VSCE renders `codex/event/stream_error` (automatically retried, e.g.
`"Reconnecting... 1/n"`) and `codex/event/error` (terminal errors)
differently, so add `will_retry` on ErrorNotification to indicate this.
## Refactor of the `execpolicy` crate
To illustrate why we need this refactor, consider an agent attempting to
run `apple | rm -rf ./`. Suppose `apple` is allowed by `execpolicy`.
Before this PR, `execpolicy` would consider `apple` and `pear` and only
render one rule match: `Allow`. We would skip any heuristics checks on
`rm -rf ./` and immediately approve `apple | rm -rf ./` to run.
To fix this, we now thread a `fallback` evaluation function into
`execpolicy` that runs when no `execpolicy` rules match a given command.
In our example, we would run `fallback` on `rm -rf ./` and prevent
`apple | rm -rf ./` from being run without approval.
this PR enables TUI to approve commands and add their prefixes to an
allowlist:
<img width="708" height="605" alt="Screenshot 2025-11-21 at 4 18 07 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/56a19893-4553-4770-a881-becf79eeda32"
/>
note: we only show the option to whitelist the command when
1) command is not multi-part (e.g `git add -A && git commit -m 'hello
world'`)
2) command is not already matched by an existing rule
When we are writing to config using `config/value/write` or
`config/batchWrite`, it always require a `config/read` before it right
now in order to get the correct file path to write to. make this
optional so we read from the default user config file if this is not
passed in.
- Introduce `openai_models` in `/core`
- Move `PRESETS` under it
- Move `ModelPreset`, `ModelUpgrade`, `ReasoningEffortPreset`,
`ReasoningEffortPreset`, and `ReasoningEffortPreset` to `protocol`
- Introduce `Op::ListModels` and `EventMsg::AvailableModels`
Next steps:
- migrate `app-server` and `tui` to use the introduced Operation
### Summary
Added `mcp/servers/list` which is equivalent to `/mcp` slash command in
CLI for response. This will be used in VSCE MCP settings to show log in
status, available tools etc.
The problem with using `serde(flatten)` on Turn status is that it
conditionally serializes the `error` field, which is not the pattern we
want in API v2 where all fields on an object should always be returned.
```
#[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Debug, Clone, PartialEq, JsonSchema, TS)]
#[serde(rename_all = "camelCase")]
#[ts(export_to = "v2/")]
pub struct Turn {
pub id: String,
/// Only populated on a `thread/resume` response.
/// For all other responses and notifications returning a Turn,
/// the items field will be an empty list.
pub items: Vec<ThreadItem>,
#[serde(flatten)]
pub status: TurnStatus,
}
#[derive(Serialize, Deserialize, Debug, Clone, PartialEq, JsonSchema, TS)]
#[serde(tag = "status", rename_all = "camelCase")]
#[ts(tag = "status", export_to = "v2/")]
pub enum TurnStatus {
Completed,
Interrupted,
Failed { error: TurnError },
InProgress,
}
```
serializes to:
```
{
"id": "turn-123",
"items": [],
"status": "completed"
}
{
"id": "turn-123",
"items": [],
"status": "failed",
"error": {
"message": "Tool timeout",
"codexErrorInfo": null
}
}
```
Instead we want:
```
{
"id": "turn-123",
"items": [],
"status": "completed",
"error": null
}
{
"id": "turn-123",
"items": [],
"status": "failed",
"error": {
"message": "Tool timeout",
"codexErrorInfo": null
}
}
```
This is the V2 version of `EventMsg::TurnDiff`.
I decided to expose this as a `turn/*` notification as opposed to an
Item to make it more explicit that the diff is accumulated throughout a
turn (every `apply_patch` call updates the running diff). Also, I don't
think it's worth persisting this diff as an Item because it can always
be recomputed from the actual `FileChange` Items.
Add `thread_id` and `turn_id` to `item/started`, `item/completed`, and
`error` notifications. Otherwise the client will have a hard time
knowing which thread & turn (if multiple threads are running in
parallel) a new item/error is for.
Also add `thread_id` to `turn/started` and `turn/completed`.
`process_exec_tool_call()` was taking `SandboxType` as a param, but in
practice, the only place it was constructed was in
`codex_message_processor.rs` where it was derived from the other
`sandbox_policy` param, so this PR inlines the logic that decides the
`SandboxType` into `process_exec_tool_call()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/7122).
