Skip to content

Add Provider Provenance Indicators to the Query402 Provider Catalog#105

Open
Damilorlar wants to merge 1 commit into
emrekayat:mainfrom
Damilorlar:feat/provenance-badge
Open

Add Provider Provenance Indicators to the Query402 Provider Catalog#105
Damilorlar wants to merge 1 commit into
emrekayat:mainfrom
Damilorlar:feat/provenance-badge

Conversation

@Damilorlar

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

##closed #84

The Query402 provider catalog currently exposes provider information without indicating whether the data originates from a live provider, a deterministic mock, or a fallback implementation. This can make it difficult for reviewers, investors, and users to distinguish between demonstration data and production-ready integrations before initiating payments.

This enhancement introduces a provenance field to provider catalog responses, allowing each provider to clearly identify the origin of its data. Supported provenance values include mock for deterministic demo data, fallback for AI or provider fallback mode, live for configured production providers, and unknown as a safe default when the source cannot be determined. The frontend dashboard should render this information as a compact, easy-to-read badge, ensuring that missing or unknown provenance is never misrepresented as live data.

The implementation should update the provider catalog API, shared schemas, and dashboard UI while preserving all existing pricing, payment, and provider selection behavior.

##Acceptance Criteria
Add a provenance field to every provider returned by the provider catalog.
Support the following provenance values:
mock – Deterministic demo data.
fallback – AI/provider fallback mode.
live – Configured production providers.
unknown – Safe default when provenance cannot be determined.
Render provenance as a compact badge in the dashboard UI.
Ensure unknown or missing provenance is never displayed as live.
Update shared schemas to include the provenance field.
Add tests covering:
Provider catalog response shape.
At least one dashboard UI rendering path.
Ensure no changes to existing pricing, payment, or transaction behavior.
Maintain compatibility with existing provider integrations while improving transparency for SCF reviewers and investors.

- Provenance type (mock|fallback|live|unknown) in shared types + schema
- Set provenance on all 7 providers in pricing.ts
- Compact color-coded badge in ControlDeckPage provider cards
- Tests for catalog shape, provenance values, and baseline verification
@vercel

vercel Bot commented Jun 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@Damilorlar is attempting to deploy a commit to the emrekayat's projects Team on Vercel.

A member of the Team first needs to authorize it.

@drips-wave

drips-wave Bot commented Jun 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@Damilorlar Great news! 🎉 Based on an automated assessment of this PR, the linked Wave issue(s) no longer count against your application limits.

You can now already apply to more issues while waiting for a review of this PR. Keep up the great work! 🚀

Learn more about application limits

@emrekayat

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thanks for the PR. I rechecked the merge ref from the maintainer account, but it is not merge-ready yet.

Commands run:

git diff --check main...pr-105-merge
npm run test --workspace @query402/shared

The shared schema suite fails:

providerSchema > accepts a valid provider definition
ZodError: provenance is required

The PR makes provider.provenance required, but the existing valid provider fixture/schema expectations are not updated, and this may also break existing provider catalog consumers that do not send provenance yet. Please either make the field backward-compatible with a safe default, or update all fixtures/catalog definitions/tests so the shared package remains green.

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.

Add catalog provenance field for mock vs live provider data

2 participants