Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
fix(cli): clear deploy rollup blockers - #6057
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit:b61e2625e0
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit:1dba4b0f2c
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit:857ed17516
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit:2ff6a7b6df
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit:f2d519b8f9
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically 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 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
7ttp
commented
Aug 4, 2026
@codex review |
Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Swish! 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". |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Verified every bullet against the actual v2.111.0..v2.112.0 tree diff (the range came from a rebased develop rollup, so commit subjects alone were misleading) and applied the Codex review feedback: - Drop #6072 and #6080: packages/next-only, not in the stable shell - Drop #6003 and #6057: the stable CLI does not exercise the stack binary cache; #6057's "rollup" was the develop->main rollup PR, not the Rollup bundler - Add breaking-change section for NPM_AUTH_TOKEN no longer being forwarded by functions deploy (#6005, ships in this tag) - Note the one-time stop/start needed for already-stuck stacks (#6093) - Scope #5956 to functions download path traversal - Point db pull --experimental users at --declarative (#6028) - Fix#6065 and #6066 descriptions to match the shipped changes - Recount the internal tail (33 uncited commits in the compare range) Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018h8krKpNet85649nqtj95b
TL;DR
Clearing the two things currently sitting on the develop→main rollup PR.
First, the failing CodeQL check: two high-severity
incomplete-url-substring-sanitizationalerts on the sso update tests —startsWith("http://first.example")would also match a lookalike host likefirst.example.evil,so both assertions now end with a
/delimiter, same play as #5957 (stricter check, alert gone, meaning unchanged since every real request carries a/v1/...path)...Second, the codex note on the rollup that turned out to be real:
a cache entry written before the completion-marker change (#6003) is non-empty but markerless, so the resolver skips it and hard-fails offline, with the previously-working binary sitting right there on disk.
The code even preserved that entry for exactly this case, it just never used it.
A failed download now falls back to the non-empty markerless dir (
downloaded: false) and still fails when there's nothing to fall back to — strictly no worse than any pre-marker release,which resolved from that same dir on mere existence. Existing offline test updated to the corrected contract, plus a no-cache negative case...
Refs
develop(same situation fix(cli): resolve CodeQL and Go codegen CI failures blocking #5874 #5957 handled)fixes: (ss)