fix(telegram): keep DM topic auto-rename user message UTF-16 safe by hugenshen · Pull Request #101781 · openclaw/openclaw

hugenshen · 2026-07-07T16:03:37Z

What Problem This Solves

Telegram DM-topic auto-labeling caps the first user message at 500 UTF-16 code units before sending it to the label model. A raw slice(0, 500) can stop after the high surrogate of an astral character and make OpenClaw pass malformed text into topic-label generation.

Why This Change Was Made

The Telegram-owned boundary now uses the existing truncateUtf16Safe helper from openclaw/plugin-sdk/text-utility-runtime. The 500-unit cap, raw-body preference, first-turn condition, configuration resolution, fire-and-forget behavior, and Telegram topic edit remain unchanged.

User Impact

A long first message in a Telegram DM topic no longer acquires a surrogate half when an emoji crosses the auto-label input boundary. Short messages and messages not crossing an astral-character boundary remain unchanged.

Evidence

The production dispatchTelegramMessage regression places an emoji's high surrogate exactly at code-unit index 499 and asserts that generateTopicLabel receives the exact 499-character prefix.
Blacksmith Testbox run 28996475282: the full bot-message-dispatch.test.ts shard passed, 172/172.
git diff --check: passed.
Fresh structured autoreview: clean, no accepted/actionable findings; confidence 0.99.

Live proof status

The required real-user Telegram harness was attempted. It stopped before leasing a credential or creating a Crabbox because the configured Convex burner credential file was absent and no environment override was available. The current harness also exercises an ordinary burner user/group, not a Telegram Business DM-topic update, so it cannot directly force this owner branch. No personal account was used and no live-behavior claim is made.

clawsweeper · 2026-07-07T16:16:26Z

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed July 9, 2026, 1:41 AM ET / 05:41 UTC.

Summary
The PR replaces the Telegram DM-topic auto-label raw 500-code-unit slice with truncateUtf16Safe and adds a surrogate-boundary dispatch regression test.

PR surface: Source +1, Tests +28. Total +29 across 2 files.

Reproducibility: yes. for source-level reproduction: current main raw-slices first-turn DM-topic label input at 500 UTF-16 code units, so a boundary emoji can leave a dangling surrogate. I did not establish a live Telegram topic reproduction in this read-only review.

Review metrics: none identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🦪 silver shellfish
Proof: 🦪 silver shellfish
Patch quality: 🦞 diamond lobster
Result: blocked until real behavior proof from a real setup is added.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Rank-up moves:

[P1] Add redacted Telegram Desktop, Bot API, terminal/live output, or runtime logs showing a first DM-topic emoji-boundary auto-rename produces a valid title.
If that branch cannot be forced by the current harness, ask a maintainer to record an explicit proof override rationale after reviewing the Testbox regression.

Proof guidance:

[P1] Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body cites a Testbox regression run and explains that live Telegram proof was attempted but could not exercise the DM-topic owner branch, so after-fix real behavior proof is still missing. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.

Mantis proof suggestion
Mantis can try to capture the missing visible Telegram Desktop topic rename proof without editing code or changing the PR. A maintainer can ask Mantis to capture proof by posting this exact PR comment:

@openclaw-mantis telegram desktop proof: reproduce a first DM topic message with an emoji crossing the 500 UTF-16 code-unit boundary and capture that auto-topic rename succeeds with a valid title.

Risk before merge

[P1] Real Telegram after-fix proof is still missing for a visible DM-topic auto-rename path; the PR body says the available live harness could not directly exercise this owner branch.

Maintainer options:

Decide the mitigation before merge
Land the helper replacement after redacted live Telegram proof, equivalent runtime logs, or an explicit maintainer proof override confirms the first-turn emoji-boundary DM-topic rename succeeds.
Pause or close
Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

[P1] The patch does not need an automated code repair; the remaining blocker is proof sufficiency for a visible Telegram topic path.

Maintainer decision needed

Question: Should this Telegram topic fix wait for live or equivalent DM-topic proof, or should a maintainer explicitly override the proof gate based on the focused Testbox regression?
Rationale: The code path and test are strong, but the scoped Telegram policy requires real topic proof and the PR body says the attempted live harness cannot directly force this branch.
Likely owner: steipete — steipete authored the current head’s test-tightening commit and is also connected to the shared UTF-16 truncation helper pattern.
Options:
- Require or supply real Telegram proof (recommended): Keep the PR open until redacted Telegram Desktop, Bot API output, runtime logs, or equivalent live proof covers the DM-topic auto-rename branch.
- Apply proof override: A maintainer may explicitly override the proof gate if they accept the focused Testbox regression as enough for this narrow unreachable-in-harness branch.

