docs: correct runtime and scan guidance - #358
Conversation
|
@codex review |
|
Security review completed. No security issues were found in this pull request. Reviewed commit: Only the user who started this review can view the report in Codex. ℹ️ About Codex security reviews in GitHubThis is an experimental Codex feature. Security reviews are triggered when:
Once complete, Codex will leave suggestions, or a comment if no findings are found. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 23cf480161
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".
| expect(readme).toContain( | ||
| `cli_auth_credentials_store = "${String(DEFAULT_CODEX_CONFIG["cli_auth_credentials_store"])}"`, | ||
| ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Test behavior instead of exact README text
Replace the newly added literal .toContain checks—including the analogous deep-scan assertion below—with a semantic check or a source-level configuration test. These assertions couple the suite to the README’s exact TOML spelling and formatting, so harmless documentation edits can fail package checks even when the documented value remains correct; the scoped testing guidance explicitly says to avoid tests of exact Markdown wording.
AGENTS.md reference: sdk/typescript/AGENTS.md:L29-L32
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
Summary
Keep the TypeScript README aligned with the current CLI and SDK.
--python,pythonPath, andPYTHONselect the interpreter.Preserves @GautamSharma99's original contribution from #124.
Verification
pnpm run formatpnpm run typespnpm run buildpnpm run test: 1,037 passed; 11 expected platform and integration skips.