Skip to content

fix(responses): bound streaming citation spans - #420

Open
luvs01 wants to merge 20 commits into
Devfrom
codex/fix-streaming-dos-from-citation-markers-xwk9vp
Open

fix(responses): bound streaming citation spans#420
luvs01 wants to merge 20 commits into
Devfrom
codex/fix-streaming-dos-from-citation-markers-xwk9vp

Conversation

@luvs01

@luvs01 luvs01 commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Motivation

  • Prevent a CPU/event-loop denial-of-service caused by the streaming citation filter repeatedly concatenating and rescanning a growing held string for every small delta.
  • Keep the original semantics of stripping complete citation spans, withholding unterminated tails, and releasing held text at stream close so model output is never lost.

Description

  • Replace the single-string held buffer with a small-chunk buffer and heldLength, and add a linear-time streaming parser in createCitationMarkerFilter() to avoid repeated full-string scans.
  • Introduce a conservative bound MAX_STREAMING_MARKER_SPAN_LENGTH = 4096 so implausibly large unterminated spans are released as ordinary text rather than retained indefinitely.
  • Keep completed citation spans removed without joining held chunks, and make flush() join and emit any retained pieces once, preserving user-visible bytes.
  • Add focused regression tests in tests/citation-markers.test.ts that verify large unterminated spans are released incrementally and that a later valid citation span is still removed.

Testing

  • Ran bun test tests/citation-markers.test.ts, which passed (all streaming and whole-string filter cases succeeded).
  • Ran bun run typecheck, which completed successfully against the changed files.
  • Ran bun run privacy:scan and git diff --check as repository hygiene checks; they passed for the touched files.
  • Ran the full test suite (bun run test) for context but it exposed unrelated pre-existing integration failures; the focused citation-marker tests passed within that run.

Codex Task

lidge-jun and others added 20 commits August 25, 2026 10:36
release: promote dev into main for v2.32.1
# Conflicts:
#	package.json
[WRONG BRANCH] merge dev into main for the v2.33.0 release
Promotes the dev integration line onto main. The resulting tree is byte-identical
to origin/dev, including package.json at 2.34.0.

The package.json conflict is resolved to dev's side, NOT to main's stale 2.33.0.
Earlier promotions (lidge-jun#2553, lidge-jun#2507) kept the target's version so the release bump
would land on its own "release: vX.Y.Z" commit. That is no longer legal: this very
delta adds tests/release-version-line.test.ts, which fails when the in-tree version
sits behind the highest release tag. With v2.34.0-preview.20260827 now published,
2.33.0 orders behind it, so a promotion carrying the stale line turns CI red on
every shard that runs the suite.

The consequence for the release step is that scripts/release.ts skips the bump
(release.ts:568, currentVersion === version), so v2.34.0 gets tagged on this merge
commit rather than on a separate release commit. The workflow creates the tag itself
after publishing and validates expected-sha against the checked-out commit, so the
tag still names exactly the audited tree.
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.34.0
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.35.0
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.36.0
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev to main for the v2.37.0 release
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.38.0
[WRONG BRANCH] promote dev onto main for v2.39.0
…rkflow call (lidge-jun#3262)

Both v2.40.0 release dispatches (33615174183 preview, 33615177849 main) died
at startup_failure: a workflow_call cannot grant its callee more than the
calling job holds, and dev-version-bump.yml's job declares contents+pull-
requests write. lidge-jun#3129 wired the call but never dispatched a release, so this
is its first live run. The caller job now declares exactly the callee's two
permissions; no other job in release.yml gains anything.

Co-authored-by: jun <jun@lidge.dev>
(cherry picked from commit 7ce0ba5)
…400-relfix

release: carry the release.yml permissions fix onto main for v2.40.0
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Important

  • 🔍 Trigger review

This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Team

Run ID: 88ef2ee8-0d39-4106-aacf-4bb058d71221


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.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review Completed 2026-09-03T06:17:13.628701Z ced8af9 PR opened
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" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the bug Something isn't working label Sep 3, 2026

@chatgpt-codex-connector chatgpt-codex-connector Bot left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: ced8af90f9

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".

// An implausibly large unterminated span is malformed ordinary text. Releasing
// it bounds both retained memory and work per delta; subsequent STARTs can still
// begin valid citation spans.
out.push(takeHeld());

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

P2 Badge Keep final text consistent after releasing oversized spans

When an unterminated span crosses 4,096 characters, this releases it as ordinary text, but if a later delta supplies CITATION_MARKER_END, closeCurrentMessage still runs the unbounded stripCitationMarkers(currentMsg.text) in src/bridge.ts and removes the entire raw span from every .done event. The client therefore receives the text in streaming deltas but sees a different final message—and the saved transcript silently loses it. Accumulate the filter's emitted text for finalization, or apply the same bounded-span semantics to the whole-message filter.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.

@github-actions github-actions Bot changed the title fix(responses): bound streaming citation spans [WRONG BRANCH] fix(responses): bound streaming citation spans Sep 3, 2026
@github-actions

github-actions Bot commented Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

✅ READY

  • all PR quality gates passed.

Hygiene

Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

@github-actions
github-actions Bot marked this pull request as draft September 3, 2026 06:18
@luvs01 luvs01 changed the title [WRONG BRANCH] fix(responses): bound streaming citation spans fix(responses): bound streaming citation spans Sep 3, 2026
@luvs01
luvs01 changed the base branch from main to dev September 3, 2026 06:21
@github-actions
github-actions Bot marked this pull request as ready for review September 3, 2026 06:28
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

aardvark bug Something isn't working codex

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants