 feat:agent
No Label 🐞 bug
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
yindo
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: langgenius/dify#7017
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?