Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 58def77a01
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".
| updated_data->insert( | ||
| updated_data->end(), data->begin() + (data->size() - stream_buffer_.Size()), data->end()); | ||
| updated_data->end(), data->begin() + (data->size() - stream.buffer.Size()), data->end()); | ||
|
|
||
| ForwardReceivedData(true, updated_data); | ||
| ForwardReceivedData(is_start, stream.current_group_id, stream.current_subgroup_id, updated_data); | ||
| } else { | ||
| ForwardReceivedData(is_start, data); | ||
| ForwardReceivedData(is_start, stream.current_group_id, stream.current_subgroup_id, data); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Forward new-stream data with correct group/subgroup
Here ForwardReceivedData() is called before stream.current_group_id/current_subgroup_id are populated from the parsed header. Since ForwardReceivedData now gates on SentFirstObject(group_id, subgroup_id), the first chunk of every new stream is forwarded with the default (0/0) IDs and gets skipped, so subscribers never see the is_new_stream event/stream header and later pipeline data arrives without an open stream. This is a regression introduced by the new per-group gating; set the group/subgroup from s_hdr before forwarding, or allow is_new_stream to bypass the SentFirstObject check.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Needs #155 + submodule rev.