Conversation
…forwarded role (lidge-jun#5334 follow-up) lidge-jun#5334 made the developer wire role tri-state: an undeclared destination folds it to system. Two suites asserting role:"developer" on the Chat wire were missed because they are about tool-result repair ordering and document parts, not role selection — declare the destination, per the convention the change established. Verified: both files fail on dev@600075d2 with system-for-developer wire roles and pass with the declaration. Co-Authored-By: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Important
This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars. ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Repository: luvs01/opencodex/.coderabbit.yaml Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Advanced Run ID: 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. Comment |
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
|
✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed. |
![devin-ai-integration[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/811515?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 453df76c58
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| const bodyToolName = wireToolName ?? helperName; | ||
| const normalizedBodyToolName = bodyToolName.startsWith("default.") | ||
| ? bodyToolName.slice("default.".length) | ||
| : bodyToolName; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This changes the fallback-body grammar under src/responses/, but none of the six documents assigned to that area in structure/INDEX.md are updated. In particular, structure/runtime.md still says that only bare exec and apply_patch calls recover alternate body fields, which now contradicts the new default.apply_patch behavior. Update all mapped owners—or narrow the ownership map if some should not own this contract—so the documented transport behavior matches the implementation.
AGENTS.md reference: src/AGENTS.md:L11-L11
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
…orm contract
The responses owners still claimed only bare exec/apply_patch calls accept alternate-field or outer-fence recovery; compileCodeModeHelperInput now also unwraps provider-invented default. aliases. Update runtime.md, transports/responses.md, providers/{chat-compat,kiro,xai-grok}.md.
Co-Authored-By: Epinephrine <luvs01@hanmail.net>
This branch has not been deployed
1 participant
Motivation
default.prefix but left the wire-name used for freeform unwrapping untouched, which caused provider-emitted names likedefault.apply_patchto miss theapply_patchfallback vocabulary and deliver the wrapper JSON as the patch argument.default.aliases while preserving the deliberate difference between nativeapply_patchvocabulary and body-inferredexecbehavior.Description
default.from the resolved wire helper name incompileCodeModeHelperInput(src/responses/code-mode-helper-compat.ts).unwrapFreeformToolInput, sodefault.apply_patchreceives the same fallback-field handling asapply_patch.default.apply_patchwith bothpatchandcontentwrappers compiles to the raw patch (tests/responses/responses-code-mode-patch-compile.test.ts).Testing
bun test tests/responses/responses-code-mode-patch-compile.test.tsand the focused suite passed (7 tests, 0 failures).bun run typecheckandbun run structure:check, both succeeded.bun run test; the focused regression passed but the full suite exited with unrelated environment/process-sensitive failures (notablytests/server/v1-hub-state.test.tsand some Unix process-group cases intests/codex-integration/codex-shim.test.ts).Codex Task