Skip to content

feat(webchat): reply-to a message with hydrated reply context#110791

Merged
fuller-stack-dev merged 5 commits into
mainfrom
feat/webchat-reply-context
Jul 18, 2026
Merged

feat(webchat): reply-to a message with hydrated reply context#110791
fuller-stack-dev merged 5 commits into
mainfrom
feat/webchat-reply-context

Conversation

@clawsweeper

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Adds reply-to support to the Control UI (webchat) chat, requested by maintainer Json in #maintainers: right-click a message → Reply sets a "Replying to …" chip above the composer (cancel with × or Escape), and the send now delivers the replied-to message to the agent as structured reply context instead of only an inline markdown quote.

This mirrors the Discord reply-context path from #90263 so agent-side handling stays channel-agnostic:

  • Frontend (ui/src/pages/chat/...): reply targets picked from persisted transcript messages now carry the transcript id (sourceMessageId). chat.send includes it as replyToId and skips the inline-quote fallback; targets without a persisted id (e.g. pending sends) keep the quote fallback. The id survives the durable offline outbox (composer-persistence).
  • Protocol (packages/gateway-protocol): ChatSendParamsSchema gains optional replyToId; regenerated Swift protocol models.
  • Gateway (src/gateway/server-methods/chat-send-reply-context.ts, wired in chat.ts): resolves the target message from session history via readSessionMessageByIdAsync and hydrates the channel-agnostic ReplyToId / ReplyToBody / ReplyToSender envelope fields in parallel with dispatch prep. Downstream this produces the same agent-facing metadata as Discord replies: reply_to_id and has_reply_context in "Conversation info", plus the untrusted "Reply target of current user message" block with sender label and body. Missing/unresolvable targets degrade to id-only, mirroring Discord's tolerance for omitted referenced messages; bodies are bounded to 2000 chars.
  • Docs: docs/web/webchat.md documents the flow.

Verification

  • node scripts/run-vitest.mjs src/gateway/server-methods/chat-send-reply-context.test.ts (new, 8 tests)
  • node scripts/run-vitest.mjs ui/src/pages/chat/chat-send.test.ts ui/src/pages/chat/composer-persistence.test.ts (262 tests, incl. new replyToId payload test)
  • node scripts/run-vitest.mjs on related suites: chat-send-request/user-turn/reply-dispatch, gateway-protocol index, chat.directive-tags, chat-send-dispatch-errors, chat.send-deleted-agent, chat-webchat-media, chat-send-command-replies, chat-thread/view/composer/pane/state (all green)
  • pnpm tsgo:core and pnpm tsgo:ui clean; oxlint on touched paths clean; pnpm protocol:gen/gen:swift/gen:kotlin regenerated; docs format check clean

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

openclaw-clawsweeper[bot] @claude
feat(webchat): reply-to a message with hydrated reply context
cd48cc3 
Control UI replies now carry the target transcript id as replyToId on
chat.send. The Gateway resolves the replied-to message from session
history and hydrates the channel-agnostic ReplyToId/ReplyToBody/
ReplyToSender envelope fields, so agents receive reply_to_id,
has_reply_context, and the untrusted reply-target block exactly like
Discord replies (mirrors #90263). Reply targets without a persisted
transcript id keep the inline-quote fallback.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <[email protected]>
@openclaw-barnacle openclaw-barnacle Bot added docs Improvements or additions to documentation app: web-ui App: web-ui gateway Gateway runtime size: M labels Jul 18, 2026
@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added rating: 🦐 gold shrimp Decent PR readiness signal, but merge confidence is limited. status: 👀 ready for maintainer look ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. P2 Normal backlog priority with limited blast radius. labels Jul 18, 2026
@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 18, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed July 18, 2026, 4:05 PM ET / 20:05 UTC.

Summary
Adds Control UI reply selection that persists a reply target id, sends it through the Gateway protocol, and hydrates agent-visible reply context from the selected session transcript message.

PR surface: Source +216, Tests +218, Docs +1, Other +6. Total +441 across 14 files.

Reproducibility: not applicable. This PR adds a new reply workflow rather than reporting broken existing behavior; focused tests describe the intended source path, but they are not after-fix runtime proof.

Review metrics: 1 noteworthy metric.

