Skip to content

Sync/upstream 2026 04 11#148

Merged
zhyongrui merged 979 commits into
mainfrom
sync/upstream-2026-04-11
Apr 12, 2026
Merged

Sync/upstream 2026 04 11#148
zhyongrui merged 979 commits into
mainfrom
sync/upstream-2026-04-11

Conversation

@zhyongrui
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

Describe the problem and fix in 2–5 bullets:

If this PR fixes a plugin beta-release blocker, title it fix(<plugin-id>): beta blocker - <summary> and link the matching Beta blocker: <plugin-name> - <summary> issue labeled beta-blocker. Contributors cannot label PRs, so the title is the PR-side signal for maintainers and automation.

  • Problem:
  • Why it matters:
  • What changed:
  • What did NOT change (scope boundary):

Change Type (select all)

  • Bug fix
  • Feature
  • Refactor required for the fix
  • Docs
  • Security hardening
  • Chore/infra

Scope (select all touched areas)

  • Gateway / orchestration
  • Skills / tool execution
  • Auth / tokens
  • Memory / storage
  • Integrations
  • API / contracts
  • UI / DX
  • CI/CD / infra

Linked Issue/PR

  • Closes #
  • Related #
  • This PR fixes a bug or regression

Root Cause (if applicable)

For bug fixes or regressions, explain why this happened, not just what changed. Otherwise write N/A. If the cause is unclear, write Unknown.

  • Root cause:
  • Missing detection / guardrail:
  • Contributing context (if known):

Regression Test Plan (if applicable)

For bug fixes or regressions, name the smallest reliable test coverage that should catch this. Otherwise write N/A.

  • Coverage level that should have caught this:
    • Unit test
    • Seam / integration test
    • End-to-end test
    • Existing coverage already sufficient
  • Target test or file:
  • Scenario the test should lock in:
  • Why this is the smallest reliable guardrail:
  • Existing test that already covers this (if any):
  • If no new test is added, why not:

User-visible / Behavior Changes

List user-visible changes (including defaults/config).
If none, write None.

Diagram (if applicable)

For UI changes or non-trivial logic flows, include a small ASCII diagram reviewers can scan quickly. Otherwise write N/A.

Before:
[user action] -> [old state]

After:
[user action] -> [new state] -> [result]

Security Impact (required)

  • New permissions/capabilities? (Yes/No)
  • Secrets/tokens handling changed? (Yes/No)
  • New/changed network calls? (Yes/No)
  • Command/tool execution surface changed? (Yes/No)
  • Data access scope changed? (Yes/No)
  • If any Yes, explain risk + mitigation:

Repro + Verification

Environment

  • OS:
  • Runtime/container:
  • Model/provider:
  • Integration/channel (if any):
  • Relevant config (redacted):

Steps

Expected

Actual

Evidence

Attach at least one:

  • Failing test/log before + passing after
  • Trace/log snippets
  • Screenshot/recording
  • Perf numbers (if relevant)

Human Verification (required)

What you personally verified (not just CI), and how:

  • Verified scenarios:
  • Edge cases checked:
  • What you did not verify:

Review Conversations

  • I replied to or resolved every bot review conversation I addressed in this PR.
  • I left unresolved only the conversations that still need reviewer or maintainer judgment.

If a bot review conversation is addressed by this PR, resolve that conversation yourself. Do not leave bot review conversation cleanup for maintainers.

Compatibility / Migration

  • Backward compatible? (Yes/No)
  • Config/env changes? (Yes/No)
  • Migration needed? (Yes/No)
  • If yes, exact upgrade steps:

Risks and Mitigations

List only real risks for this PR. Add/remove entries as needed. If none, write None.

  • Risk:
    • Mitigation:

Takhoffman and others added 30 commits April 10, 2026 20:19
…3432)

* msteams: add pin/unpin, list-pins, and read message actions

Wire up Graph API endpoints for message read, pin, unpin, and list-pins
in the MS Teams extension, following the same patterns as edit/delete.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* msteams: address PR review comments for pin/unpin/read actions

- Handle 204 No Content in postGraphJson (Graph mutations may return empty body)
- Strip conversation:/user: prefixes in resolveConversationPath to avoid Graph 404s
- Remove dead variable in channel pin branch
- Rename unpin param from messageId to pinnedMessageId for semantic clarity
- Accept both pinnedMessageId and messageId in unpin action handler for compat

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* msteams: resolve user targets + add User-Agent to Graph helpers

- Resolve user:<aadId> targets to actual conversation IDs via conversation
  store before Graph API calls (fixes 404 for DM-context actions)
- Add User-Agent header to postGraphJson/deleteGraphRequest for consistency
  with fetchGraphJson after rebase onto main

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* msteams: resolve DM targets to Graph chat IDs + expose pin IDs

- Prefer cached graphChatId over Bot Framework conversation IDs for user
  targets; throw descriptive error when no Graph-compatible ID is available
- Add `id` field to list-pins rows so default formatters surface the pinned
  resource ID needed for the unpin flow

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

* msteams: add react and reactions (list) message actions

* msteams: fix reaction count undercount and remove unpin messageId fallback

* msteams: wire pinnedMessageId through CLI/tool schema, add channel pin beta warnings, add list-pins pagination

* msteams: address PR #53432 remaining review feedback

* fix(msteams): route channel actions via teamId/channelId path (#53432)

* msteams: add unpin pinnedMessageId test coverage (#53432)

* fix(msteams): keep graph routing scoped to graph actions

* fix(msteams): align graph routing context types

* msteams: route fetchGraphAbsoluteUrl through fetchWithSsrFGuard

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Brad Groux <3053586+BradGroux@users.noreply.github.com>
steipete and others added 29 commits April 11, 2026 14:19
- scope computeQaAgenticParityMetrics to QA_AGENTIC_PARITY_SCENARIO_TITLES
  in buildQaAgenticParityComparison so extra non-parity lanes in a full
  qa-suite-summary.json cannot influence completion / unintended-stop /
  valid-tool / fake-success rates
- filter coverageMismatch by !parityTitleSet.has(name) so each required
  parity scenario fails the gate exactly once (from requiredScenarioCoverage)
  instead of being double-reported as a coverage mismatch too
- drop the bare /\\berror\\b/i rule from SUSPICIOUS_PASS_PATTERNS — it was
  false-flagging legitimate passes that narrate "Error budget: 0" or
  "no errors found" — and replace it with targeted /error occurred/i and
  /an error was/i phrases that indicate a real mid-turn error
- add regressions: error-budget/no-errors-observed passes yield
  fakeSuccessCount === 0, genuine error-occurred narration still flags,
  each missing required scenario fires exactly one failure line, and
  non-parity lanes do not perturb scoped metrics
- isolate the baseline suspicious-pass test by padding it to the full
  first-wave scenario set so it asserts the isolated fake-success path
  via toEqual([...]) rather than toContain
* fix(whatsapp): route react through gateway

* fix(gateway): accept full message action tool context
@zhyongrui zhyongrui merged commit 4eb5af9 into main Apr 12, 2026
2 of 9 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.