* #7112
* __->__ #7122
Add a `Declined` status for when we request an approval from the user
and the user declines. This allows us to distinguish from commands that
actually ran, but failed.
This behaves similarly to apply_patch / FileChange, which does the same
thing.
### Summary
After #7022, we no longer need this warning. We should also clean up the
schema for the notification, but this is a quick fix to just stop the
behavior in the VSCE
## Testing
- [x] Ran locally
This updates `ExecParams` so that instead of taking `timeout_ms:
Option<u64>`, it now takes a more general cancellation mechanism,
`ExecExpiration`, which is an enum that includes a
`Cancellation(tokio_util::sync::CancellationToken)` variant.
If the cancellation token is fired, then `process_exec_tool_call()`
returns in the same way as if a timeout was exceeded.
This is necessary so that in #6973, we can manage the timeout logic
external to the `process_exec_tool_call()` because we want to "suspend"
the timeout when an elicitation from a human user is pending.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/6972).
* #7005
* #6973
* __->__ #6972
This PR adds the API V2 version of the apply_patch approval flow, which
centers around `ThreadItem::FileChange`.
This PR wires the new RPC (`item/fileChange/requestApproval`, V2 only)
and related events (`item/started`, `item/completed` for
`ThreadItem::FileChange`, which are emitted in both V1 and V2) through
the app-server
protocol. The new approval RPC is only sent when the user initiates a
turn with the new `turn/start` API so we don't break backwards
compatibility with VSCE.
Similar to https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/6758, the approach I
took was to make as few changes to the Codex core as possible,
leveraging existing `EventMsg` core events, and translating those in
app-server. I did have to add a few additional fields to
`EventMsg::PatchApplyBegin` and `EventMsg::PatchApplyEnd`, but those
were fairly lightweight.
However, the `EventMsg`s emitted by core are the following:
```
1) Auto-approved (no request for approval)
- EventMsg::PatchApplyBegin
- EventMsg::PatchApplyEnd
2) Approved by user
- EventMsg::ApplyPatchApprovalRequest
- EventMsg::PatchApplyBegin
- EventMsg::PatchApplyEnd
3) Declined by user
- EventMsg::ApplyPatchApprovalRequest
- EventMsg::PatchApplyBegin
- EventMsg::PatchApplyEnd
```
For a request triggering an approval, this would result in:
```
item/fileChange/requestApproval
item/started
item/completed
```
which is different from the `ThreadItem::CommandExecution` flow
introduced in https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/6758, which does the
below and is preferable:
```
item/started
item/commandExecution/requestApproval
item/completed
```
To fix this, we leverage `TurnSummaryStore` on codex_message_processor
to store a little bit of state, allowing us to fire `item/started` and
`item/fileChange/requestApproval` whenever we receive the underlying
`EventMsg::ApplyPatchApprovalRequest`, and no-oping when we receive the
`EventMsg::PatchApplyBegin` later.
This is much less invasive than modifying the order of EventMsg within
core (I tried).
The resulting payloads:
```
{
"method": "item/started",
"params": {
"item": {
"changes": [
{
"diff": "Hello from Codex!\n",
"kind": "add",
"path": "/Users/owen/repos/codex/codex-rs/APPROVAL_DEMO.txt"
}
],
"id": "call_Nxnwj7B3YXigfV6Mwh03d686",
"status": "inProgress",
"type": "fileChange"
}
}
}
```
```
{
"id": 0,
"method": "item/fileChange/requestApproval",
"params": {
"grantRoot": null,
"itemId": "call_Nxnwj7B3YXigfV6Mwh03d686",
"reason": null,
"threadId": "019a9e11-8295-7883-a283-779e06502c6f",
"turnId": "1"
}
}
```
```
{
"id": 0,
"result": {
"decision": "accept"
}
}
```
```
{
"method": "item/completed",
"params": {
"item": {
"changes": [
{
"diff": "Hello from Codex!\n",
"kind": "add",
"path": "/Users/owen/repos/codex/codex-rs/APPROVAL_DEMO.txt"
}
],
"id": "call_Nxnwj7B3YXigfV6Mwh03d686",
"status": "completed",
"type": "fileChange"
}
}
}
```
Expand the rate-limit cache/TUI: store credit snapshots alongside
primary and secondary windows, render “Credits” when the backend reports
they exist (unlimited vs rounded integer balances)
This PR allows clients to render historical messages when resuming a
thread via `thread/resume` by reading from the list of `EventMsg`
payloads loaded from the rollout, and then transforming them into Turns
and ThreadItems to be returned on the `Thread` object.