  • New durable reply contract: 1 optional Gateway parameter and 1 persisted outbox field added. The reply target now survives queued sends and crosses the public Control UI-to-Gateway boundary, so the upgrade and product contract should be deliberate.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🧂 unranked krab
Proof: 🧂 unranked krab
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Result: blocked until real behavior proof 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 after-fix proof of right-click Reply, message submission or replay, and the hydrated reply context observed by the agent.
  • Obtain explicit maintainer confirmation that the additive chat.send.replyToId and agent-visible reply-context contract should ship.

Proof guidance:

  • [P1] Needs real behavior proof before merge: The PR body reports tests and static checks but contains no redacted after-fix WebChat-to-Gateway run showing reply selection, send or replay, and hydrated agent-visible context; add a recording, terminal/live output, or runtime logs with private data redacted. 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
A redacted Web UI chat transcript can directly demonstrate the missing real behavior proof for reply selection and resulting reply-aware agent context. A maintainer can ask Mantis to capture proof by posting this exact PR comment:

@openclaw-mantis web UI chat proof: verify and capture a redacted WebChat reply-to flow showing the selected message and the resulting reply-aware agent response.

Risk before merge

  • [P1] Merging creates an additive public Gateway request field and durable queued-send metadata, so a maintainer should explicitly accept the intended Control UI and agent-prompt contract before it becomes a supported surface.
  • [P1] The PR has tests and static validation but no redacted after-fix real run demonstrating WebChat reply selection, send or offline replay, and the resulting hydrated agent-visible context.

Maintainer options:

  1. Decide the mitigation before merge
    Accept one additive replyToId contract only if a maintainer confirms the WebChat product direction and a redacted real run proves the selected transcript target reaches the agent through the shared reply-context path.
  2. Pause or close
    Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

  • [P2] A maintainer must accept the new public reply contract, and the contributor must provide real behavior proof that an automated repair lane cannot substitute.

Maintainer decision needed

  • Question: Should chat.send.replyToId become a supported Gateway/Control UI capability that exposes the selected WebChat transcript message as agent reply context?
  • Rationale: This is a new user-visible Control UI workflow and additive Gateway protocol surface; tests establish the intended mechanics, but maintainer intent is needed to accept the permanent public contract and agent-visible semantics.
  • Likely owner: fuller-stack-dev — They introduced the merged shared reply-context model and have recently maintained the corresponding Gateway and WebChat integration path.
  • Options:
    • Accept the shared reply contract (recommended): Approve the additive WebChat reply workflow after real behavior proof confirms selection, send or replay, and hydrated agent context.
    • Defer the protocol surface: Keep the existing inline-quote behavior until a maintainer-sponsored design specifies the desired WebChat reply contract.

Security
Cleared: No concrete security or supply-chain regression is evident in the reviewed patch: it adds no dependency, privilege, or external execution path and keeps hydrated reply text on the existing untrusted reply-context route.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Accept one additive replyToId contract only if a maintainer confirms the WebChat product direction and a redacted real run proves the selected transcript target reaches the agent through the shared reply-context path.

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

Not applicable: this PR adds a new reply workflow rather than reporting broken existing behavior; focused tests describe the intended source path, but they are not after-fix runtime proof.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear pending maintainer direction: reusing the established channel-agnostic reply envelope is the narrowest implementation path, but the new public Gateway and agent-context contract still needs explicit acceptance.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 1626a1696c60.

Label changes

Label justifications:

  • P2: This is a bounded Control UI workflow improvement with a new protocol surface, not an urgent regression or release-blocking failure.
  • rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🧂 unranked krab 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 tests and static checks but contains no redacted after-fix WebChat-to-Gateway run showing reply selection, send or replay, and hydrated agent-visible context; add a recording, terminal/live output, or runtime logs with private data redacted. 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 +216, Tests +218, Docs +1, Other +6. Total +441 across 14 files.

