Skip to content

refactor(server): effectify session summary route handlers#1024

Merged
Astro-Han merged 1 commit into
devfrom
codex/i936-session-summary-route-effect
Jun 2, 2026
Merged

refactor(server): effectify session summary route handlers#1024
Astro-Han merged 1 commit into
devfrom
codex/i936-session-summary-route-effect

Conversation

@Astro-Han
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

Effectify the session diff and artifacts JSON handlers.

Why

Issue #936 is moving route handlers onto AppRuntime-backed services while preserving the existing HTTP API shape. This keeps the read-only session summary routes on SessionSummary.Service without touching summarize, prompt, share, revert, or permission behavior.

Related Issue

Fixes part of #936.

Human Review Status

Pending

Review Focus

Please focus on whether /:sessionID/diff and /:sessionID/artifacts preserve their existing response shape and remain limited to read-only summary routes.

Risk Notes

No visible UI or copy changed, so the UI checklist item is not applicable.
No platform, packaging, updater, signing, path, shell, or permissions surface was touched, so the platform checklist item is not applicable.
No docs, release notes, dependencies, permissions, credentials, deletion behavior, generated content, or local file surface changed beyond the focused route test update.

How To Verify

Focused route test: cd packages/opencode && bun test ./test/server/session-runtime-routes.test.ts -> 1 passed, 0 failed
Typecheck: cd packages/opencode && bun run typecheck -> passed
Diff check: git diff --check -> passed

Screenshots or Recordings

Not applicable: no visible UI changes.

Checklist

  • Type label — this PR carries exactly one of bug, enhancement, task, documentation. Type labels are author-added; the labeler bot does NOT assign them. Add the label in the GitHub UI, then tick this.
  • Routing labels — this PR carries at least one of app, ui, platform, harness, ci. The labeler bot assigns these on PR open based on changed paths. Confirm the bot's choice (or override if wrong), then tick this.
  • Priority label — this PR carries exactly one of P0, P1, P2, P3. The priority-triage bot suggests one on PR open. Confirm or override, then tick this.
  • Human Review Status above is set to Pending, Approved by @<reviewer>, or Not required: <reason> (default is Pending; "not required" is restricted to bot-authored low-risk PRs).
  • I linked the related issue, or stated in Summary why there is no issue.
  • I described the review focus and any meaningful risks.
  • I replaced the example block in How To Verify with the real verification steps and the key result for each.
  • I did not introduce unrelated refactors, dependencies, generated files, or file changes beyond the stated scope.
  • (conditional) I manually checked visible UI or copy changes when needed, with screenshots or recordings. Leave unticked only if no visible UI or copy changed.
  • (conditional) I considered macOS and Windows impact for platform, packaging, updater, signing, paths, shell, or permissions changes. Leave unticked only if no platform/packaging surface was touched.
  • (conditional) I called out docs, release notes, dependencies, permissions, credentials, deletion behavior, generated content, or local file changes when relevant. Leave unticked only if none of those surfaces was touched.
  • I reviewed the final diff for unrelated changes and suspicious dependency changes.
  • I am targeting dev, and my PR title and commit messages use Conventional Commits in English.

@Astro-Han Astro-Han added P2 Medium priority upstream Tracked upstream or vendor behavior harness Model harness, prompts, tool descriptions, and session mechanics task Narrow execution, audit, spike, migration, tracking, or upstream follow-up work tech-debt Supplemental cleanup, maintainability, architecture, test, or quality debt context labels May 31, 2026
@coderabbitai
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

coderabbitai Bot commented May 31, 2026

Warning

Review limit reached

@Astro-Han, we couldn't start this review because you've reached your PR review rate limit.

More reviews will be available in 35 minutes and 12 seconds. Learn how PR review limits work.

Your organization has run out of usage credits. Purchase more in the billing tab.

⌛ How to resolve this issue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

We recommend that you space out your commits to avoid hitting the rate limit.

🚦 How do rate limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces hourly rate limits for each developer per organization.

Our paid plans include higher PR review limits than trial, open-source, and free plans. In all cases, reviews become available again over time. During sustained high-volume PR review activity, CodeRabbit may temporarily slow when the next review becomes available.

Please see our Fair Usage Limits Policy for further information.

ℹ️ Review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: cd8e9b6b-e652-4c0c-a31a-82556fe751a6

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between c019c11 and dccc57d.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • packages/opencode/src/server/instance/session.ts
  • packages/opencode/test/server/session-runtime-routes.test.ts
✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch codex/i936-session-summary-route-effect

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@github-actions github-actions Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested priority: P2 (includes non-doc, non-test paths outside the low-risk bucket).

