Skip to content

test(realtime): stage presence membership acceptance - #168

Merged
swkeever merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
skeever/sdk-realtime-contract
Sep 18, 2026
Merged

swkeever merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
skeever/sdk-realtime-contract

Conversation

@swkeever

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Stage SDK-REALTIME-003 for two authenticated connections sharing one presence channel. Verify both rosters retain the server connection identity and user, then confirm the original callback observes 1 → 2 → 1 members as the second connection joins and leaves. Cleanup closes both subscriptions; waits have ten-second deadlines.

Add the Python realtime guide covering native lifecycle, presence, database changes, and shutdown. Existing active features remain unchanged; the staged feature is byte-identical to the proposed Hosting #1127 source. Hosting merges last after all SDK dependencies and live validation.

Validation: 1,108 native tests; lint, mypy, pyright, deterministic generation, wheel/sdist build, isolated package smoke, and docs lint pass. All 37 proposed scenarios / 207 steps register in Behave dry-run. The sequence regressions reject a missing initial or final callback. Current Hosting compatibility and proposed feature-copy validation are checked across the three SDKs. Live presence validation is pending dependency merges.

@swkeever

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@codex review. Please review code and security on the current head. This stages SDK-REALTIME-003 for server connection/user identity and original callback membership changes, with native regressions and bounded cleanup. All native checks and current/proposed feature-copy validation pass; 37 proposed scenarios register. Coordinated SDK PRs: JavaScript #134, Python #168, Ruby #150. Hosting #1127 remains the integration PR and merges last; live presence validation follows SDK merges.

@chatgpt-codex-connector

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 18, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review Status Commit Review trigger
📝 Code Review ✅ Completed 2026-09-18T19:12:47.744873Z 65d9689 Manual request
🔒 Security Review ✅ Completed 2026-09-18T19:13:15.933789Z 65d9689 Manual request
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" or "@codex security review".

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

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Can't wait for the next one!

Reviewed commit: 65d9689420

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".

@chatgpt-codex-connector

Copy link
Copy Markdown

🛡️ Codex Security Review · Automatically triggered

Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 65d9689420

View security finding report

Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex.

ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHub

This is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:

  • You comment "@codex security review"
  • A regular code review gets triggered (for example, "@codex review" or when a PR is opened), and you’re opted in so security review runs alongside code review

Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found.

@swkeever
swkeever marked this pull request as ready for review September 18, 2026 19:18
@swkeever
swkeever merged commit b77361c into main Sep 18, 2026
6 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.

1 participant