Conversation
💡 Codex Reviewcodex/codex-rs/tui/src/app_server_session.rs Lines 1414 to 1417 in dd07fb5 When 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". |
…, sandbox cleanup - anomalyco/opencode#25112: TUI custom provider setup — validator + UI prepend (merge-after-nits) - openai/codex#20447: MCP status/list lifecycle leak fix via in-future await (merge-as-is) - openai/codex#20446: drop dead sandbox_policy field from Op::UserTurn (merge-as-is)
Why
Op::UserTurnnow has a requiredpermission_profile, so the legacysandbox_policyfield was only an ignored compatibility slot. Keeping both on the same operation makes new callsites look like they still need to reason about two permission models, even though core only honors the profile.This removes that ambiguity for
UserTurnwhile leaving the remaining legacy fields onUserInputWithTurnContextandOverrideTurnContext, where older serialized/request payloads still need compatibility handling.What Changed
sandbox_policyfrom theOp::UserTurnprotocol variant.UserTurnwithpermission_profileonly.turn_permission_fields()toturn_permission_profile()and updated test callsites that previously threaded an always-Nonesandbox field.Verification
cargo check -p codex-protocol -p codex-core -p codex-tui --testscargo test -p codex-protocol user_turncargo test -p codex-core user_turn_updates_approvals_reviewerjust fix -p codex-protocoljust fix -p codex-corejust fix -p codex-tuiStack created with Sapling. Best reviewed with ReviewStack.