This is implemented by leveraging `SessionConfiguredNotification` which
returns this list of `EventMsg` objects when resuming a conversation,
and then applying a stateful `ThreadHistoryBuilder` that parses from
this EventMsg log and transforms it into Turns and ThreadItems.
Note that we only persist a subset of `EventMsg`s in a rollout as
defined in `policy.rs`, so we lose fidelity whenever we resume a thread
compared to when we streamed the thread's turns originally. However,
this behavior is at parity with the legacy API.
## Summary
On app-server startup, detect whether the experimental sandbox is
enabled, and send a notification .
**Note**
New conversations will not respect the feature because we [ignore cli
overrides in
NewConversation](a75321a64c/codex-rs/app-server/src/codex_message_processor.rs (L1237-L1252)).
However, this should be okay, since we don't actually use config for
this, we use a [global
variable](87cce88f48/codex-rs/core/src/safety.rs (L105-L110)).
We should carefully unwind this setup at some point.
## Testing
- [ ] In progress: testing locally
---------
Co-authored-by: jif-oai <jif@openai.com>
This adds the following fields to `ThreadStartResponse` and
`ThreadResumeResponse`:
```rust
pub model: String,
pub model_provider: String,
pub cwd: PathBuf,
pub approval_policy: AskForApproval,
pub sandbox: SandboxPolicy,
pub reasoning_effort: Option<ReasoningEffort>,
```
This is important because these fields are optional in
`ThreadStartParams` and `ThreadResumeParams`, so the caller needs to be
able to determine what values were ultimately used to start/resume the
conversation. (Though note that any of these could be changed later
between turns in the conversation.)
Though to get this information reliably, it must be read from the
internal `SessionConfiguredEvent` that is created in response to the
start of a conversation. Because `SessionConfiguredEvent` (as defined in
`codex-rs/protocol/src/protocol.rs`) did not have all of these fields, a
number of them had to be added as part of this PR.
Because `SessionConfiguredEvent` is referenced in many tests, test
instances of `SessionConfiguredEvent` had to be updated, as well, which
is why this PR touches so many files.
similar to logic in
`codex/codex-rs/exec/src/event_processor_with_jsonl_output.rs`.
translation of v1 -> v2 events:
`codex/event/task_complete` -> `turn/completed`
`codex/event/turn_aborted` -> `turn/completed` with `interrupted` status
`codex/event/error` -> `turn/completed` with `error` status
this PR also makes `items` field in `Turn` optional. For now, we only
populate it when we resume a thread, and leave it as None for all other
places until we properly rewrite core to keep track of items.
tested using the codex app server client. example new event:
```
< {
< "method": "turn/completed",
< "params": {
< "turn": {
< "id": "0",
< "items": [],
< "status": "interrupted"
< }
< }
< }
```
This PR adds the API V2 version of the command‑execution approval flow
for the shell tool.
This PR wires the new RPC (`item/commandExecution/requestApproval`, V2
only) and related events (`item/started`, `item/completed`, and
`item/commandExecution/delta`, which are emitted in both V1 and V2)
through the app-server
protocol. The new approval RPC is only sent when the user initiates a
turn with the new `turn/start` API so we don't break backwards
compatibility with VSCE.
The approach I took was to make as few changes to the Codex core as
possible, leveraging existing `EventMsg` core events, and translating
those in app-server. I did have to add additional fields to
`EventMsg::ExecCommandEndEvent` to capture the command's input so that
app-server can statelessly transform these events to a
`ThreadItem::CommandExecution` item for the `item/completed` event.
Once we stabilize the API and it's complete enough for our partners, we
can work on migrating the core to be aware of command execution items as
a first-class concept.
**Note**: We'll need followup work to make sure these APIs work for the
unified exec tool, but will wait til that's stable and landed before
doing a pass on app-server.
