Commit Graph

5 Commits

  • core: remove cross-crate re-exports from lib.rs (#16512)
    ## Why
    
    `codex-core` was re-exporting APIs owned by sibling `codex-*` crates,
    which made downstream crates depend on `codex-core` as a proxy module
    instead of the actual owner crate.
    
    Removing those forwards makes crate boundaries explicit and lets leaf
    crates drop unnecessary `codex-core` dependencies. In this PR, this
    reduces the dependency on `codex-core` to `codex-login` in the following
    files:
    
    ```
    codex-rs/backend-client/Cargo.toml
    codex-rs/mcp-server/tests/common/Cargo.toml
    ```
    
    ## What
    
    - Remove `codex-rs/core/src/lib.rs` re-exports for symbols owned by
    `codex-login`, `codex-mcp`, `codex-rollout`, `codex-analytics`,
    `codex-protocol`, `codex-shell-command`, `codex-sandboxing`,
    `codex-tools`, and `codex-utils-path`.
    - Delete the `default_client` forwarding shim in `codex-rs/core`.
    - Update in-crate and downstream callsites to import directly from the
    owning `codex-*` crate.
    - Add direct Cargo dependencies where callsites now target the owner
    crate, and remove `codex-core` from `codex-rs/backend-client`.
  • Apply argument comment lint across codex-rs (#14652)
    ## Why
    
    Once the repo-local lint exists, `codex-rs` needs to follow the
    checked-in convention and CI needs to keep it from drifting. This commit
    applies the fallback `/*param*/` style consistently across existing
    positional literal call sites without changing those APIs.
    
    The longer-term preference is still to avoid APIs that require comments
    by choosing clearer parameter types and call shapes. This PR is
    intentionally the mechanical follow-through for the places where the
    existing signatures stay in place.
    
    After rebasing onto newer `main`, the rollout also had to cover newly
    introduced `tui_app_server` call sites. That made it clear the first cut
    of the CI job was too expensive for the common path: it was spending
    almost as much time installing `cargo-dylint` and re-testing the lint
    crate as a representative test job spends running product tests. The CI
    update keeps the full workspace enforcement but trims that extra
    overhead from ordinary `codex-rs` PRs.
    
    ## What changed
    
    - keep a dedicated `argument_comment_lint` job in `rust-ci`
    - mechanically annotate remaining opaque positional literals across
    `codex-rs` with exact `/*param*/` comments, including the rebased
    `tui_app_server` call sites that now fall under the lint
    - keep the checked-in style aligned with the lint policy by using
    `/*param*/` and leaving string and char literals uncommented
    - cache `cargo-dylint`, `dylint-link`, and the relevant Cargo
    registry/git metadata in the lint job
    - split changed-path detection so the lint crate's own `cargo test` step
    runs only when `tools/argument-comment-lint/*` or `rust-ci.yml` changes
    - continue to run the repo wrapper over the `codex-rs` workspace, so
    product-code enforcement is unchanged
    
    Most of the code changes in this commit are intentionally mechanical
    comment rewrites or insertions driven by the lint itself.
    
    ## Verification
    
    - `./tools/argument-comment-lint/run.sh --workspace`
    - `cargo test -p codex-tui-app-server -p codex-tui`
    - parsed `.github/workflows/rust-ci.yml` locally with PyYAML
    
    ---
    
    * -> #14652
    * #14651
  • feat: /review (#3774)
    Adds `/review` action in TUI
    
    <img width="637" height="370" alt="Screenshot 2025-09-17 at 12 41 19 AM"
    src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b1979a6e-844a-4b97-ab20-107c185aec1d"
    />
  • Add dev message upon review out (#3758)
    Proposal: We want to record a dev message like so:
    
    ```
    {
          "type": "message",
          "role": "user",
          "content": [
            {
              "type": "input_text",
              "text": "<user_action>
      <context>User initiated a review task. Here's the full review output from reviewer model. User may select one or more comments to resolve.</context>
      <action>review</action>
      <results>
      {findings_str}
      </results>
    </user_action>"
            }
          ]
        },
    ```
    
    Without showing in the chat transcript.
    
    Rough idea, but it fixes issue where the user finishes a review thread,
    and asks the parent "fix the rest of the review issues" thinking that
    the parent knows about it.
    
    ### Question: Why not a tool call?
    
    Because the agent didn't make the call, it was a human. + we haven't
    implemented sub-agents yet, and we'll need to think about the way we
    represent these human-led tool calls for the agent.