Conversation
…43-01a07240 [WRONG BRANCH] chore(release): promote verified candidate to 2.43.0
…lease-244-main-07c0
…in-07c0 chore(release): promote validated 2.44.0 to main
Promote frozen dev source cf9f662; no new runtime changes. Candidate CI34061274315 and service34061276621 are the validation references. Publication waits for successful validation and the final main push CI at the exact release SHA.
Promote frozen dev source cf9f662 as 2.45.0. The repository owner explicitly authorized this main/preview release promotion and admin PR-only merge. This is a release-specific owner decision, not an independent approval or the dev-only maintainer exception. Frozen candidate full CI34061274315 passed all25jobs after one unchanged-source rerun of Windows5; the initial holder busy assertion remains recorded without a root-cause resolution claim. Service lifecycle34061276621 passed Linux/macOS/Windows. Dev version pre-move3812 is merged. Publication still requires this actual main merge SHA's own successful push CI and Service lifecycle. No local suites were run.
[WRONG BRANCH] chore(release): promote verified 2.46.0 to main
[WRONG BRANCH] release: promote 2.47.0 to main
[WRONG BRANCH] release: apply final roster correction to main
[WRONG BRANCH] release: promote 2.48.0 to main
…in-01a08498 release: promote verified 2.49.0 product tree to main
…in-01a08a81 [WRONG BRANCH] release: promote verified 2.50.0 product tree to main
|
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. |
✅ READY
Hygiene✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: d7dce5ac40
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".
Co-Authored-By: Devin AI <158243242+devin-ai-integration[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> # Conflicts: # src/server/responses/core.ts # tests/responses/passthrough-abort.test.ts
|
Merged The dev-side Verified locally: |
The first-leg terminal repair armed repair's grace timer before the bridge hid the intercepted search lifecycle, but the continuation response returned by send was handed to the bridge raw. A complete-but-open continuation then blocked bridgeStreamBlocks indefinitely and the turn never finished. send now awaits each continuation and wraps successful bodies in relayResponsesSseWithTerminalRepair with the same policy, abort controller, translator budget, and scheduler, so every repaired leg gets its own grace window. The liveness test drives a terminal-less first leg AND a terminal-less continuation through handleResponses with an injected scheduler, proving the search executes, the continuation dispatches, and the client turn completes. Contract docs updated in structure/. Co-Authored-By: Epinephrine <luvs01@hanmail.net>
|
Addressed in b1044e7: |
|
Consolidated into lidge-jun#5562 as a single related-function aggregate. Source head: The final source net change was compared semantically with the existing first-leg and continuation repair carried from upstream lidge-jun#5365, including the module-split merge resolution; production repair was not duplicated. The distinct b1044e7 outer handleResponses regression and both structure-document updates are preserved in 973a4ac with matching path-restricted patch ID and author/date. The aggregate's complete final eight-file scope passed 199/199 tests with 976 assertions, retaining both terminal-less legs and the added replay-isolation coupling. Updated-head hosted CI and security review remain pending on the draft replacement. Closing this duplicate standalone review entry as part of the requested consolidation after verifying coverage. This is not a merge or release claim; remaining integration checks and reviews are tracked on the replacement. Original branches are retained. |
Motivation
web_searchcall but does not emit a terminal or close the leg.Description
src/server/responses/core.tsso terminal repair is applied to the raw upstream first and the resulting repaired stream is passed as thefirstLegtocreatePassthroughWebSearchBridgeStream.tests/responses/passthrough-abort.test.tsto assert the composition order and that the bridge receives the repaired stream as itsfirstLeg.Testing
bun test tests/responses/passthrough-abort.test.ts, which passed (24 tests, 0 failures).bun run typecheck, which succeeded.bun run test; focused changes passed but the full-suite run encountered unrelated, environment-sensitive failures and panics in other test areas (combo-management / codex-shim) that prevented a complete parallel run; these failures are not related to the patched changes.Codex Task