https://docs.all-hands.dev/ logo
Join Slack
Powered by
<@U09DMU3EM2T> Yesterday you mentioned we needed a...
# proj-agent
c
@strong-ice-84145 Yesterday you mentioned we needed another PR before we could cut an SDK release. Do you expect that to get merged today?
šŸ‘ 1
s
I am cutting a release now!
ty 2
c
I'm thinking that we could make a pass on how the REST API changes with this, to make sure itā€™s good to stay that way
sorry to be a nitpicker! I think API design may be one of the ā€¦ few(?) things left where humans need to think about things
šŸ˜‚ 1
šŸ‘ 1
m
Could we also include this one: https://github.com/OpenHands/software-agent-sdk/pull/3770#pullrequestreview-4524704234 It should be ready to merge soon. Just adding the end-points in the agent-server to use the command 
/goal in
the UI
c
s
yes i do think it's clearer
c
Did we have agent profiles saved in .json yet, in public, to users, to canvas / cloud?
I want to also remove the ā€œcompatibity fallbackā€ that of course my agent did
LLMs love thoseā€¦
m
Did we have agent profiles saved in .json yet, in public, to users, to canvas / cloud?
I think no. @strong-ice-84145 can confirm
Could we also merge my PR šŸ™‚ ?
c
Ohh the reviewer requested changes there? Meanie
Could we extract your desired API tooā€¦ how do we extract it faster, maybe a workflow could document it clearly in the PR description
m
Ohh the reviewer requested changes there? Meanie
Are you speaking with me? šŸ™‚ Yes it requested changes and I did but the second bot never came back
c
@nutritious-balloon-65098 Look at all three PRs referenced in this thread: they all have something to do with the agent-server REST API, adding stuff. Look at the REST API compatibility workflow too, you see how it uses oasdiff. Make a new PR which: when it detects additions or modifications/deletions of REST API contract, add to the PR description, in Summary section, the exact before and after or maybe in diff formatā€¦ something concise and easy to see at a glance. Think about it and make a proposal directly as PR from main.
n
I'm on it! can track my progress here.
c
@modern-fireman-99755 do we do something similar with Critic, in agent-server? Sorry Iā€™m dense, if not, why do we make a special conversation with Goal?
n
Since my last summary, there were no additional code changes. Checklist: ā€¢ āœ… Request addressed: I created the requested PR from 
main
with automation to add concise REST API contract diffs into the PR description 
## Summary
section. ā€¢ āœ… Instructions followed: I committed the changes, pushed a branch, opened a draft PR, and did not mark it ready because the HUMAN PR-template section must be completed by a human. ā€¢ āœ… Conciseness: The changes are focused on the requested workflow behavior; I did not add unrelated files or extraneous functionality. ā€¢ āœ… Verification: Local tests/pre-commit passed, and the initial check review showed no failing PR checks at that time. PR: https://github.com/OpenHands/software-agent-sdk/pull/3789
m
Actually, we don't make a special conversation with 
/goal
. You take an existing conversation and you inject the goal that you would like to achieve and you iterate in the conversation until you reach the goal (from a judge point of view). It is similar to critic, but critic is baked in the Conversation class while the goal machinery is like an extension or a tool you can use on the Conversation class. I did so to not add more stuff inside the conversation class. A vibe coded the UI for that and experimented a little. See the video for a very very raw preview. Note that the command is implemented in the UI. This is just an endpoint that permits you to iterate on the convo
Screen Recording 2026-06-18 at 09.23.05.mov
n
OpenHands encountered an error: **Failed to send message to agent server: HTTP 503 error: no available server ** See the conversation for more information.
m
I will say it is like a strategy that you apply on the conversation class
actually we could also use this pattern for other features
n
OpenHands encountered an error: **Failed to send message to agent server: HTTP 503 error: no available server ** See the conversation for more information.
c
Ah, thank you! WDYT about how this, is it correct, and, do we want it in PR descriptions that change REST APIs ? https://github.com/OpenHands/software-agent-sdk/pull/3787#issuecomment-4742601612
šŸ‘ 1
Sorry Iā€™m dense, so in the SDK implementation itā€™s not embedded in the conversation class. But I mean in the agent-server, it seems an endpoint started a ā€œgoal conversationā€?
m
Do you want to change the name 
start_goal_conversation
to 
start_goal
or 
start_goal_in_conversation
? If you look inside the code you will see that it take a conversation id and iterate on that. It is a little bit convoluted because it is inside the event service
c
oh, totally
thank you! that sounds exactly right, itā€™s the thing that confused me. Also for stop maybe?
m
So I should change the method name?
c
and comments around it?
m
*_goal_conversation
-> 
*_goal_in_conversation
gratitude thank you 1
okok
You can also change it directly. because for me they are clear but I know what is happening behind the hood šŸ™‚ so perhaps you are the best person to write good comments and docstring
Thanks šŸ™‚
s
Hi all! So what's the status for the release? We are still missng @modern-fireman-99755ā€™s PR?