Example payloads below:
```
{
"method": "item/started",
"params": {
"item": {
"aggregatedOutput": null,
"command": "/bin/zsh -lc 'touch /tmp/should-trigger-approval'",
"cwd": "/Users/owen/repos/codex/codex-rs",
"durationMs": null,
"exitCode": null,
"id": "call_lNWWsbXl1e47qNaYjFRs0dyU",
"parsedCmd": [
{
"cmd": "touch /tmp/should-trigger-approval",
"type": "unknown"
}
],
"status": "inProgress",
"type": "commandExecution"
}
}
}
```
```
{
"id": 0,
"method": "item/commandExecution/requestApproval",
"params": {
"itemId": "call_lNWWsbXl1e47qNaYjFRs0dyU",
"parsedCmd": [
{
"cmd": "touch /tmp/should-trigger-approval",
"type": "unknown"
}
],
"reason": "Need to create file in /tmp which is outside workspace sandbox",
"risk": null,
"threadId": "019a93e8-0a52-7fe3-9808-b6bc40c0989a",
"turnId": "1"
}
}
```
```
{
"id": 0,
"result": {
"acceptSettings": {
"forSession": false
},
"decision": "accept"
}
}
```
```
{
"params": {
"item": {
"aggregatedOutput": null,
"command": "/bin/zsh -lc 'touch /tmp/should-trigger-approval'",
"cwd": "/Users/owen/repos/codex/codex-rs",
"durationMs": 224,
"exitCode": 0,
"id": "call_lNWWsbXl1e47qNaYjFRs0dyU",
"parsedCmd": [
{
"cmd": "touch /tmp/should-trigger-approval",
"type": "unknown"
}
],
"status": "completed",
"type": "commandExecution"
}
}
}
```
core event to app server event mapping:
1. `codex/event/reasoning_content_delta` ->
`item/reasoning/summaryTextDelta`.
2. `codex/event/reasoning_raw_content_delta` ->
`item/reasoning/textDelta`
3. `codex/event/agent_message_content_delta` →
`item/agentMessage/delta`.
4. `codex/event/agent_reasoning_section_break` ->
`item/reasoning/summaryPartAdded`.
Also added a change in core to pass down content index, summary index
and item id from events.
Tested with the `git checkout owen/app_server_test_client && cargo run
-p codex-app-server-test-client -- send-message-v2 "hello"` and verified
that new events are emitted correctly.
This updates `thread/resume` to be at parity with v1's
`ResumeConversationParams`. Turns out history is useful for codex cloud
and path is useful for the VSCode extension. And config overrides are
always useful.
This one should be quite straightforward, as it's just a translation of
TurnItem events we already emit to ThreadItem that app-server exposes to
customers.
To test, cp my change to owen/app_server_test_client and do the
following:
```
cargo build -p codex-cli
RUST_LOG=codex_app_server=info CODEX_BIN=target/debug/codex cargo run -p codex-app-server-test-client -- send-message-v2 "hello"
```
example event before (still kept there for backward compatibility):
```
{
< "method": "codex/event/item_completed",
< "params": {
< "conversationId": "019a74cc-fad9-7ab3-83a3-f42827b7b074",
< "id": "0",
< "msg": {
< "item": {
< "Reasoning": {
< "id": "rs_03d183492e07e20a016913a936eb8c81a1a7671a103fee8afc",
< "raw_content": [],
< "summary_text": [
< "Hey! What would you like to work on? I can explore the repo, run specific tests, or implement a change. Let's keep it short and straightforward. There's no need for a lengthy introduction or elaborate planning, just a friendly greeting and an open offer to help. I want to make sure the user feels welcomed and understood right from the start. It's all about keeping the tone friendly and concise!"
< ]
< }
< },
< "thread_id": "019a74cc-fad9-7ab3-83a3-f42827b7b074",
< "turn_id": "0",
< "type": "item_completed"
< }
< }
< }
```
after (v2):
```
< {
< "method": "item/completed",
< "params": {
< "item": {
< "id": "rs_03d183492e07e20a016913a936eb8c81a1a7671a103fee8afc",
< "text": "Hey! What would you like to work on? I can explore the repo, run specific tests, or implement a change. Let's keep it short and straightforward. There's no need for a lengthy introduction or elaborate planning, just a friendly greeting and an open offer to help. I want to make sure the user feels welcomed and understood right from the start. It's all about keeping the tone friendly and concise!",
< "type": "reasoning"
< }
< }
< }
```
