feat: exec-server prep for unified exec#15691
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
This test still calls environment.get_executor(), but the commit renamed the API to get_exec_backend(). As written, the integration test target will not compile, so CI coverage for exec-session behavior is broken until tests are updated to the new interface.
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".
|
@codex review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 9e91c882fd
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".
# Conflicts: # codex-rs/core/src/unified_exec/process.rs
# Conflicts: # codex-rs/Cargo.toml # codex-rs/exec-server/src/remote_process.rs
This PR partially rebase
unified_execon theexec-serverand adapt theexec-serveraccordingly.What changed in
exec-serverWriteResponsenow returnsWriteStatus(Accepted, UnknownProcess, StdinClosed, Starting) instead of a bool.What changed in
unified_execUnifiedExecProcessnow handles both local PTY sessions and remote exec-server processes through a sharedProcessHandle.ProcessStateto track has_exited, exit_code, and terminal failure message consistently across backends.Some rationals
Follow-ups: