Improve remote gateway setup and connection error recovery#828
Conversation
|
Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed June 26, 2026, 4:45 PM ET / 20:45 UTC. Summary Reproducibility: not applicable. this is a PR implementing setup UX and recovery improvements, not a standalone bug report. Source inspection and screenshots cover the visible Direct setup behavior; live gateway recovery states were not reproduced. Review metrics: 2 noteworthy metrics.
Merge readiness Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch. Rank-up moves:
Risk before merge
Maintainer options:
Next step before merge
Security Review detailsBest possible solution: Land the bounded setup and recovery UX improvements if maintainers accept the remote transport guidance and keep credential persistence owned by GatewayRegistry and GatewayConnectionManager. Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue? Not applicable: this is a PR implementing setup UX and recovery improvements, not a standalone bug report. Source inspection and screenshots cover the visible Direct setup behavior; live gateway recovery states were not reproduced. Is this the best way to solve the issue? Yes, with maintainer acceptance. The implementation keeps connection lifecycle and credential persistence in the existing GatewayConnectionManager/GatewayRegistry boundary and adds focused classifier and setup-code coverage. AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant. Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 37bdd3837709. Label changesLabel justifications:
Evidence reviewedWhat I checked:
Likely related people:
What the crustacean ranks mean
Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics. How this review workflow works
|
d96233a to
068f64f
Compare
068f64f to
d001762
Compare
|
Thanks @clawsweeper — addressed the blocking finding (option 1). Removed the unsupported Basic-auth /
Shared-token, setup-code pairing, TLS, and SSH guidance are unchanged. No credential storage, precedence, protocol, or MCP behavior was added — this was copy-only. Validation re-run: Head is now d001762. |
Add RemoteGatewayClassifier + GatewayErrorClassifier in OpenClaw.Shared and wire ConnectionPage remote setup advice, scope/token-drift/TLS recovery, and localized strings. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
d001762 to
e228f4b
Compare
Summary
Change Type (select all)
Scope (select all touched areas)
winnodeLinked Issue/PR
Validation
./build.ps1Shared,Cli,WinNodeCli,SetupEngine,WinUI).dotnet test .\tests\OpenClaw.Tray.Tests\OpenClaw.Tray.Tests.csprojdotnet test .\tests\OpenClaw.Shared.Tests\OpenClaw.Shared.Tests.csprojdotnet test .\tests\OpenClaw.Connection.Tests\OpenClaw.Connection.Tests.csproj... OpenClaw.Shared.Tests --filter "FullyQualifiedName~Classifier"→ 78 passed / 0 skipped.... OpenClaw.Connection.Tests --filter "FullyQualifiedName~SetupCodeFlowTests"→ 15 passed / 0 skipped.Real behavior proof
bkudiess-stunning-funicular, branchbkudiess-remote-gateway-parity(Connection → Add gateway → Direct).ws://gateway.example.com:18789(cleartext warning), thenwss://gateway.example.com:18789(TLS green) to confirm the InfoBar updates when severity changes.Evidence after fix — captured live from the running tray app:
ws://URL shows the yellow "Unencrypted connection" InfoBar (token would be sent in cleartext).wss://flips the InfoBar to green "Encrypted (TLS)" — confirming the refresh fix.Test evidence:
Classifier proof:
Passed! - Failed: 0, Passed: 78, Skipped: 0, Total: 78.Setup-code proof:
Passed! - Failed: 0, Passed: 15, Skipped: 0, Total: 15.MCP server logs: Not applicable — this PR does not modify the local MCP server, MCP transport, node capabilities,
winnode, or MCP tool schemas. No MCP-server log is produced by this UI-only path.Not verified / blocked: No live gateway. Recovery-state copy (token drift / scope / rate-limit) is covered by unit/focused tests because reproducing those real gateway states requires a configured gateway fixture.
Security Impact (required)
No)Yes)No)No)No)Yes, explain risk + mitigation:ws://would send a token unencrypted.Compatibility / Migration
Yes)No)No)Review Conversations