fix(exec): clarify node approval recovery by deepujain · Pull Request #91280 · openclaw/openclaw

deepujain · 2026-06-08T00:20:10Z

What Problem This Solves

Fixes an issue where operators running an exec command on a node could receive only exec denied: approval required (approval UI not available) when no interactive approval route was available. The message did not tell them where to review the pending request or how to inspect the affected node's exec policy.

Why This Change Was Made

The shared exec approval-unavailable renderer now owns node-aware recovery guidance, so both the initial tool result and deterministic rerender use the same message. It distinguishes the two supported surfaces:

print the Control UI URL with openclaw dashboard --no-open, open it in a browser, then use the approval inbox
inspect the node's effective exec policy with openclaw approvals get --node <id|name|ip> or the resolved node id when available

The CLI command is intentionally described as policy inspection. Pending approval list/resolve commands proposed in #83440 are not on current main and are not claimed here.

User Impact

Operators who hit the current host=node approval-unavailable path get truthful Control UI access steps plus a separately labeled policy diagnostic. The change preserves fail-closed approval behavior and does not alter approval authority, decisions, or policy enforcement.

Evidence

Validation on Blacksmith Testbox lease tbx_01kx70bgej5kn6b8vsz00z2cp2:

182 focused tests passed across src/infra/exec-approval-reply.test.ts, src/agents/bash-tools.exec-host-shared.test.ts, and src/agents/embedded-agent-subscribe.handlers.tools.test.ts.
corepack pnpm check:changed passed the core, core-tests, and docs lanes, including typecheck, lint, guards, and zero runtime import cycles.
Focused oxfmt and git diff --check passed.
Fresh autoreview reported no accepted or actionable findings.

Focused tests prove that:

buildExecApprovalUnavailableReplyPayload({ reason: "no-approval-route", host: "node", nodeId: "mac-1" }) identifies openclaw dashboard --no-open as a Control UI URL printer, tells the operator to open that URL and use the approval inbox, and labels openclaw approvals get --node mac-1 as effective-policy inspection.
host and node metadata pass from the exec-host result through the deterministic tool-result rerender boundary.

Live clawmac approval-unavailable/recovery proof was not collected because that machine was reserved for an unrelated exact-head signed restart cycle during this repair. This patch changes only recovery copy and metadata propagation; the focused tests cover each runtime boundary it touches.

AI-assisted maintainer repair: Codex corrected the command contract, rebased the contributor branch, expanded focused coverage, and preserved Deepak Jain's commit credit and PR attribution. Release-note context remains in this body per the repository's normal-PR policy.

deepujain · 2026-06-08T00:20:17Z

Small CLI wording patch is up.

What changed:

the host=node approval-required error now points users to openclaw dashboard --no-open
it also suggests openclaw exec-approvals list for pending requests

Validation:

git diff --check

This keeps the approval flow untouched and just makes the dead-end error message actionable.

clawsweeper · 2026-06-08T00:22:14Z

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed July 10, 2026, 6:34 PM ET / 22:34 UTC.

Summary
The PR adds Control UI handoff and effective-policy inspection guidance to shared node exec approval-unavailable replies and preserves host/node metadata through deterministic rerendering.

PR surface: Source +30, Tests +59. Total +89 across 6 files.

Reproducibility: yes. from source: current main's shared no-approval-route reply lacks concrete node recovery steps, and exact-head tests exercise the initial and deterministic rendering boundaries. This read-only review did not run a live node failure.

Review metrics: none identified.

Stored data model
Persistent data-model change detected: vector/embedding metadata: src/agents/bash-tools.exec-host-shared.test.ts. Confirm migration or upgrade compatibility proof before merge.

Root-cause cluster
Relationship: fixed_by_candidate
Canonical: #53250
Summary: This PR is the active current-architecture fix candidate for the linked approval-recovery UX issue; the related pull requests do not safely replace it.

Members:

canonical: [UX] Exec approval timeout message should include Control UI link and setup hints #53250 - The PR uses closing syntax and implements the issue's central request for actionable recovery guidance.
superseded: fix(exec): add concrete approval recovery hints #53347 - The earlier similar PR closed unmerged against an older implementation shape and is not a viable canonical landing path.
adjacent_distinct: feat(cli): resolve pending exec approvals #83440 - It proposes new pending approval list and resolution commands, while this PR deliberately uses only currently supported UI access and policy-inspection surfaces.

Proposal only: this assessment does not dispatch repair, suppress jobs, mutate sibling items, close, or merge anything.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🧂 unranked krab
Proof: 🧂 unranked krab
Patch quality: 🦞 diamond lobster
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:

Provide redacted live node approval-unavailable evidence showing the exact recovery text, printed Control UI URL, and approval-inbox access.
Refresh the exact head onto current main and confirm the focused approval-renderer checks remain green.