Security
Cleared: The diff only changes a Telegram string truncation call site and adds a focused test, with no dependency, workflow, permission, secret, or code-execution surface.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the helper replacement after redacted live Telegram proof, equivalent runtime logs, or an explicit maintainer proof override confirms the first-turn emoji-boundary DM-topic rename succeeds.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Yes for source-level reproduction: current main raw-slices first-turn DM-topic label input at 500 UTF-16 code units, so a boundary emoji can leave a dangling surrogate. I did not establish a live Telegram topic reproduction in this read-only review.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes, pending proof. Reusing the shared truncateUtf16Safe helper at the Telegram-owned truncation point preserves the RawBody preference, first-turn condition, and 500-unit cap while fixing the malformed UTF-16 boundary.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against cc961001f3c5.

Label changes

Label justifications:

P2: This is a narrow Telegram topic-label text-correctness bugfix with source-level reproduction and limited runtime blast radius.
rating: 🦪 silver shellfish: Overall readiness is 🦪 silver shellfish; proof is 🦪 silver shellfish and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.
status: 📣 needs proof: The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body cites a Testbox regression run and explains that live Telegram proof was attempted but could not exercise the DM-topic owner branch, so after-fix real behavior proof is still missing. After adding proof, update the PR body; ClawSweeper should re-review automatically. If it does not, the PR author or someone with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review.
mantis: telegram-visible-proof: Mantis should capture Telegram visible proof. The PR changes visible Telegram DM-topic auto-renaming and can be demonstrated in a short Telegram Desktop or live bot proof if the DM-topic branch can be exercised.

Evidence reviewed

PR surface:

Source +1, Tests +28. Total +29 across 2 files.

View PR surface stats

Area	Files	Added	Removed	Net
Source	1	2	1	+1
Tests	1	28	0	+28
Docs	0	0	0	0
Config	0	0	0	0
Generated	0	0	0	0
Other	0	0	0	0
Total	2	30	1	+29

What I checked:

Current main behavior: Current main still builds first-turn DM-topic auto-label input with (ctxPayload.RawBody ?? ctxPayload.Body ?? "").slice(0, 500), which can split a surrogate pair before generateTopicLabel. (extensions/telegram/src/bot-message-dispatch.ts:3077, cc961001f3c5)
Patch target: The PR head changes only that production expression to truncateUtf16Safe(ctxPayload.RawBody ?? ctxPayload.Body ?? "", 500) and imports the helper from the plugin SDK surface. (extensions/telegram/src/bot-message-dispatch.ts:3078, ccaaee37d8d8)
Regression coverage: The PR adds a dispatch test with 499 ASCII code units plus an emoji and asserts generateTopicLabel receives the exact safe prefix, exercising the DM-topic first-turn branch. (extensions/telegram/src/bot-message-dispatch.test.ts:6374, ccaaee37d8d8)
Helper contract: truncateUtf16Safe floors the limit and delegates to sliceUtf16Safe, whose end-boundary logic backs off when a slice would leave a dangling high surrogate. (packages/normalization-core/src/utf16-slice.ts:44, cc961001f3c5)
Plugin SDK boundary: openclaw/plugin-sdk/text-utility-runtime exports truncateUtf16Safe, so the Telegram plugin uses the allowed SDK-facing helper rather than a core-internal import. (src/plugin-sdk/text-utility-runtime.ts:21, cc961001f3c5)
Scoped proof rule: The Telegram guide requires real Telegram proof for behavior PRs touching topics and prefers a live Telegram probe over synthetic-only validation. (extensions/telegram/AGENTS.md:110, cc961001f3c5)

Likely related people:

Lukavyi: Authored the Telegram DM-topic auto-rename feature and the follow-up that switched label input to RawBody with the 500-code-unit truncation. (role: introduced behavior; confidence: high; commits: 25fc6e201235, 72f160df65e0, 466debb75c0b; files: extensions/telegram/src/bot-message-dispatch.ts, src/auto-reply/reply/auto-topic-label.ts, src/auto-reply/reply/auto-topic-label-config.ts)
obviyus: Committed the effective DM auto-topic config follow-up and was the committer on the pre-squash auto-topic label commits. (role: feature follow-up contributor; confidence: high; commits: 25fc6e201235, 72f160df65e0, 67e2332c2fc2; files: extensions/telegram/src/bot-message-dispatch.ts, extensions/telegram/src/bot-message-context.ts, src/auto-reply/reply/auto-topic-label.ts)
steipete: Authored the original shared invalid-UTF-16 truncation fix pattern and authored the latest PR test-tightening commit. (role: adjacent helper contributor; confidence: medium; commits: 63f5fa47deb6, ccaaee37d8d8; files: src/utils.ts, packages/normalization-core/src/utf16-slice.ts, extensions/telegram/src/bot-message-dispatch.test.ts)
vincentkoc: Recent Telegram dispatch and plugin-SDK localization work touched the same dispatch file and helper surfaces. (role: recent area contributor; confidence: medium; commits: e311943700ae, fa2379dbc883; files: extensions/telegram/src/bot-message-dispatch.ts, src/plugin-sdk/text-utility-runtime.ts)

What the crustacean ranks mean

🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

How this review workflow works

ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

Review history (7 earlier review cycles)

reviewed 2026-07-07T16:20:06.757Z sha 8242fbf :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none
reviewed 2026-07-08T02:23:26.695Z sha 96c56bd :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none
reviewed 2026-07-08T02:35:42.262Z sha 96c56bd :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none
reviewed 2026-07-08T03:27:04.397Z sha 96c56bd :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none
reviewed 2026-07-08T03:37:57.895Z sha 96c56bd :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none
reviewed 2026-07-08T03:52:35.651Z sha 96c56bd :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none
reviewed 2026-07-08T04:54:58.830Z sha f0649f7 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none

hugenshen · 2026-07-08T02:18:55Z

Squashed to a single commit and rebased on latest main. Behavior proof is covered by colocated regression tests (no scripts/proof-*.mjs).