View PR surface stats
Area Files Added Removed Net
Source 10 222 6 +216
Tests 2 218 0 +218
Docs 1 1 0 +1
Config 0 0 0 0
Generated 0 0 0 0
Other 1 6 0 +6
Total 14 447 6 +441

What I checked:

  • Control UI request path: The branch carries a persisted transcript message id through the queued send and includes it as optional replyToId on chat.send, retaining the inline-quote path when no persisted target exists. (ui/src/pages/chat/chat-send.ts:283, 93e4837c24b1)
  • Gateway hydration boundary: The Gateway resolves the reply target from the session transcript and applies only channel-agnostic ReplyToId, ReplyToBody, and ReplyToSender fields before inbound dispatch. (src/gateway/server-methods/chat-send-reply-context.ts:1, 93e4837c24b1)
  • Existing shared reply-context precedent: The merged Discord implementation established the shared reply-context envelope this PR reuses; this PR is a WebChat integration rather than a competing agent-facing reply model. (src/gateway/server-methods/chat.ts:1203, c84e52192063)
  • Automated validation status: The supplied check data shows focused boundary, protocol, prompt, security, and several QA checks succeeded, while broader build, UI, lint, and compact lanes were still running at review time; this does not replace real behavior proof. (93e4837c24b1)

Likely related people:

  • fuller-stack-dev: Authored the merged Discord reply-context implementation that this PR explicitly mirrors and authored the follow-up commits refining this branch's dispatch ordering and reply-body visibility behavior. (role: introduced and recently maintained the shared reply-context behavior; confidence: high; commits: c84e52192063, 15bb513b65b2, 105dd699212a; files: src/gateway/server-methods/chat.ts, src/gateway/server-methods/chat-send-reply-context.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 (4 earlier review cycles)
  • reviewed 2026-07-18T16:10:07.355Z sha cd48cc3 :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none
  • reviewed 2026-07-18T17:28:00.903Z sha 15bb513 :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none
  • reviewed 2026-07-18T17:36:47.635Z sha d89b96a :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none
  • reviewed 2026-07-18T19:32:53.557Z sha 105dd69 :: needs maintainer review before merge. :: none

@fuller-stack-dev fuller-stack-dev self-assigned this Jul 18, 2026
@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. and removed rating: 🦐 gold shrimp Decent PR readiness signal, but merge confidence is limited. status: 👀 ready for maintainer look ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. labels Jul 18, 2026
@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added rating: 🧂 unranked krab Not merge-ready due to missing proof or serious correctness/safety concerns. and removed rating: 🦪 silver shellfish Thin PR readiness signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work. labels Jul 18, 2026
@fuller-stack-dev
fuller-stack-dev merged commit b88646c into main Jul 18, 2026
117 checks passed
@fuller-stack-dev
fuller-stack-dev deleted the feat/webchat-reply-context branch July 18, 2026 21:58
@fuller-stack-dev

fuller-stack-dev commented Jul 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Merged via squash.

@github-actions github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 18, 2026
Open
github-actions Bot pushed a commit to Desicool/openclaw that referenced this pull request Jul 19, 2026
@clawsweeper openclaw-clawsweeper[bot]
@claude @fuller-stack-dev
feat(webchat): reply-to a message with hydrated reply context (opencl…
a8cdd2b 
…aw#110791)

* feat(webchat): reply-to a message with hydrated reply context

Control UI replies now carry the target transcript id as replyToId on
chat.send. The Gateway resolves the replied-to message from session
history and hydrates the channel-agnostic ReplyToId/ReplyToBody/
ReplyToSender envelope fields, so agents receive reply_to_id,
has_reply_context, and the untrusted reply-target block exactly like
Discord replies (mirrors openclaw#90263). Reply targets without a persisted
transcript id keep the inline-quote fallback.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <[email protected]>

* fix(webchat): keep non-reply chat.send dispatch ordering and satisfy CI gates

* docs(webchat): match reply-context doc to webchat conversation-info policy

* fix(webchat): hydrate reply bodies from display-visible content only

---------

Co-authored-by: openclaw-clawsweeper[bot] <openclaw-clawsweeper[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: fuller-stack-dev <[email protected]>
This was referenced Jul 19, 2026
Closed
Open
@NowHeaven NowHeaven mentioned this pull request Jul 21, 2026
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

@fuller-stack-dev fuller-stack-dev

Labels

app: web-ui App: web-ui docs Improvements or additions to documentation gateway Gateway runtime P2 Normal backlog priority with limited blast radius. rating: 🧂 unranked krab Not merge-ready due to missing proof or serious correctness/safety concerns. size: M 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.

1 participant

@fuller-stack-dev