Repository navigation
Conversation
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
Security findingsAdvisory findings (1)
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
Castiron custom codeEvaluated main: Trusted main policy: ✅ No new custom-code files detected. 0 mixed files remain; 0 existing customizations changed. Compared A changed generated baseline means this report cannot reliably identify which handwritten lines changed. Inspect the custom-code diffDownload the exact patch produced by this run (requires repository access): gh run download 40230954600 --repo openai/openai-python \
--name castiron-custom-code-40230954600-1 --dir /tmp/castiron-custom-code-40230954600-1
git apply --stat /tmp/castiron-custom-code-40230954600-1/custom-code.patch
cat /tmp/castiron-custom-code-40230954600-1/custom-code.patchOr reproduce it from an SDK checkout containing the vendored reporter: git fetch --no-tags origin 718aee979a9c334d37302aeff21cee6cbff4d43c 8d4e08cd23e796a2dee564eef221112f03c96ed5
python3 scripts/castiron/custom_code_report.py report \
--base 718aee979a9c334d37302aeff21cee6cbff4d43c \
--head 8d4e08cd23e796a2dee564eef221112f03c96ed5 --target-branch main --fetch --require-head-hash --public \
--out /tmp/castiron-custom-code-8d4e08cd23e7
cat /tmp/castiron-custom-code-8d4e08cd23e7/custom-code.patchThis is the current full custom patch for mixed files, not an attribution of only the handwritten lines changed by this PR. |
![github-code-quality[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/9919?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggered
Here are some automated security review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a3d79f2906
ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub
This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
- You comment "@codex security review"
- A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a3d79f2906
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".
a3d79f2 to
6041a55
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 6041a55fec
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".
6041a55 to
f2bf70f
Compare
f2bf70f to
b06de62
Compare
|
@codex review |
🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: b06de62a30
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".
8796d77 to
631a1f6
Compare
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff. Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
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 Security Review · Automatically triggeredSecurity review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
631a1f6 to
f531a99
Compare
f531a99 to
ff71469
Compare
markstuart-oai
left a comment
markstuart-oai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed ff7146992740 against 718aee979a9c across all 77 changed files. The Live item and question types match the expanded schema, and the existing runtime helpers are preserved. One compatibility issue remains: both input-part modules remove PromptCacheBreakpoint from __all__. Existing wildcard imports then lose that name. Please restore both explicit exports, as noted inline.
Source-only review; I did not run candidate code or tests. All 42 exact-head hosted checks passed or were skipped, including the Python test jobs, build, lint, and custom-code checks.
Castiron-Internal-PR: openai/openai-python-internal#341 Castiron-Source-SHA: c49eeb71d31a1381909f69abc6dec247aa466779 Castiron-Public-Base-SHA: 718aee9
ff71469 to
8d4e08c
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 8d4e08cd23
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".
markstuart-oai
left a comment
markstuart-oai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 8d4e08cd23e796a2dee564eef221112f03c96ed5. Both Decision input modules again export PromptCacheBreakpoint, fixing my prior finding. I reviewed all 77 changed files, reusing verified unchanged source from the earlier review and checking every new difference. No remaining actionable findings.
I also checked the new _make_tools comment. The README treats undocumented underscore-prefixed names as private; the removed wrapper alone does not establish a supported API regression.
Source-only review; I did not run code or tests. Hosted checks on this head passed, including lint, build, Python 3.10/3.14, HTTPX2, and the Castiron checks.
Summary
Support more message, tool call, and question input types in Live Decisions.
Changes