Skip to content

[Improve] Give secure integration approvals more room - #3061

Draft
roomote-roomote[bot] wants to merge 3 commits into
developfrom
feature/sensitive-input-modal-20zuebhpb6z1p
Draft

roomote-roomote[bot] wants to merge 3 commits into
developfrom
feature/sensitive-input-modal-20zuebhpb6z1p

Conversation

@roomote-roomote

@roomote-roomote roomote-roomote Bot commented Sep 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

​Created by Roomote. Follow up by mentioning @roomote-roomote, in the web UI, or in Slack.

What changed

  • Widen the actual secure integration-key approval dialog in Session conversations from the design system's lg size to 2xl.
  • Keep the existing prepare_integration_key card, #integrations route, password masking, owner-only approval API, visibility choice, secure submission, and continuation behavior unchanged.
  • Remove this PR's unrelated changes to structured request_user_input and task environment-variable surfaces.

Why this change was made

API keys belong in the dedicated secure integration approval flow, not in structured conversation answers or task environment-variable UI. The approval form now has the requested spacious treatment on the real product path without widening the scope to unrelated inputs.

Impact

Session owners who follow a secure integration approval link now see the existing form in a 2xl dialog with more horizontal room. No key is routed through chat, transcript state, or model tool arguments, and no task input behavior changes.

The real-route proof used a temporary owner-bound Session, a pending approval containing only nonsecret metadata for https://api.example.com, and a canonical completed prepare_integration_key result. The form loaded through /api/sessions/:sessionId/secrets; no key value was entered or stored, and the fixture was removed after capture.

Screenshots

Before

Before: secure integration approval dialog at the previous width

After

After: secure integration approval dialog at 2xl width

@roomote-community

roomote-community Bot commented Sep 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No new code issues found. See task

  • Route no-options secret user-input requests through the sensitive dialog instead of the task composer. — dismissed: the generic sensitive-input changes were removed from this PR; the current diff only resizes the dedicated integration-approval dialog.
  • Update the environment-variable panel test's system-component mock for the new dialog imports. — dismissed: the related environment-variable dialog change was removed from this PR.

Reviewed fb07763

Comment thread apps/web/src/app/(sandbox)/task/[taskId]/PendingEnvVarRequestPanel.tsx Outdated
Comment thread apps/web/src/app/(sandbox)/task/[taskId]/PendingUserInputRequestCard.tsx Outdated
@roomote-roomote

roomote-roomote Bot commented Sep 21, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Resolved both outstanding review findings in commit 72387df4:

  • Secret no-options task requests now render through the sensitive dialog and hide the normal composer.
  • PendingEnvVarRequestPanel.client.test.tsx now mocks the dialog primitives and opens the modal before asserting its fields.

Validation: 31 affected tests pass; web lint and typecheck pass; pre-push oxlint, residual lint, fast typecheck, and Knip gates pass. GitHub Test, Lint, Type Check, Knip, and Roomote code review checks are green on 72387df4; the full local web client suite exceeded the command timeout but had no observed test failure before termination. Both review threads are resolved. Genuine app-route proof is available in the PR screenshots; it covers the Session modal flow, while the no-options task path is covered by targeted tests.

@roomote-roomote roomote-roomote Bot changed the title [Improve] Move sensitive integration inputs into spacious dialogs [Improve] Give secure integration approvals more room Sep 22, 2026

This branch has not been deployed

No deployments
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