-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5.5k
Add a separate exec doc #4583
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add a separate exec doc #4583
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just want to be sure that
|
||
In non-interactive mode, Codex does not ask for command or edit approvals. By default it runs in `read-only` mode, so it cannot edit files or run commands that require network access. | ||
|
||
Use `codex exec --full-auto` to allow file edits. Use `codex exec --sandbox danger-full-access` to allow edits and networked commands. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I feel like we have been moving away from the --full-auto
name, though I admit it is succinct. No good suggestions here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should also mention --skip-git-repo-check
somewhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's below
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For the lack of better alternative let's stick to full-auto although I agree it's confusing.
docs/exec.md
Outdated
{"project_name":"Codex CLI","programming_languages":["Rust","TypeScript","Shell"]} | ||
``` | ||
|
||
Combine `--output-schema` with `--output-last-message <FILE>` to save the JSON output to a file. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we make -o
or -O
an alias for --output-last-message
? Or just pipe the contents to stdout when --json
is not specified?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll start with the latter.
3162218
to
6c6c1f8
Compare
More/better docs.