Repository navigation
Conversation
|
@codex review |
1 similar comment
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Swish! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Keep it up! Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
![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: 6ed98e21e3
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".
|
Fixed the Windows-specific test assertion. Focused |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. You're on a roll. Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Security Review
Here are some automated security review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 586630fc34
Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.
ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub
This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
- You comment "@codex security review"
- A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 591da42fe6
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".
|
@codex review |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
seratch
left a comment
seratch
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the follow-up. The runtime direction now looks good: approval callbacks and execution use the same canonical paths, and the full operation batch is validated before any filesystem mutation.
Before merging, please run the repository formatter and push the resulting change. The current lint job fails during "Verify formatting", and ruff format --check reproduces the failure in src/agents/sandbox/capabilities/tools/apply_patch_tool.py on the _parse_and_normalize_input list comprehension. After that, please let the remaining CI checks complete. I do not have further runtime changes to request from this review.
|
@codex address that feedback |
|
Note To use Codex here, create an environment for this repo. |
|
Applied the requested formatter-only change to |
Summary
Keep
apply_patchpath handling independent of the SDK host operating system and ensure approval policy sees the same canonical paths that execution uses.Raw model-provided string paths now go directly through the existing
WorkspacePathPolicyinstead of first being converted with host-nativepathlib.Path. This normalizes backslashes consistently to the sandbox's POSIX path semantics while preserving root/escape validation.Before
needs_approvalis evaluated, bothpathandmove_toare canonicalized with the same workspace policy. The canonical operation is also passed into execution, preventing path-sensitive approval rules from being bypassed with alternate separators.Test plan
Regression coverage includes:
move_tonormalizationpathmove_toThe focused path tests, lint, formatting, typecheck, and full repository verification passed before the approval-path follow-up. The new approval regression coverage is pushed and awaiting the repository CI rerun.
No public API shape changes.