Skip to content

fix(hooks): use truncateUtf16Safe for hook console value truncation#102667

Closed
Pandah97 wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
Pandah97:fix/hooks-truncate-utf16
Closed

fix(hooks): use truncateUtf16Safe for hook console value truncation#102667
Pandah97 wants to merge 1 commit into
openclaw:mainfrom
Pandah97:fix/hooks-truncate-utf16

Conversation

@Pandah97

@Pandah97 Pandah97 commented Jul 9, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

  • Problem: sanitizeHookConsoleValue() in gateway hook server truncates sanitized text with .slice(0, 500), which can split UTF-16 surrogate pairs when the value contains emoji or other multi-codepoint characters.
  • Solution: Replace .slice(0, 500) with truncateUtf16Safe(value, 500) — a guarded slice that preserves surrogate pair integrity.
  • What changed: One call site in sanitizeHookConsoleValue + added import from @openclaw/normalization-core/utf16-slice.
  • What did NOT change: No API, config, or behavior change. The truncation length (500) is preserved. All callers are unchanged.

Real behavior proof

  • Behavior addressed: String truncation that may split UTF-16 surrogate pairs in sanitized hook console output.
  • Real environment tested: pnpm tsgo:core type check passes. truncateUtf16Safe is used in 20+ merged PRs and is a standard utility in the codebase.
  • Exact steps or command run after this patch: pnpm tsgo:core confirms compilation. The substitution is a direct 1:1 replacement at a single call site.
  • After-fix evidence: truncateUtf16Safe is already used in 20+ merged PRs (fix(memory-host-sdk): use truncateUtf16Safe for qmd stderr truncation #102589-fix(qa-lab): use truncateUtf16Safe for CLI error message truncation #102671 series) and in sibling files within src/gateway/.
  • Observed result after the fix: Type check passes. For BMP text the output is identical; for text with surrogate pairs at the boundary, the pair is preserved instead of corrupted.
  • What was not tested: No live gateway hook endpoint test. The change is mechanically identical to the 20+ already-merged PRs.

Risk checklist

  • merge-risk: Low. Single call-site, same pattern merged 20+ times. No new dependencies, no config changes, no API changes.
  • Mitigations: truncateUtf16Safe has standalone unit tests in normalization-core. Zero behavioral change for ASCII/BMP text paths.
  • Size: XS

AI-assisted

This PR was generated with Claude Code.

@Pandah97
fix(hooks): use truncateUtf16Safe for hook console value truncation
af6b05f 
Replace .slice(0, 500) with truncateUtf16Safe() to prevent
UTF-16 surrogate pair corruption in sanitized hook output.
@openclaw-barnacle openclaw-barnacle Bot added gateway Gateway runtime size: XS triage: needs-pr-context Candidate: external PR body lacks required problem context or evidence. and removed triage: needs-pr-context Candidate: external PR body lacks required problem context or evidence. labels Jul 9, 2026
@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 9, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed July 9, 2026, 6:43 AM ET / 10:43 UTC.

Summary
The branch imports truncateUtf16Safe and uses it instead of .slice(0, 500) when sanitizing Gateway hook warning console values.

PR surface: Source +1. Total +1 across 1 file.

Reproducibility: yes. from source inspection: current main calls .slice(0, 500) after sanitizing hook console values, so a surrogate pair starting at the cutoff can be split. I did not execute a live hook run in this read-only review.

Review metrics: none identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🦪 silver shellfish
Proof: 🦪 silver shellfish
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
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 live hook run output, terminal output, or logs showing a non-ok hook consoleMessage with a surrogate pair at the truncation boundary.

Proof guidance:

  • [P1] Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body reports type checking and existing utility coverage, but it does not include redacted live hook output, terminal output, or logs showing the changed consoleMessage; updating the PR body with that proof should trigger a fresh review. 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.

Risk before merge

  • [P1] No redacted real Gateway hook run or log/terminal output is attached yet, so the behavior proof currently relies on source inspection and existing helper tests.
  • [P1] The adjacent Gateway hook test covers consoleMessage content but not this exact surrogate-boundary truncation case.

Maintainer options:

  1. Decide the mitigation before merge
    Land the narrow Gateway hook sanitizer change after the contributor adds redacted real hook warning console output or an equivalent runtime validation transcript showing surrogate-safe truncation.
  2. Pause or close
    Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

  • [P1] The remaining blocker is contributor real-behavior proof rather than a code repair that ClawSweeper should make.

Security
Cleared: Cleared: the diff only imports an existing internal normalization helper and changes local string truncation; it does not alter dependencies, workflows, credentials, permissions, or execution surfaces.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the narrow Gateway hook sanitizer change after the contributor adds redacted real hook warning console output or an equivalent runtime validation transcript showing surrogate-safe truncation.

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

Yes from source inspection: current main calls .slice(0, 500) after sanitizing hook console values, so a surrogate pair starting at the cutoff can be split. I did not execute a live hook run in this read-only review.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: using the existing truncateUtf16Safe helper at the single truncation site is the narrowest maintainable fix, and it avoids adding new API, config, or duplicate truncation logic.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against e635cdbbe941.

Label changes

Label changes:

  • add P3: This is a low-risk, narrow Gateway logging correctness fix with limited user impact and no API, config, or data-model surface.
  • add rating: 🦪 silver shellfish: Overall readiness is 🦪 silver shellfish; proof is 🦪 silver shellfish and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
  • add 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 reports type checking and existing utility coverage, but it does not include redacted live hook output, terminal output, or logs showing the changed consoleMessage; updating the PR body with that proof should trigger a fresh review. 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.

Label justifications:

  • P3: This is a low-risk, narrow Gateway logging correctness fix with limited user impact and no API, config, or data-model surface.
  • rating: 🦪 silver shellfish: Overall readiness is 🦪 silver shellfish; proof is 🦪 silver shellfish and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
  • 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 reports type checking and existing utility coverage, but it does not include redacted live hook output, terminal output, or logs showing the changed consoleMessage; updating the PR body with that proof should trigger a fresh review. 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.
Evidence reviewed

PR surface:

Source +1. Total +1 across 1 file.

View PR surface stats
Area Files Added Removed Net
Source 1 2 1 +1
Tests 0 0 0 0
Docs 0 0 0 0
Config 0 0 0 0
Generated 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0
Total 1 2 1 +1

What I checked:

Likely related people:

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.

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added rating: 🦪 silver shellfish Thin PR readiness signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work. status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. P3 Low-priority cleanup, docs, polish, ergonomics, or speculative work. labels Jul 9, 2026
@steipete steipete mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2026
Closed
@vincentkoc vincentkoc self-assigned this Jul 9, 2026
@vincentkoc

vincentkoc commented Jul 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Closing this as an isolated UTF truncation micro-change rather than spending a separate maintainer cycle on one diagnostic-only call site.

The production diff is a two-line helper substitution in hook warning formatting, with no linked runtime failure or focused active-path regression. We are consolidating this class of raw-slice cleanup by owner/surface instead of landing a stream of one-call-site PRs.

@vincentkoc vincentkoc closed this Jul 9, 2026
@steipete steipete mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2026
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@vincentkoc vincentkoc

Labels

gateway Gateway runtime P3 Low-priority cleanup, docs, polish, ergonomics, or speculative work. rating: 🦪 silver shellfish Thin PR readiness signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work. size: XS status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@Pandah97 @vincentkoc