**Summary**
This PR makes “ApprovalDecision::AcceptForSession / don’t ask again this
session” actually work for `apply_patch` approvals by caching approvals
based on absolute file paths in codex-core, properly wiring it through
app-server v2, and exposing the choice in both TUI and TUI2.
- This brings `apply_patch` calls to be at feature-parity with general
shell commands, which also have a "Yes, and don't ask again" option.
- This also fixes VSCE's "Allow this session" button to actually work.
While we're at it, also split the app-server v2 protocol's
`ApprovalDecision` enum so execpolicy amendments are only available for
command execution approvals.
**Key changes**
- Core: per-session patch approval allowlist keyed by absolute file
paths
- Handles multi-file patches and renames/moves by recording both source
and destination paths for `Update { move_path: Some(...) }`.
- Extend the `Approvable` trait and `ApplyPatchRuntime` to work with
multiple keys, because an `apply_patch` tool call can modify multiple
files. For a request to be auto-approved, we will need to check that all
file paths have been approved previously.
- App-server v2: honor AcceptForSession for file changes
- File-change approval responses now map AcceptForSession to
ReviewDecision::ApprovedForSession (no longer downgraded to plain
Approved).
- Replace `ApprovalDecision` with two enums:
`CommandExecutionApprovalDecision` and `FileChangeApprovalDecision`
- TUI / TUI2: expose “don’t ask again for these files this session”
- Patch approval overlays now include a third option (“Yes, and don’t
ask again for these files this session (s)”).
- Snapshot updates for the approval modal.
**Tests added/updated**
- Core:
- Integration test that proves ApprovedForSession on a patch skips the
next patch prompt for the same file
- App-server:
- v2 integration test verifying
FileChangeApprovalDecision::AcceptForSession works properly
**User-visible behavior**
- When the user approves a patch “for session”, future patches touching
only those previously approved file(s) will no longer prompt gain during
that session (both via app-server v2 and TUI/TUI2).
**Manual testing**
Tested both TUI and TUI2 - see screenshots below.
TUI:
<img width="1082" height="355" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/adcf45ad-d428-498d-92fc-1a0a420878d9"
/>
TUI2:
<img width="1089" height="438" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/dd768b1a-2f5f-4bd6-98fd-e52c1d3abd9e"
/>
## Summary
Adds a FeatureFlag to enforce UTF8 encoding in powershell, particularly
Windows Powershell v5. This should help address issues like #7290.
Notably, this PR does not include the ability to parse `apply_patch`
invocations within UTF8 shell commands (calls to the freeform tool
should not be impacted). I am leaving this out of scope for now. We
should address before this feature becomes Stable, but those cases are
not the default behavior at this time so we're okay for experimentation
phase. We should continue cleaning up the `apply_patch::invocation`
logic and then can handle it more cleanly.
## Testing
- [x] Adds additional testing
helpful in the future if we want more granularity for requesting
escalated permissions:
e.g when running in readonly sandbox, model can request to escalate to a
sandbox that allows writes
Currently, we only show the “don’t ask again for commands that start
with…” option when a command is immediately flagged as needing approval.
However, there is another case where we ask for approval: When a command
is initially auto-approved to run within sandbox, but it fails to run
inside sandbox, we would like to attempt to retry running outside of
sandbox. This will require a prompt to the user.
This PR addresses this latter case
## Refactor of the `execpolicy` crate
To illustrate why we need this refactor, consider an agent attempting to
run `apple | rm -rf ./`. Suppose `apple` is allowed by `execpolicy`.
Before this PR, `execpolicy` would consider `apple` and `pear` and only
render one rule match: `Allow`. We would skip any heuristics checks on
`rm -rf ./` and immediately approve `apple | rm -rf ./` to run.
To fix this, we now thread a `fallback` evaluation function into
`execpolicy` that runs when no `execpolicy` rules match a given command.
In our example, we would run `fallback` on `rm -rf ./` and prevent
`apple | rm -rf ./` from being run without approval.
this PR enables TUI to approve commands and add their prefixes to an
allowlist:
<img width="708" height="605" alt="Screenshot 2025-11-21 at 4 18 07 PM"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/56a19893-4553-4770-a881-becf79eeda32"
/>
note: we only show the option to whitelist the command when
1) command is not multi-part (e.g `git add -A && git commit -m 'hello
world'`)
2) command is not already matched by an existing rule
This updates `ExecParams` so that instead of taking `timeout_ms:
Option<u64>`, it now takes a more general cancellation mechanism,
`ExecExpiration`, which is an enum that includes a
`Cancellation(tokio_util::sync::CancellationToken)` variant.
If the cancellation token is fired, then `process_exec_tool_call()`
returns in the same way as if a timeout was exceeded.
This is necessary so that in #6973, we can manage the timeout logic
external to the `process_exec_tool_call()` because we want to "suspend"
the timeout when an elicitation from a human user is pending.
---
[//]: # (BEGIN SAPLING FOOTER)
Stack created with [Sapling](https://sapling-scm.com). Best reviewed
with [ReviewStack](https://reviewstack.dev/openai/codex/pull/6972).
* #7005
* #6973
* __->__ #6972
This PR threads execpolicy2 into codex-core.
activated via feature flag: exec_policy (on by default)
reads and parses all .codexpolicy files in `codex_home/codex`
refactored tool runtime API to integrate execpolicy logic
---------
Co-authored-by: Michael Bolin <mbolin@openai.com>
This PR adds support for a model-based summary and risk assessment for
commands that violate the sandbox policy and require user approval. This
aids the user in evaluating whether the command should be approved.
The feature works by taking a failed command and passing it back to the
model and asking it to summarize the command, give it a risk level (low,
medium, high) and a risk category (e.g. "data deletion" or "data
exfiltration"). It uses a new conversation thread so the context in the
existing thread doesn't influence the answer. If the call to the model
fails or takes longer than 5 seconds, it falls back to the current
behavior.
For now, this is an experimental feature and is gated by a config key
`experimental_sandbox_command_assessment`.
Here is a screen shot of the approval prompt showing the risk assessment
and summary.
<img width="723" height="282" alt="image"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4597dd7c-d5a0-4e9f-9d13-414bd082fd6b"
/>
Today `sub_id` is an ID of a single incoming Codex Op submition. We then
associate all events triggered by this operation using the same
`sub_id`.
At the same time we are also creating a TurnContext per submission and
we'd like to start associating some events (item added/item completed)
with an entire turn instead of just the operation that started it.
Using turn context when sending events give us flexibility to change
notification scheme.
jif-oai