Rebrand approvals reviewer config to auto-review#18504
Conversation
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. You're on a roll. 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 Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 434eaa5597
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 |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. More of your lovely PRs please. 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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: cf72dd1ac4
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. 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. |
|
@codex review |
| "ApprovalsReviewer".to_string() | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| fn json_schema(_generator: &mut SchemaGenerator) -> Schema { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is manual because the normal schema generator does not know about legacy aliases. The code can read both auto_review and old guardian_subagent, but without this manual schema the generated schema would only list auto_review. That could make old configs fail schema checks even though the app can still read them.
| ) | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This helper just writes out the schema by hand. It says: this value is a string, these are the allowed string values, and this is the description. We need that because the normal generated schema cannot include the old guardian_subagent value for us.
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Nice work! 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". |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. 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. |
dylan-hurd-oai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1 comment about the enum value name itself, but otherwise lgtm
| User, | ||
| #[serde(rename = "auto_review", alias = "guardian_subagent")] | ||
| #[strum(serialize = "auto_review")] | ||
| GuardianSubagent, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why not change the enum value to AutoReview
There was a problem hiding this comment.
having this on the follow up PR!
# Conflicts: # codex-rs/app-server-protocol/src/protocol/v2.rs
Why
Auto-review is the user-facing name for the approvals reviewer, but the config/API value still exposed the old
guardian_subagentname. That made new configs and generated schemas point users at Guardian terminology even though the intended product surface is Auto-review.This PR updates the external
approvals_reviewervalue while preserving compatibility for existing configs and clients.What changed
auto_reviewthe canonical serialized value forapprovals_reviewer.guardian_subagentaccepted as a legacy alias.useraccepted and serialized asuser.approvals_reviewerincludes:userauto_reviewguardian_subagentCompatibility
Existing configs and API payloads using:
continue to load and map to the Auto-review reviewer behavior.
New serialization emits:
This PR intentionally does not rename the [features].guardian_approval key or broad internal Guardian symbols. Those are split out for a follow-up PR to keep this migration small and avoid touching large TUI/internal surfaces.
Verification
cargo test -p codex-protocol approvals_reviewer_serializes_auto_review_and_accepts_legacy_guardian_subagent
cargo test -p codex-app-server-protocol approvals_reviewer_serializes_auto_review_and_accepts_legacy_guardian_subagent