Skip to content

feat(blaxel): add delegated provider#290

Open
coygeek wants to merge 7 commits into
openclaw:mainfrom
coygeek:feat/blaxel-provider
Open

feat(blaxel): add delegated provider#290
coygeek wants to merge 7 commits into
openclaw:mainfrom
coygeek:feat/blaxel-provider

Conversation

@coygeek

@coygeek coygeek commented Jun 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Closes #285

Summary

  • Add a Blaxel delegated-run provider with warmup, run, status, stop, cleanup, archive sync, and run-session lease output support.
  • Add Blaxel config flags, API/client request shaping, local claim scoping, remote ownership labels, recovery cleanup, sandbox readiness/process polling, and safe data-plane endpoint validation.
  • Add provider documentation, command docs, and non-live/live-gated smoke tooling for Blaxel.

Verification

  • git diff --check
  • go test ./internal/providers/blaxel ./internal/providers/all ./internal/cli ./cmd/crabbox
  • go test -race ./internal/providers/blaxel ./internal/providers/all ./internal/cli
  • go vet ./...
  • go build -trimpath -o bin/crabbox ./cmd/crabbox
  • node --test scripts/live-blaxel-smoke.test.js
  • node scripts/check-docs-links.mjs
  • node scripts/check-command-docs.mjs
  • env -u CRABBOX_BLAXEL_API_KEY -u BL_API_KEY -u CRABBOX_LIVE -u CRABBOX_LIVE_PROVIDERS scripts/live-blaxel-smoke.sh classified non-live execution as environment_blocked because Blaxel credentials/live gates were intentionally unset.
  • ~/.agents/skills/autoreview/scripts/autoreview --mode branch --base origin/main reported no accepted/actionable findings.

coygeek added 7 commits June 12, 2026 15:46
Register the Blaxel delegated-run provider and add the safe config, flag, env, redaction, and doctor foundation needed by the lifecycle follow-up plan.

Add a fakeable REST client contract with API URL validation, header handling, list-shape parsing, redirect safety, and non-mutating doctor coverage.
Implement Blaxel delegated warmup, run, list, status, stop, and cleanup on top of the provider foundation. The lifecycle now records local claims, completes remote ownership labels, performs archive-based sync and process execution, and preserves ambiguous create failures with recovery claims.

Add fake-backed lifecycle, sync, cleanup, ownership, recovery, and client request tests so the provider behavior is covered without live Blaxel credentials.
Document the Blaxel delegated-run provider across provider indexes, command docs, and source maps so users and future agents can operate the implemented API behavior safely.

Add an opt-in live smoke script with redacted proof logs and Node tests covering missing credentials, skipped live gates, quota blockers, validation failures, cleanup after owned resources, and successful gated lifecycle proof.
Close review gaps in Blaxel lifecycle handling: recovery cleanup now pages through sandbox listings, readiness failures clean one-shot resources, process polling returns on terminal states without exit codes, label update responses preserve the create-time sandbox ID, run results include lease-output session handles, broad workdirs are rejected, and JSON/base64 archive uploads have a provider-specific size cap.\n\nVerification: git diff --check; go test ./internal/providers/blaxel ./internal/providers/all ./internal/cli ./cmd/crabbox; go test -race ./internal/providers/blaxel ./internal/providers/all ./internal/cli; go vet ./...; go build -trimpath -o bin/crabbox ./cmd/crabbox; node --test scripts/live-blaxel-smoke.test.js; node scripts/check-docs-links.mjs; node scripts/check-command-docs.mjs; env -u CRABBOX_BLAXEL_API_KEY -u BL_API_KEY -u CRABBOX_LIVE -u CRABBOX_LIVE_PROVIDERS scripts/live-blaxel-smoke.sh
@clawsweeper

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Codex review: needs real behavior proof before merge. Reviewed June 12, 2026, 9:41 PM ET / 01:41 UTC.

Summary
Review failed before ClawSweeper could summarize the requested change.

Reproducibility: unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Review metrics: none identified.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Result: rating does not apply to this item.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Risk before merge

  • [P1] No close action taken because the review did not complete.

Maintainer options:

  1. Decide the mitigation before merge
    Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.
  2. Pause or close
    Do not merge this PR until maintainers decide whether the risk is worth taking.

Next step before merge

  • [P1] Review did not complete, so no work-lane recommendation was made.
Review details

Best possible solution:

Retry the Codex review after fixing the execution failure.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Unclear. The review failed before ClawSweeper could establish a reproduction path.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Unclear. Retry the review first so ClawSweeper can evaluate the actual issue and fix direction.

AGENTS.md: unclear because the file could not be read completely.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against 73daf300e453.

Label changes

Label changes:

  • add rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Overall readiness is 🌊 off-meta tidepool; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🌊 off-meta tidepool.

Label justifications:

  • rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool: Overall readiness is 🌊 off-meta tidepool; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🌊 off-meta tidepool.
Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

  • failure reason: codex execution failed.
  • codex failure detail: Codex review failed for this PR with exit 1.
  • codex stderr: ,.
  • codex stdout: No stdout captured.

Likely related people:

  • unknown: Codex failed before it could trace repository history. (role: review did not complete; confidence: low)
What the crustacean ranks mean
  • 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
  • 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
  • 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
  • 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
  • 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
  • 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
  • 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

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
  • ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
  • Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
  • A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
  • PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
  • Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
  • Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
  • Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
  • Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

@clawsweeper clawsweeper Bot added the rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool PR readiness rating does not apply to this item. label Jun 13, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

rating: 🌊 off-meta tidepool PR readiness rating does not apply to this item.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Add Blaxel Sandboxes as a delegated Crabbox provider

1 participant