Revert "chore: sandbox extraction" #4626
Conversation
This reverts commit b8195a1.
![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.
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
| match decision { | ||
| ReviewDecision::Approved | ReviewDecision::ApprovedForSession => { | ||
| // Persist this command as pre‑approved for the | ||
| // remainder of the session so future | ||
| // executions skip the sandbox directly. | ||
| // TODO(ragona): Isn't this a bug? It always saves the command in an | fork? | ||
| sess.add_approved_command(params.command.clone()).await; | ||
| // Inform UI we are retrying without sandbox. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a sandboxed exec fails and the user is asked to retry without the sandbox, the code persists the command in the session’s approved set for both ReviewDecision::Approved and ApprovedForSession by calling sess.add_approved_command(...). A user who chooses the single-run "Approved" option will still have the command auto-approved and executed outside the sandbox on every future invocation, which defeats the distinction between one-off approvals and session approvals. The normal approval path only persists the command for ApprovedForSession, so this branch should mirror that behavior.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
tibo-openai
changed the title
Reverts #4286