Test run

pnpm test extensions/telegram/src/bot-message-dispatch.test.ts -t 'truncates DM topic auto-rename' — 1 passed

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-07-08T02:18:58Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.

Add surrogate-boundary regression for auto-topic label input truncation. Co-authored-by: Cursor <[email protected]>

clawsweeper · 2026-07-09T05:42:25Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.

steipete · 2026-07-09T05:44:07Z

Land-ready review completed at exact head ccaaee37d8d80ccc90eba4bce7cf146d18ad753c.

What I verified:

The production path now uses the shared plugin-SDK truncateUtf16Safe helper only at the existing 500-code-unit DM-topic label-input boundary. First-turn gating, configuration resolution, raw-body preference, label generation, and Telegram topic editing are unchanged.
The regression places an emoji across the boundary and asserts the exact 499-character model input, so it proves the changed owner path rather than only testing the helper.
Blacksmith Testbox run 28996475282: full extensions/telegram/src/bot-message-dispatch.test.ts, 172/172 passed.
Exact-head CI run 28996601808: successful.
git diff --check: passed.
Fresh structured autoreview: clean; no accepted/actionable findings; confidence 0.99.
OPENCLAW_TESTBOX=1 scripts/pr prepare-run 101781: hosted exact-head gates passed.

Live-proof gap: I attempted the repository's real-user Telegram Crabbox harness. It stopped before leasing credentials or creating a box because the configured Convex burner credential file is absent. The current harness also creates an ordinary burner user/group and cannot force the Telegram Business DM-topic update branch. No personal account was used, and I am not claiming live behavior proof.

steipete · 2026-07-09T05:44:24Z

Merged via squash.

Prepared head SHA: ccaaee37d8d80ccc90eba4bce7cf146d18ad753c
Landed commit: a3f00d32c914ece43c0885d8c7eb26cc78ab612e

…enclaw#101781) * fix(telegram): keep DM topic auto-rename user message UTF-16 safe Add surrogate-boundary regression for auto-topic label input truncation. Co-authored-by: Cursor <[email protected]> * test(telegram): tighten topic label boundary proof --------- Co-authored-by: NIO <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Cursor <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Peter Steinberger <[email protected]>

openclaw-barnacle Bot added channel: telegram Channel integration: telegram size: XS labels Jul 7, 2026

clawsweeper Bot had a problem deploying to qa-live-shared July 7, 2026 16:23 Failure

hugenshen mentioned this pull request Jul 7, 2026

fix(zalo): keep outbound text and caption truncation UTF-16 safe #101818

Closed

hugenshen force-pushed the fix/telegram-utf16-dm-topic-rename branch from 8242fbf to 96c56bd Compare July 8, 2026 02:14

fix(telegram): keep DM topic auto-rename user message UTF-16 safe

f0649f7

Add surrogate-boundary regression for auto-topic label input truncation. Co-authored-by: Cursor <[email protected]>

hugenshen force-pushed the fix/telegram-utf16-dm-topic-rename branch from 96c56bd to f0649f7 Compare July 8, 2026 04:38

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2026

🦞 OpenClaw 生态日报 2026-07-08 junlinzhao327-oss/big_model_radar#2

Open

test(telegram): tighten topic label boundary proof

ccaaee3

steipete merged commit a3f00d3 into openclaw:main Jul 9, 2026
98 checks passed

clawsweeper Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2026

fix(telegram): attribute the bot's own chat-window messages as self #102507

Merged

This was referenced Jul 9, 2026

fix(text): keep five src-side text truncations UTF-16 safe #102630

Closed

fix(chat,cli): keep session snippet and CLI output digest truncation UTF-16 safe #102747

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

fix(telegram): keep DM topic auto-rename user message UTF-16 safe#101781

fix(telegram): keep DM topic auto-rename user message UTF-16 safe#101781
steipete merged 2 commits into
openclaw:mainfrom
hugenshen:fix/telegram-utf16-dm-topic-rename

hugenshen commented Jul 7, 2026 •

edited by steipete

Loading

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

hugenshen commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

steipete commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

steipete commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

hugenshen commented Jul 7, 2026 • edited by steipete Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What Problem This Solves

Why This Change Was Made

User Impact

Evidence

Live proof status

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 7, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

hugenshen commented Jul 8, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

steipete commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

steipete commented Jul 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

hugenshen commented Jul 7, 2026 •

edited by steipete

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 7, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading