openclaw - 💡(How to fix) Fix [Bug]: Gateway forcing alias mapping: gemini-3.1-flash-lite routed to preview version [1 comments, 2 participants]

Official PRs (…)
ON THIS PAGE

Recommended Tools

×6

Utilities matched from this issue’s tags and category — try them while you read without losing context.

GitHub issue graph ai analysis

Paste a GitHub issue URL. We fetch that issue, discover linked issues from bodies/comments/timeline, collect linked pull requests, and produce a structured English report.

The report is written in English Markdown for sharing and archival.

Helpful · Quick feedback

Loading…
GitHub stats
openclaw/openclaw#81556Fetched 2026-05-14 03:30:53
View on GitHub
Comments
1
Participants
2
Timeline
5
Reactions
2
Timeline (top)
closed ×1commented ×1labeled ×1mentioned ×1
<img width="2205" height="934" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/81006ec5-2d60-40e6-b646-db7661298968" /> <img width="1933" height="633" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/90392b58-2673-4fa8-80ae-4ed96b224590" />

Description: When configuring the model as gemini-3.1-flash-lite (Stable), the OpenClaw Gateway appears to be forcefully remapping the request to gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview (Preview).

Evidence:

Model Self-Diagnostic: The model explicitly stated in-chat that it is receiving a preview identifier despite the user setting it to the stable version, pinpointing a potential hardcoded mapping in the Gateway layer. Official API Documentation: According to Gemini API docs, gemini-3.1-flash-lite (Stable, updated May 2026) and gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview (Preview, updated March 2026) are two distinct endpoints. Expected Behavior: User sets gemini-3.1-flash-lite → → Gateway passes the identifier as-is → → Google API returns the Stable (May 2026) version.

Actual Behavior: User sets gemini-3.1-flash-lite → → Gateway overrides/rewrites identifier to gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview → → Google API returns the Preview (March 2026) version.

Suggested Fix: Please check the Gateway's routing table or alias configuration and remove the forced redirection for gemini-3.1-flash-lite.

Root Cause

<img width="2205" height="934" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/81006ec5-2d60-40e6-b646-db7661298968" /> <img width="1933" height="633" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/90392b58-2673-4fa8-80ae-4ed96b224590" />

Description: When configuring the model as gemini-3.1-flash-lite (Stable), the OpenClaw Gateway appears to be forcefully remapping the request to gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview (Preview).

Evidence:

Model Self-Diagnostic: The model explicitly stated in-chat that it is receiving a preview identifier despite the user setting it to the stable version, pinpointing a potential hardcoded mapping in the Gateway layer. Official API Documentation: According to Gemini API docs, gemini-3.1-flash-lite (Stable, updated May 2026) and gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview (Preview, updated March 2026) are two distinct endpoints. Expected Behavior: User sets gemini-3.1-flash-lite → → Gateway passes the identifier as-is → → Google API returns the Stable (May 2026) version.

Actual Behavior: User sets gemini-3.1-flash-lite → → Gateway overrides/rewrites identifier to gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview → → Google API returns the Preview (March 2026) version.

Suggested Fix: Please check the Gateway's routing table or alias configuration and remove the forced redirection for gemini-3.1-flash-lite.

RAW_BUFFERClick to expand / collapse

Bug type

Regression (worked before, now fails)

Beta release blocker

No

Summary

<img width="2205" height="934" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/81006ec5-2d60-40e6-b646-db7661298968" /> <img width="1933" height="633" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/90392b58-2673-4fa8-80ae-4ed96b224590" />

Description: When configuring the model as gemini-3.1-flash-lite (Stable), the OpenClaw Gateway appears to be forcefully remapping the request to gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview (Preview).

Evidence:

Model Self-Diagnostic: The model explicitly stated in-chat that it is receiving a preview identifier despite the user setting it to the stable version, pinpointing a potential hardcoded mapping in the Gateway layer. Official API Documentation: According to Gemini API docs, gemini-3.1-flash-lite (Stable, updated May 2026) and gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview (Preview, updated March 2026) are two distinct endpoints. Expected Behavior: User sets gemini-3.1-flash-lite → → Gateway passes the identifier as-is → → Google API returns the Stable (May 2026) version.

Actual Behavior: User sets gemini-3.1-flash-lite → → Gateway overrides/rewrites identifier to gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview → → Google API returns the Preview (March 2026) version.

Suggested Fix: Please check the Gateway's routing table or alias configuration and remove the forced redirection for gemini-3.1-flash-lite.

Steps to reproduce

NOT_ENOUGH_INFO

Expected behavior

NOT_ENOUGH_INFO

Actual behavior

Stable: gemini-3.1-flash-lite (Latest update: May 2026) Preview: gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview (Latest update: March 2026)

OpenClaw version

2026.5.12-beta.6

Operating system

windows11

Install method

npm

Model

gemini-3.1-flash-lite

Provider / routing chain

opencalw

Additional provider/model setup details

No response

Logs, screenshots, and evidence

Impact and severity

No response

Additional information

No response

Vote matrix · Quick signals

Works
Did the solution work? Tap to confirm.
Easy Fix
Was it a quick fix?
Time Saver
Did it save you time?
Blocking
Was it severely blocking?
Common Issue
Are others likely hitting this too?
Flaky / Intermittent
Is it intermittent?
Verified / Reproducible
Can you reproduce it reliably?
Loading…

FAQ

Expected behavior

NOT_ENOUGH_INFO

Still need to ship something?

×6

Another batch ranked right after the header list — different links, same matching logic.

Back to top recommendations

TRENDING

openclaw - 💡(How to fix) Fix [Bug]: Gateway forcing alias mapping: gemini-3.1-flash-lite routed to preview version [1 comments, 2 participants]