feat: adding piped process to replace PTY when needed #8797
Conversation
![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: 10f96c1acc
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 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: bb9726a3c3
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".
# Conflicts: # codex-rs/core/src/unified_exec/process_manager.rs
| @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@ | |||
| use std::collections::HashMap; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would be nice to rebase shell_command on top of this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yep! In the end I think it will allow us to keep only unified_exec
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there is lots of logic in /Users/pakrym/code/codex/codex-rs/core/src/exec.rs that I'm afraid we'll rediscover again with a separate implementation
|
|
||
| #[cfg(unix)] | ||
| fn kill_process(pid: u32) -> io::Result<()> { | ||
| let result = unsafe { libc::kill(pid as libc::pid_t, libc::SIGKILL) }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we have an entire thing to kill trees of child processes in shell_command
pakrym-oai
left a comment
pakrym-oai
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Instead of starting with a completely new pipe implementation can we reuse/extend/share the one we have for shell_command?
No description provided.