feat(codex): add account picker visibility setting - #1096
Conversation
|
Important Review skippedNo new commits to review since the last review. ⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml Review profile: ASSERTIVE Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: You can disable this status message by setting the Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:
Note Reviews pausedIt looks like this branch is under active development. To avoid overwhelming you with review comments due to an influx of new commits, CodeRabbit has automatically paused this review. You can configure this behavior by changing the Use the following commands to manage reviews:
Use the checkboxes below for quick actions:
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThe change adds optional ChangesAccount picker control
Estimated code review effort: 3 (Moderate) | ~20 minutes Sequence Diagram(s)sequenceDiagram
participant Config
participant codexAccountPickerEnabled
participant AccountQualifiedRouter
Config->>codexAccountPickerEnabled: Provide picker flag and namespace map
codexAccountPickerEnabled-->>AccountQualifiedRouter: Return picker visibility
AccountQualifiedRouter->>AccountQualifiedRouter: Select account and namespace
Possibly related PRs
Suggested reviewers: 🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
|
✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 7953272eca
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
7953272 to
de6e0aa
Compare
|
Note GitHub couldn't provide a complete incremental comparison for this pull request, so CodeRabbit is performing a full review instead. This review may take a little longer. |
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 1
🤖 Prompt for all review comments with AI agents
Verify each finding against current code. Fix only still-valid issues, skip the
rest with a brief reason, keep changes minimal, and validate.
Inline comments:
In `@tests/router.test.ts`:
- Around line 134-140: Expand the assertion for routeModel when
codexAccountPickerEnabled is false to also verify codexAccountMode is "pool" and
provider.authMode is "forward", preserving the existing provider, model, account
ID, and namespace checks.
🪄 Autofix
Fix all unresolved CodeRabbit comments on this PR:
- Push a commit to this branch (recommended)
- Create a new PR with the fixes
ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration
Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
Plan: Pro Plus
Run ID: 39991cf9-2ce1-462c-b975-6447b6690682
📒 Files selected for processing (6)
src/codex/account-namespaces.tssrc/config.tssrc/types.tstests/codex-account-namespaces.test.tstests/config.test.tstests/router.test.ts
de6e0aa to
ce32336
Compare
|
Note GitHub couldn't provide a complete incremental comparison for this pull request, so CodeRabbit is performing a full review instead. This review may take a little longer. |
ce32336 to
e62ff78
Compare
✅ READY
Review readiness checklist
✅ 4/4 boxes ticked. This pull request is already Ready for Review. |
|
Note GitHub couldn't provide a complete incremental comparison for this pull request, so CodeRabbit is performing a full review instead. This review may take a little longer. |
|
|
|
|
e62ff78 to
a44af1f
Compare
|
Note GitHub couldn't provide a complete incremental comparison for this pull request, so CodeRabbit is performing a full review instead. This review may take a little longer. |
|
|
3ac1d75 to
62f33d7
Compare
|
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
|
Note GitHub couldn't provide a complete incremental comparison for this pull request, so CodeRabbit is performing a full review instead. This review may take a little longer. |
|
|
Ingwannu
left a comment
Ingwannu
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I reviewed the exact head 62f33d7e and found no code-level blocker in this foundation slice.
The compatibility behavior is sound: an existing non-empty selector map remains picker-enabled when the new field is omitted, explicit false hides only generated catalog rows, and exact account-qualified routing remains independent. Persisted malformed values degrade to false without replacing providers/accounts/selectors, while live config candidates reject non-boolean, inherited, and accessor-backed values before reading the accessor. The helper is intentionally not wired into catalog generation in this slice, so this PR does not yet claim a user-visible picker change; documentation belongs with the consuming slice.
Local verification on this head:
bun test tests/codex-account-namespaces.test.ts tests/config.test.ts tests/router.test.ts— 159 passed, 0 failedbun run typecheck— passed
I am not approving yet because the repository's required ci check has not run on this head; only hygiene/target/label checks are attached. Once exact-head CI is green, this small contract slice is worth landing before the catalog/management follow-ups.
62f33d7 to
e230f3c
Compare
|
Rebased this slice again onto the latest The incoming delta is limited to PR-gate/CI hardening and does not overlap this feature. Exact-head local gates are green: 197 feature tests, 207 upstream-delta gate tests, typecheck, privacy scan, repository hygiene, sponsorship gate, and diff check. The PR description's stray literal The repository full harness completed on a preceding rebased head with 9,226 passing and 10 skipped; its only failure was an upstream WebSocket close-callback timing assertion. The changed PR tests ran after that failure, the relevant upstream code is byte-identical, and the complete failing file passes 100/100 under isolated stress. Cross-platform CI and React Doctor are attached to this exact head but show |
e230f3c to
8dc3722
Compare
|
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
|
Note GitHub couldn't provide a complete incremental comparison for this pull request, so CodeRabbit is performing a full review instead. This review may take a little longer. |
|
|
8dc3722 to
283fc83
Compare
|
✅ Action performedReview finished.
|
|
Note GitHub couldn't provide a complete incremental comparison for this pull request, so CodeRabbit is performing a full review instead. This review may take a little longer. |
|
|
2 participants
Summary
codexAccountPickerEnabledconfig field without changing fresh defaultsfalsewithout discarding providers, accounts, or selector bindingsThis is the first slice from #1019 after the requested split. It intentionally establishes only the setting contract and pure default resolver. Selector initialization, catalog convergence, and management API/dashboard behavior follow in separate PRs after their dependencies land.
Part of #425.
Verification
dev@3c246291config, namespace, router, and Codex injection coverage)bun run typecheckbun run privacy:scanbun test tests/repo-hygiene.test.tsnode --test .github/scripts/pr-sponsored-surface.test.cjsgit diff --check upstream/dev...HEADReview readiness checklist
This PR stays in draft until every box below is ticked. Tick all four boxes once the requirements are met:
All CI tests are green on my local testing.
I pushed my PR to the latest dev commit.
I resolved all correct Codex and CodeRabbit findings.
My PR is ready for review.
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
Bug Fixes