Proof guidance:

[P1] Needs real behavior proof before merge: No after-fix live node recovery evidence is present. Add a redacted transcript, terminal output, logs, or recording showing the new message and Control UI handoff; update the PR body to trigger re-review, or ask a maintainer to comment @clawsweeper re-review if it does not trigger automatically.

Risk before merge

[P1] No redacted after-fix node approval-unavailable run demonstrates that the operator sees the new guidance and can reach the intended Control UI approval inbox.
[P1] The PR head is behind current main and needs an exact integration refresh before landing, although current main still lacks the requested behavior and no sampled current-main commit overlaps these changed approval files.

Maintainer options:

Decide the mitigation before merge
Keep one canonical shared unavailable-reply renderer that consumes prepared host/node facts and emits truthful, separately labeled UI-access and policy-diagnostic guidance, with live recovery evidence or an explicit proof override before release.
Pause or close
Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

[P1] No mechanical code defect remains; maintainers must decide whether to require live proof or explicitly override that gate, then refresh the branch against current main.

Maintainer decision needed

Question: Should this external PR be allowed to merge without a live node approval-unavailable recovery run?
Rationale: Source, focused tests, history, and documented CLI contracts support the implementation, but repository policy treats after-fix real behavior proof as a merge gate and the current protected label reserves any exception for a maintainer.
Likely owner: steipete — They introduced and recently repaired the affected shared renderer and placed the PR under protected human review.
Options:
- Require live recovery proof (recommended): Keep the PR open until a redacted node run shows the new message, printed Control UI URL, and successful approval-inbox handoff.
- Record a proof override: Accept the focused Testbox boundary coverage because the patch is limited to recovery copy and propagation of already-known metadata.

Security
Cleared: The patch only changes typed internal metadata, local recovery text, and tests; it does not alter authorization, approval decisions, credentials, permissions, dependencies, or supply-chain execution.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Keep one canonical shared unavailable-reply renderer that consumes prepared host/node facts and emits truthful, separately labeled UI-access and policy-diagnostic guidance, with live recovery evidence or an explicit proof override before release.

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

Yes from source: current main's shared no-approval-route reply lacks concrete node recovery steps, and exact-head tests exercise the initial and deterministic rendering boundaries. This read-only review did not run a live node failure.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes: extending the established shared renderer with already-prepared host/node facts is the narrowest maintainable solution and avoids competing CLI-specific or projection-specific recovery wording.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 9dee9ebffa58.

Label changes

Label justifications:

P3: This is a narrow operator-recovery UX improvement with limited blast radius and no change to approval authority, configuration, defaults, or persisted state.
rating: 🧂 unranked krab: Overall readiness is 🧂 unranked krab; proof is 🧂 unranked krab and patch quality is 🦞 diamond lobster.

Evidence reviewed

PR surface:

Source +30, Tests +59. Total +89 across 6 files.

View PR surface stats

Area	Files	Added	Removed	Net
Source	3	35	5	+30
Tests	3	61	2	+59
Docs	0	0	0	0
Config	0	0	0	0
Generated	0	0	0	0
Other	0	0	0	0
Total	6	96	7	+89

What I checked:

Current main still lacks the requested guidance: The generic approval-unavailable fallback on current main neither receives node host/id metadata nor explains the dashboard URL and node policy-inspection recovery paths. (src/infra/exec-approval-reply.ts:83, 9dee9ebffa58)
Exact-head renderer uses one canonical recovery path: The PR extends the existing shared unavailable-reply parameters and fallback builder, describing dashboard URL printing and node policy inspection as separate operations. (src/infra/exec-approval-reply.ts:66, 08f442558a84)
Prepared metadata reaches both rendering boundaries: The initial tool result includes host and nodeId, and the deterministic tool-result projection reads and forwards those facts into the same shared renderer. (src/agents/embedded-agent-subscribe.handlers.tools.ts:758, 08f442558a84)
Focused assertions cover wording and propagation: Exact-head tests distinguish approval-inbox access from policy inspection, reject the unsupported pending-command wording, and verify node metadata in initial and deterministic outputs. (src/infra/exec-approval-reply.test.ts:119, 08f442558a84)
Dashboard CLI contract matches the copy: The documented dashboard --no-open behavior is to print the Control UI URL without launching a browser. Public docs: docs/cli/dashboard.md. (docs/cli/dashboard.md:15, 9dee9ebffa58)
Approvals CLI contract matches the copy: The documented node-targeted approvals get command reports requested policy, host policy sources, and the effective result; it is not a pending-approval inbox or resolution command. Public docs: docs/tools/exec-approvals.md. (docs/tools/exec-approvals.md:56, 9dee9ebffa58)

