You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
UX: Ambiguous error message in editor when a provider is blocked by Connector Approvals #660
Description
When an AI request (such as title generation) is blocked by the Connector Approvals feature, the error message displayed in the block editor is ambiguous and misleading. It suggests that no provider is connected or that the connected provider doesn't support the feature, rather than guiding the admin to approve the pending request.
Steps to Reproduce
Install the AI plugin and a provider plugin (e.g., AI Provider for Google).
Configure the API connection but do not approve the caller yet in the "Connector Approvals" screen.
Open a page/post and attempt to use an AI feature, such as "Generate Title".
Observe the red error notice at the top of the editor.
Current Behavior
The editor displays the following error notice:
"Title generation failed. Please ensure you have a connected provider that supports text generation."
This leads the user to believe their API keys are invalid, that the connection failed entirely, or that the chosen model doesn't support text capabilities.
Expected Behavior
Since the provider is connected but simply awaiting administrator authorization, the error message should be context-aware.
It should explicitly mention that the connector requires approval and, if possible, provide a direct link to the approval page (/wp-admin/tools.php?page=connector-approvals).
Suggested copy:
"Title generation failed. The AI connector is currently pending authorization. Please approve the request under Tools > Connector Approvals."
Hello @dkotter, I followed your suggested pre-request hook approach from this PR - #686 (review).
I've opened a PR implementing this: #759.
Let me know if you have any feedback!
Activity
SohamPatel46 commentedon Jun 22, 2026
Hello @dkotter, I followed your suggested pre-request hook approach from this PR - #686 (review).
I've opened a PR implementing this: #759.
Let me know if you have any feedback!