c
m
Ok... auto-merge active. It should merge in a couple of min
c
@nutritious-balloon-65098 look at this https://github.com/OpenHands/software-agent-sdk/pull/3770#issuecomment-4742840168 Verify the PR yourself (do not modify it) so you understand the behavior and intention here. Clone yourself docs/ repo from same org, and verify if we have docs on it, if yes, make sure the comment is reflected in the current docs; if not, open PR to fix docs / add docs as needed. You have time, investigate and make sure you write clearly, and conciseness is a feature of clarity!
n
m
@strong-ice-84145 @calm-artist-7206 Merged... we can go šŸ™‚
c
So we need 2 PRs on the release branch, but maybe we can merge main, we need to run tests again IMHO because the goal PR had quite a number of changes
m
yeah but was just in the agent-server
the core for the goal PR in the sdk was already merged in main
and tested with an example
but as you want šŸ™‚
c
deferred init failed? cc: @straight-sundown-84319 and iterative
We donā€™t need the behavior tests
n
OpenHands encountered an error: **Failed to send message to agent server: HTTP 503 error: no available server ** See the conversation for more information.
c
But if these two fail again, itā€™s worth looking into
m
I'm looking into
ā¤ļø 1
gratitude thank you 1
critic is normal... I mean: it fails at least once per release šŸ™‚
c
This is weird, precommit failed
Why didnā€™t it fail on the goal PR, hah
m
Fix for the deferred_init: https://github.com/OpenHands/software-agent-sdk/pull/3793 @fierce-account-55183
For the pre-commit, it was a merge conflict: The deprecated _return_metrics parameter was removed from LLM.completion / TestLLM.completion. The new signature has exactly 4 positional params
aha 2
open a PR for that in a minute
c
Thank you!
Fixing docs CI meanwhile, weird we didnā€™t see it before
m
āœ… 1
c
this is probably part of the release PR frankly, because it removed stuff
n
OpenHands encountered an error: **Failed to send message to agent server: HTTP 503 error: no available server ** See the conversation for more information.
m
@calm-artist-7206 you are right. My bad. This is the correct PR: https://github.com/OpenHands/software-agent-sdk/pull/3795
c
You're welcome to merge that directly, itā€™s literally part of the cleanup that happened on rel PR now, so if it passes precommit itā€™s needed
m
merged
d
Hey team! Are we on track for releasing SDK today still or no?
c
Yes!
ā¤ļø 1
m
@calm-artist-7206 the test-examples were ran without the fix for the example
c
Yes, I think it was self contained though, maybe only that test is enough this time - I sent my agent to run it alone, it's a bit lazy though šŸ™ˆ
m
can we just check the the fix is not just in main but also in the release branch
c
it still failed apparently
m
I think the commit with the fix is not in the release branch
No ā€” the fix from PR #3793 is not in rel-1.29.0. Here's the precise state: - PR #3793 is merged, but into main (merge commit 9e29079, at 14:59 UTC ā€” that's the current main HEAD). Its head commit was df5aff5. - rel-1.29.0 does not contain it. Two independent confirmations: - git compare rel-1.29.0...df5aff5 ā†’ diverged (the commit is not an ancestor of the release branch). - The example file on rel-1.29.0 is still blob c1cc93ā€¦ ā€” the original broken version with the "stopped"/"paused" checks. The fix would have changed that blob; it hasn't.
So we should cherry pick this commit
c
ooh i thought it was merged in. okay on it
Automerge?
m
haha to late
You can do the public announcement šŸ˜‰
n
OpenHands encountered an error: **Failed to send message to agent server: HTTP 503 error: no available server ** See the conversation for more information.
Since my last summary, I addressed the new PR #3789 review tweak. Checklist: ā€¢ āœ… Reviewed the latest AI review comments carefully. ā€¢ āœ… Accepted the valid workflow robustness suggestion. ā€¢ āœ… Updated 
.github/workflows/agent-server-rest-api-breakage.yml
so 
rest-api-contract-summary.md
is created before running the generator. ā€¢ āœ… Made summary generation failure-tolerant with 
|| true
, so the updater can safely consume an empty file if generation fails. ā€¢ āœ… Committed and pushed the fix to #3789: 
8de9ec81 Make REST summary generation failure-tolerant
. ā€¢ āœ… Verified the live PR description had a stale generated REST API block, regenerated the current empty summary, ran the updater, and patched the PR body to remove the stale block. ā€¢ āœ… Replied to and resolved both latest review threads. ā€¢ āœ… Ran targeted validation: 
uv run pre-commit run --files .github/workflows/agent-server-rest-api-breakage.yml
. ā€¢ āœ… Confirmed #3789 had no failing or pending checks and no unresolved review threads afterward. Conciseness: ā€¢ The only code change since the last summary was the small workflow robustness tweak requested by review. ā€¢ The PR body update only removed stale generated content. ā€¢ No extraneous repository changes remain.
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by