feat(approvals) RejectConfig for request_permissions#14118
feat(approvals) RejectConfig for request_permissions#14118dylan-hurd-oai merged 1 commit intomainfrom
Conversation
|
@codex review |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://cdn.statically.io/img/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: 0e28720f3d
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".
| /// Reject prompts triggered by execpolicy `prompt` rules. | ||
| pub rules: bool, | ||
| /// Reject approval prompts related to built-in permission requests. | ||
| pub request_permissions: bool, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding request_permissions as a required field without a serde default makes old Reject payloads fail to decode. Existing configs/clients that only send sandbox_approval, rules, and mcp_elicitations will now error instead of loading. This introduces a breaking change for persisted config and API consumers; deserialize missing request_permissions as false to keep compatibility.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@celia-oai I think this is my primary concern here - the other values are not optional, so it feels a bit weird to make this one optional. but conflicts with backwards-compatibility
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the correct thing to do here is prob to make Reject an experimental field, since i think we'll keep making breaking changes here as we iterate
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep, can do!
3 participants
Summary
We need to support allowing request_permissions calls when using
RejectpolicyNote that this is a backwards-incompatible change for Reject policy. I'm not sure if we need to add a default based on our current use/setup
Testing