This pull request resolves#2296; I've confirmed if it works by:
1. Add settings to ~/.codex/config.toml:
```toml
model_reasoning_effort = "minimal"
```
2. Run the CLI:
```
cd codex-rs
cargo build && RUST_LOG=trace cargo run --bin codex
/status
tail -f ~/.codex/log/codex-tui.log
```
Co-authored-by: pakrym-oai <pakrym@openai.com>
This adds a new request type, `SendUserTurn`, that makes it possible to
submit a `Op::UserTurn` operation (introduced in #2329) to a
conversation. This PR also adds a new integration test that verifies
that changing from `AskForApproval::UnlessTrusted` to
`AskForApproval::Never` mid-conversation ensures that an elicitation is
no longer sent for running `python3 -c print(42)`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2345).
* __->__ #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* #2338
This introduces `Op::UserTurn`, which makes it possible to override many
of the fields that were set when the `Session` was originally created
when creating a new conversation turn. This is one way we could support
changing things like `model` or `cwd` in the middle of the conversation,
though we may want to consider making each field optional, or
alternatively having a separate `Op` that mutates the `TurnContext`
associated with a `submission_loop()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2329).
* #2345
* __->__ #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* #2338
This PR introduces `TurnContext`, which is designed to hold a set of
fields that should be constant for a turn of a conversation. Note that
the fields of `TurnContext` were previously governed by `Session`.
Ultimately, we want to enable users to change these values between turns
(changing model, approval policy, etc.), though in the current
implementation, the `TurnContext` is constant for the entire
conversation.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2345).
* #2345
* #2329
* __->__ #2343
* #2340
* #2338
I still see flakiness in
`test_shell_command_approval_triggers_elicitation()` on occasion where
`MockServer` claims it has not received all of its expected requests.
I recently introduced a similar type of test in #2264,
`test_codex_jsonrpc_conversation_flow()`, which I have not seen flake
(yet!), so this PR pulls over two things I did in that test:
- increased `worker_threads` from `2` to `4`
- added an assertion to make sure the `task_complete` notification is
received
Honestly, I'm still not sure why `MockServer` claims it sometimes does
not receive all its expected requests given that we assert that the
final `JSONRPCResponse` is read on the stream, but let's give this a
shot.
Assuming this fixes things, my hypothesis is that the increase in
`worker_threads` helps because perhaps there are async tasks in
`MockServer` that do not reliably complete fully when there are not
enough threads available? If that is correct, it seems like the test
would still be flaky, though perhaps with lower frequency?
I was looking at the implementation of `Session::get_writable_roots()`,
which did not seem right, as it was a copy of writable roots, which is
not guaranteed to be in sync with the `sandbox_policy` field.
I looked at who was calling `get_writable_roots()` and its only call
site was `apply_patch()` in `codex-rs/core/src/apply_patch.rs`, which
took the roots and forwarded them to `assess_patch_safety()` in
`safety.rs`. I updated `assess_patch_safety()` to take `sandbox_policy:
&SandboxPolicy` instead of `writable_roots: &[PathBuf]` (and replaced
`Session::get_writable_roots()` with `Session::get_sandbox_policy()`).
Within `safety.rs`, it was fairly easy to update
`is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` to work with
`SandboxPolicy`, and in particular, it is far more accurate because, for
better or worse, `SandboxPolicy::get_writable_roots_with_cwd()` _returns
an empty vec_ for `SandboxPolicy::DangerFullAccess`, suggesting that
_nothing_ is writable when in reality _everything_ is writable. With
this PR, `is_write_patch_constrained_to_writable_paths()` now does the
right thing for each variant of `SandboxPolicy`.
I thought this would be the end of the story, but it turned out that
`test_writable_roots_constraint()` in `safety.rs` needed to be updated,
as well. In particular, the test was writing to
`std::env::current_dir()` instead of a `TempDir`, which I suspect was a
holdover from earlier when `SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite` would always
make `TMPDIR` writable on macOS, which made it hard to write tests to
verify `SandboxPolicy` in `TMPDIR`. Fortunately, we now have
`exclude_tmpdir_env_var` as an option on
`SandboxPolicy::WorkspaceWrite`, so I was able to update the test to
preserve the existing behavior, but to no longer write to
`std::env::current_dir()`.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/2338).
* #2345
* #2329
* #2343
* #2340
* __->__ #2338
## Summary
We've been seeing a number of issues and reports with our synthetic
`apply_patch` tool, e.g. #802. Let's make this a real tool - in my
anecdotal testing, it's critical for GPT-OSS models, but I'd like to
make it the standard across GPT-5 and codex models as well.
## Testing
- [x] Tested locally
- [x] Integration test