Likely related people:

steipete: Current-main blame traces the shared renderer to their earlier work, and they authored the exact-head repair commits that corrected the command semantics and dashboard URL handoff. (role: feature introducer and recent area contributor; confidence: high; commits: 188535b097ef, 4b8d1f3719f8, 08f442558a84; files: src/infra/exec-approval-reply.ts, src/agents/bash-tools.exec-host-shared.ts, src/agents/embedded-agent-subscribe.handlers.tools.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 (5 earlier review cycles)

reviewed 2026-07-10T14:07:44.363Z sha 6dffc69 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Do not call the policy report an approval inbox
reviewed 2026-07-10T15:31:46.582Z sha 6dffc69 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Describe approvals get as policy inspection, not an inbox
reviewed 2026-07-10T22:08:40.420Z sha 4b8d1f3 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: [P2] Describe dashboard --no-open as printing the inbox URL
reviewed 2026-07-10T22:20:33.843Z sha 08f4425 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none
reviewed 2026-07-10T22:27:17.480Z sha 08f4425 :: needs real behavior proof before merge. :: none

deepujain · 2026-06-08T01:00:37Z

Follow-up pushed on the existing branch. I replaced the bad openclaw exec-approvals list hint with openclaw approvals get --node <node> guidance and dropped the unrelated .pre-commit-config.yaml hunk from this PR. Validation: git diff --check; targeted register.invoke.nodes-run-approval-timeout vitest passed locally. Commit: 5edb88f07b.

deepujain · 2026-06-09T04:20:46Z

Pushed follow-up commit 39f13a411f to strengthen the proof for the approval recovery guidance.

What changed:

Kept the user-facing recovery text on the current nodes run approval-unavailable path.
Extracted the guidance string into a tiny helper so it is directly testable.
Added a focused regression assertion that the message points to openclaw dashboard --no-open and openclaw approvals get --node <node>, and does not mention the unsupported exec-approvals list command.
Cleaned the same touched file for the current lint rules; the commit hook passed.

Validation:

./node_modules/.bin/vitest run src/cli/nodes-cli/register.invoke.nodes-run-approval-timeout.test.ts

deepujain · 2026-06-09T04:21:52Z

@clawsweeper re-review

Current head is now 39f13a411f. Follow-up added focused regression proof for the approval-unavailable guidance and verifies the message uses the supported openclaw approvals get --node <node> command rather than the unsupported exec-approvals list wording.

clawsweeper · 2026-06-09T04:21:54Z

🦞🧹
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.

Re-review progress:

State: Complete
Detail: The targeted re-review finished, the durable review comment was updated, and the synced verdict was routed.
Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/27183677990
Updated: 2026-06-09T04:29:51.404Z

deepujain · 2026-06-14T16:17:30Z

Updated the PR body so it no longer mentions the unsupported openclaw exec-approvals list command. The description now points to openclaw approvals get --node <node> and includes the focused approval-guidance Vitest command from the current head.

deepujain · 2026-06-26T15:06:26Z

Rebased this PR onto current main and replaced the stale node-CLI-only guidance with the shared exec approval unavailable renderer used by the current host=node path. The new head carries host/node metadata into that renderer and adds focused coverage for the node recovery command. Local validation: node scripts/run-vitest.mjs src/infra/exec-approval-reply.test.ts src/agents/bash-tools.exec-host-shared.test.ts src/agents/embedded-agent-subscribe.handlers.tools.test.ts, plus git diff --check.

steipete · 2026-07-10T12:54:08Z

Reopening this PR: ClawSweeper's automatic close was incorrect.

The branch is mergeable (currently UNSTABLE, not unmergeable), and the contributor rebased and posted fresh validation only about 4.5 hours before the close. The automation incorrectly treated that activity as absent. We are tightening the auto-close guard so recent author follow-up blocks this close reason.

Sorry, @deepujain.

steipete · 2026-07-10T13:32:51Z

ClawSweeper re-closed this PR from a queued stale apply after the correction above. I have reopened it again and placed it under a current-main protected label while the guard fix lands. No contributor action is required.

Co-authored-by: Deepak Jain <[email protected]>

steipete · 2026-07-10T22:04:09Z

@clawsweeper re-review

Maintainer repair is now on exact head 4b8d1f3719f8d0d0273930090a08a9fe15e2ec47. The shared renderer now identifies the dashboard as the approval inbox and describes openclaw approvals get --node only as effective-policy inspection. Focused tests cover metadata propagation and deterministic rerendering; the PR body has the current authored problem/evidence sections and documents the live-proof gap.

clawsweeper · 2026-07-10T22:04:12Z

🦞🧹
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 · 2026-07-10T22:11:29Z

@clawsweeper re-review

Exact head is now 3da838b6cf392f2bfb1fc82d064091bb828b233c. Runtime and test files are unchanged from the reviewed repair; the only follow-up removes the PR-owned CHANGELOG.md entry required by the repository's native normal-PR gate. Release-note context and contributor attribution remain in the PR body, and exact-head CI is rerunning.

clawsweeper · 2026-07-10T22:11:32Z

🦞🧹
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.

