Repository navigation
fix(realtime): honor the selected WebSocket session target - #3059
Conversation
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 40462475870 --repo openai/openai-node \
--name castiron-custom-code-40462475870-1 --dir /tmp/castiron-custom-code-40462475870-1
git apply --stat /tmp/castiron-custom-code-40462475870-1/custom-code.patch
cat /tmp/castiron-custom-code-40462475870-1/custom-code.patchOr reproduce it from an SDK checkout containing the vendored reporter: git fetch --no-tags origin 60224b376e25912bb1143007c81d2ecdc7a7434c 2a9c9c479c9b9b94c41abe91933f2d8922cdc708
python3 scripts/castiron/custom_code_report.py report \
--base 60224b376e25912bb1143007c81d2ecdc7a7434c \
--head 2a9c9c479c9b9b94c41abe91933f2d8922cdc708 --target-branch main --fetch --require-head-hash --public \
--out /tmp/castiron-custom-code-2a9c9c479c9b
cat /tmp/castiron-custom-code-2a9c9c479c9b/custom-code.patchThis is the current full custom patch for mixed files, not an attribution of only the handwritten lines changed by this PR. |
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
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. |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 2a9c9c479c
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".
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉 Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubCodex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@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. |
|
@codex review |
|
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉 Reviewed commit: ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubCodex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍. When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@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. |
jbeckwith-oai
left a comment
jbeckwith-oai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed stable and beta URL construction across both transports, duplicate selectors, unrelated query parameters, Azure behavior, and custom builders. No actionable findings.
Static review of commit af0adca. Hosted checks show no failures (applicable checks passed; other jobs skipped). No local tests or candidate code were run.
Summary
An explicit Realtime session target could inherit a conflicting
model,intentorcall_idfrom the client base URL. A transcription or sideband connection could therefore send both targets to the server.Clear inherited session selectors before adding the requested one. Preserve other query parameters and the custom URL builder contract.
Verification
All 390 tests in eight focused repository suites passed, as did the full formatter. Across Chromium, Node 22, Node 24 and Bun, 48 accepted loopback handshakes carried exactly one target. The browser also rejected a long-lived synthetic key.