Introduce conversation.create handler (handle_create_conversation) and
wire it in MessageProcessor.
Stack:
Top: #1783
Bottom: #1784
---------
Co-authored-by: Gabriel Peal <gpeal@users.noreply.github.com>
- MCP server: add send-user-message tool to send user input to a running
Codex session
- Added an integration tests for the happy and sad paths
Changes:
• Add tool definition and schema.
• Expose tool in capabilities.
• Route and handle tool requests with validation.
• Tests for success, bad UUID, and missing session.
follow‑ups
• Listen path not implemented yet; the tool is present but marked “don’t
use yet” in code comments.
• Session run flag reset: clear running_session_id_set appropriately
after turn completion/errors.
This is the third PR in a stack.
Stack:
Final: #1686
Intermediate: #1751
First: #1750
- Expose mcp_protocol from mcp-server for reuse in tests and callers.
- In MessageProcessor, detect structured ToolCallRequestParams in
tools/call and forward to a new handler.
- Add handle_new_tool_calls scaffold (returns error for now).
- Test helper: add send_send_user_message_tool_call to McpProcess to
send ConversationSendMessage requests;
This is the second PR in a stack.
Stack:
Final: #1686
Intermediate: #1751
First: #1750
At 550 lines, `exec.rs` was a bit large. In particular, I found it hard
to locate the Seatbelt-related code quickly without a file with
`seatbelt` in the name, so this refactors things so:
- `spawn_command_under_seatbelt()` and dependent code moves to a new
`seatbelt.rs` file
- `spawn_child_async()` and dependent code moves to a new `spawn.rs`
file
This adds a tool the model can call to update a plan. The tool doesn't
actually _do_ anything but it gives clients a chance to read and render
the structured plan. We will likely iterate on the prompt and tools
exposed for planning over time.
Because of a quirk of how implementation tests work in Rust, we had a
number of `#[allow(dead_code)]` annotations that were misleading because
the functions _were_ being used, just not by all integration tests in a
`tests/` folder, so when compiling the test that did not use the
function, clippy would complain that it was unused.
This fixes things by create a "test_support" crate under the `tests/`
folder that is imported as a dev dependency for the respective crate.
1. Added an elicitation for `approve-patch` which is very similar to
`approve-exec`.
2. Extracted both elicitations to their own files to prevent
`codex_tool_runner` from blowing up in size.
This PR introduces a single integration test for `cargo mcp`, though it
also introduces a number of reusable components so that it should be
easier to introduce more integration tests going forward.
The new test is introduced in `codex-rs/mcp-server/tests/elicitation.rs`
and the reusable pieces are in `codex-rs/mcp-server/tests/common`.
The test itself verifies new functionality around elicitations
introduced in https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/1623 (and the fix
introduced in https://github.com/openai/codex/pull/1629) by doing the
following:
- starts a mock model provider with canned responses for
`/v1/chat/completions`
- starts the MCP server with a `config.toml` to use that model provider
(and `approval_policy = "untrusted"`)
- sends the `codex` tool call which causes the mock model provider to
request a shell call for `git init`
- the MCP server sends an elicitation to the client to approve the
request
- the client replies to the elicitation with `"approved"`
- the MCP server runs the command and re-samples the model, getting a
`"finish_reason": "stop"`
- in turn, the MCP server sends the final response to the original
`codex` tool call
- verifies that `git init` ran as expected
To test:
```
cargo test shell_command_approval_triggers_elicitation
```
In writing this test, I discovered that `ExecApprovalResponse` does not
conform to `ElicitResult`, so I added a TODO to fix that, since I think
that should be updated in a separate PR. As it stands, this PR does not
update any business logic, though it does make a number of members of
the `mcp-server` crate `pub` so they can be used in the test.
One additional learning from this PR is that
`std::process::Command::cargo_bin()` from the `assert_cmd` trait is only
available for `std::process::Command`, but we really want to use
`tokio::process::Command` so that everything is async and we can
leverage utilities like `tokio::time::timeout()`. The trick I came up
with was to use `cargo_bin()` to locate the program, and then to use
`std::process::Command::get_program()` when constructing the
`tokio::process::Command`.
