fix(routing): price refused-then-served rows in routing analytics

[vadymhimself]

Summary

• /api/routing-analytics priced a successful row with estimateRequestCost on the row's aggregate usage and status. A request with a usage-less refusal (e.g. 429) before a measured send aggregates to unreported, so analytics returned no cost and no price coverage, while /api/usage already prices it via the attempt-aware computeEntryCost (fix: carry account recovery, server-tool buffer, and usage corrections #7236).
• successCostUsd now uses computeEntryCost, so both endpoints apply one pricing rule, including the new "measured attempt without a price stays unpriced" policy from fix: carry account recovery, server-tool buffer, and usage corrections #7236.
• Follow-up to Codex review comment 4292650409 on fix: carry account recovery, server-tool buffer, and usage corrections #7236. The fix was offered on the source branch of fix(usage): price refused-then-served rows and keep client cancels unknown #7233 (52b623b) but was not part of the landed bundle.

Verification

• Red on dev a02cecd with only the new test: bun test tests/routing/routing-analytics.test.ts gives 11 pass, 1 fail (a refused retry before a measured send is priced, matching /api/usage: price coverage 0, expected 1).
• Green: 12 pass, 0 fail.
• bun x tsc --noEmit: clean. bun run structure:check: passed.
• tests/lab/core-lab-boundary.test.ts, the file-size ratchet and every test file that imports routing/analytics: 46 pass, 0 fail.

Checklist

• Scope stays focused and avoids unrelated cleanup.
• Docs or release notes were updated when needed.
• Security-sensitive changes were reviewed for secrets, auth, and unsafe defaults.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Review readiness checklist

This PR stays in draft until every box below is ticked. Tick all four boxes once the requirements are met:

• Required local validation passed; commands, results, and any full-suite exception are documented.

• I pushed my PR to a recent dev commit (at most 10 behind; a maintainer may still ask for the exact tip before merge).

• I resolved all correct Codex and CodeRabbit findings.

• My PR is ready for review.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Routing analytics now calculate successful-request costs using the complete recorded usage entry, improving cost totals in both aggregate and breakdown views.
  • Costs remain unavailable when an entry cannot be priced, rather than showing an estimated amount.
  • Added test coverage for successful requests following an unreported 429 retry.

[coderabbitai]

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

• Configuration used: Repository: lidge-jun/opencodex/.coderabbit.yaml
• Review profile: ASSERTIVE
• Plan: Advanced
• Run ID: 5bca7cbd-d602-48c1-a837-0f6799dc68f3

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a02cecd and a530a3d.

📒 Files selected for processing: 2

• src/routing/analytics.ts
• tests/routing/routing-analytics.test.ts

Included review availability: This review used your included allowance. Your plan provides up to 10 included reviews per hour; 9 remain after this review.

📝 Walkthrough

Routing analytics now calculates successful-request costs with computeEntryCost using the persisted usage entry. A test covers an unreported 429 attempt followed by a reported successful attempt.

Changes: Routing analytics pricing

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Calculate costs from persisted entries src/routing/analytics.ts, tests/routing/routing-analytics.test.ts	The successful-request cost calculation uses computeEntryCost with the persisted entry and returns a total only when the entry is priced. The test checks that a reported successful attempt after an unreported 429 attempt has full price coverage and a positive cost matching the entry cost.

Priority: ⬇️ Low

Estimated code review effort: 2 (Simple) | ~10 minutes

Change: Bug fix

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to a530a

The routing analytics pricing change has no identified issue blocking merge after normal checks.

Pre-merge checks: 4 · 1

Failed checks: 1 warning

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage		Docstring coverage is 33.33% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 3 functions across 2 files.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

Passed checks: 4 passed

Check name	Status	Explanation
Linked Issues check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check		Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Description Check		Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check		The title clearly identifies the routing analytics pricing fix for rows that were refused before being served. It matches the main change in src/routing/analytics.ts and the added regression test.

• Fix all pre-merge checks with AI

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create a new PR

• Autofix · Keep fixing CodeRabbit findings and required CI, and resolving merge conflicts

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[github-actions]

✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

[github-actions]

✅ READY

• all PR quality gates passed; the review readiness checklist is complete.

Review readiness checklist

• ✅ Required local validation passed; commands, results, and any full-suite exception are documented.
• ✅ I pushed my PR to a recent dev commit (at most 10 behind; a maintainer may still ask for the exact tip before merge).
• ✅ I resolved all correct Codex and CodeRabbit findings.
• ✅ My PR is ready for review.

✅ 4/4 boxes ticked.

This pull request is already Ready for Review.
The review-ready label marks this PR as ready; review automation runs independently.
Maintainers: @lidge-jun @Ingwannu

[vadymhimself]

@coderabbitai full review

[coderabbitai]

✅ Action performed

Full review finished.