Re-review progress:

State: Complete
Detail: The targeted re-review published an exact durable review comment and queued an executing target-wide serialized router scan.
Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29127110457
Updated: 2026-07-10T22:22:01.947Z

steipete · 2026-07-10T22:15:39Z

@clawsweeper re-review

Exact head 08f442558a84c62f38378249ebc10b4fe4f68fda resolves the review's remaining P2: dashboard --no-open is now described as printing the Control UI URL, followed by explicit browser/inbox steps. All three boundary assertions were updated; Blacksmith Testbox reran 182 focused tests successfully, and fresh autoreview reported no accepted or actionable findings.

clawsweeper · 2026-07-10T22:15:42Z

🦞🧹
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.

Re-review progress:

State: Complete
Detail: The targeted re-review published an exact durable review comment and queued an executing target-wide serialized router scan.
Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29127833465
Updated: 2026-07-10T22:35:09.241Z

steipete · 2026-07-11T03:40:57Z

Merged via squash.

Prepared head SHA: 08f442558a84c62f38378249ebc10b4fe4f68fda
Landed commit: 612e1b94b7f3e39d2aae5b65446cc5f7011fcfd6

* fix(exec): clarify node approval recovery Co-authored-by: Deepak Jain <[email protected]> * chore(pr): keep release notes in PR context * fix(exec): describe dashboard URL handoff --------- Co-authored-by: Peter Steinberger <[email protected]>

openclaw-barnacle Bot added cli CLI command changes size: XS triage: needs-real-behavior-proof Candidate: external PR needs after-fix proof from a real setup. labels Jun 8, 2026

clawsweeper Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 14, 2026

[UX] Exec approval timeout message should include Control UI link and setup hints #53250

Closed

openclaw-barnacle Bot added the triage: needs-pr-context Candidate: external PR body lacks required problem context or evidence. label Jun 21, 2026

deepujain force-pushed the fix/53250-approval-timeout-guidance branch from 39f13a4 to cc184b9 Compare June 26, 2026 15:05

openclaw-barnacle Bot added agents Agent runtime and tooling size: S and removed cli CLI command changes size: XS labels Jun 26, 2026

steipete added the clawsweeper:human-review Needs maintainer review before ClawSweeper can continue label Jul 10, 2026

clawsweeper Bot removed the status: 📣 needs proof The PR needs real behavior proof before ClawSweeper can clear the contributor ask. label Jul 10, 2026

clawsweeper Bot closed this Jul 10, 2026

steipete added the maintainer Maintainer-authored PR label Jul 10, 2026

steipete reopened this Jul 10, 2026

steipete removed the maintainer Maintainer-authored PR label Jul 10, 2026

fix(exec): clarify node approval recovery

4b8d1f3

Co-authored-by: Deepak Jain <[email protected]>

steipete force-pushed the fix/53250-approval-timeout-guidance branch from 6dffc69 to 4b8d1f3 Compare July 10, 2026 22:00

openclaw-barnacle Bot removed the triage: needs-pr-context Candidate: external PR body lacks required problem context or evidence. label Jul 10, 2026

steipete changed the title ~~fix(cli): add exec approval recovery guidance (Fixes #53250)~~ fix(exec): clarify node approval recovery Jul 10, 2026

chore(pr): keep release notes in PR context

3da838b

fix(exec): describe dashboard URL handoff

08f4425

steipete merged commit 612e1b9 into openclaw:main Jul 11, 2026
112 of 118 checks passed

github-actions Bot mentioned this pull request Jul 11, 2026

📡 Upstream Digest — 2026-07-11 04:57 UTC curtismercier/openclaw-mods#1257

Open

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

deepujain commented Jun 8, 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

Uh oh!

deepujain commented Jun 8, 2026

Uh oh!

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

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

deepujain commented Jun 8, 2026

Uh oh!

deepujain commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

deepujain commented Jun 9, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 9, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

deepujain commented Jun 14, 2026

Uh oh!

deepujain commented Jun 26, 2026

Uh oh!

steipete commented Jul 10, 2026

Uh oh!

steipete commented Jul 10, 2026

Uh oh!

steipete commented Jul 10, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

steipete commented Jul 10, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

steipete commented Jul 10, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 10, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

steipete commented Jul 11, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

deepujain commented Jun 8, 2026 •

edited by steipete

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 9, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jul 10, 2026 •

edited

Loading