P1/P0 are reserved for maintainer confirmation. Please relabel manually if this is a release blocker, security issue, data-loss risk, or updater/runtime failure.

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request refactors the 'diff' and 'artifacts' session route handlers in 'session.ts' to run within the 'AppRuntime' using Effect generators and resolve 'SessionSummary.Service' dynamically. Additionally, it updates the integration tests in 'session-runtime-routes.test.ts' to include assertions for the '/session/:sessionID/diff' endpoint. No review comments were provided, so there is no additional feedback to address.

@Astro-Han Astro-Han merged commit c96d9a0 into dev Jun 2, 2026
29 of 31 checks passed
Astro-Han added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2026
Part of the #936 Effect-route migration. Moves the session message route
handlers off direct Session.* async calls onto AppRuntime.runPromise +
Effect.gen service access via Session.Service.

Change boundary:
- packages/opencode/src/server/instance/session.ts only: the GET messages
  handler (all three existing branches: limit undefined -> full list, limit 0 ->
  full list, limit > 0 -> messagesPage with the next-page Link header), the
  DELETE message part handler (removePart), and the PATCH message part handler
  (updatePart, with its body/param mismatch guard preserved before the runtime
  call). The undefined/0/positive branch structure and the pagination Link/cursor
  headers are kept 1:1 with dev; only the call sites are routed through the app
  runtime.
- test/server/session-messages.test.ts: adds a messages() helper and a new test
  exercising PATCH part (text before -> after) and DELETE part (returns true,
  resulting parts length 0).

Verification:
- Rebased onto latest origin/dev (clean, no conflict with #1024).
- test/server/session-messages.test.ts: 10 tests / 43 expects pass.
- tsgo typecheck clean.
- Independent `codex review --base origin/dev`: no actionable behavior-breaking
  issues; focused test + typecheck + git diff --check verified.
- Full PR CI green.

Review follow-up:
- Gemini medium (collapse the identical limit===undefined / limit===0 branches):
  kept the branch structure as-is. It is the pre-existing dev control flow and
  is correct (Session.messages treats a falsy limit as "return the full
  unpaginated list", so limit===0 is handled, not blocked); deduplicating it is
  an adjacent cleanup outside this behavior-preserving migration's scope.
  Resolved with rationale.

Residual risk: none beyond the migration itself; external route surface
unchanged and covered by tests.

Refs #936
Astro-Han added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 2, 2026
Part of the #936 Effect-route migration. Moves the session core route handlers
off direct Session.* async calls onto AppRuntime.runPromise + Effect.gen service
access via Session.Service.

Change boundary:
- packages/opencode/src/server/instance/session.ts only: GET /session/:sessionID
  (get), GET /session/:sessionID/children, DELETE /session/:sessionID (remove),
  PATCH /session/:sessionID (update), and POST /session/:sessionID/fork. The
  PATCH update handler folds its get -> conditional setTitle/setPermission/
  setArchived -> re-get sequence into one Effect.gen, preserving the original
  order and the Permission.merge(current.permission ?? [], updates.permission)
  logic 1:1.
- Does NOT touch the prompt/respond, tool, turn-change, or force-delete handlers
  or their semantics; only the five core CRUD handlers above are routed through
  the app runtime.
- Adds test/server/session-core-routes.test.ts covering get/children/update/
  fork/delete, following the same run()/svc wrapper convention as the sibling
  session route test files.

Verification:
- Rebased onto latest origin/dev (clean, no conflict with #1023/#1024).
- Session route tests (core + messages + runtime-routes): 12 tests / 68 expects
  pass; no regression in the shared session.ts surface.
- tsgo typecheck clean.
- Independent `codex review --base origin/dev`: no regressions requiring a fix;
  focused + adjacent server/session/workspace tests + typecheck verified.
- Full PR CI green.

Review follow-up:
- Gemini medium (test-only: replace run()/svc wrapper with `const svc =
  SessionNs`): kept the wrapper, which is the established convention shared
  verbatim by the sibling session route tests already on dev; test-only, no
  production impact, suite passes. Resolved with rationale.

Residual risk: none beyond the migration itself; external route surface
unchanged and covered by tests.

Refs #936
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

harness Model harness, prompts, tool descriptions, and session mechanics P2 Medium priority task Narrow execution, audit, spike, migration, tracking, or upstream follow-up work tech-debt Supplemental cleanup, maintainability, architecture, test, or quality debt context upstream Tracked upstream or vendor behavior

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant