fork-only: memory_persistence backward compatibility

[clicksingh]

fork-only change.\n\nadds backward compatibility for top-level [memory_persistence] while keeping [defaults.memory_persistence] as preferred config location.\n\nno upstream PR for this.

[coderabbitai]

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The changes introduce support for legacy top-level memory_persistence configuration while encouraging migration to defaults.memory_persistence, add a new channel_recall tool to the prompt, refine memory_recall guidance for recent queries, and include unit tests validating the configuration behavior.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Prompt Updates prompts/en/branch.md.j2, prompts/en/tools/memory_recall_description.md.j2	Adds channel_recall tool for retrieving transcript history from channels and augments memory_recall guidance to prefer "recent" mode for recency-focused queries.
Configuration Schema src/config/toml_schema.rs	Adds optional memory_persistence field to TomlConfig struct to support top-level configuration of memory persistence settings.
Configuration Loading & Validation src/config/load.rs	Adds "memory_persistence" to known top-level keys with legacy support, emitting a deprecation warning and merging into defaults.memory_persistence during resolution.
Configuration Tests src/config.rs	Adds two unit tests verifying that top-level memory_persistence is parsed correctly and that defaults.memory_persistence properly overrides legacy top-level configuration.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~25 minutes

Poem

🐰 A channel to recall, transcripts preserved in time,
Memory modes aligned, recency sublime,
Config backwards-compatible, tests ensure it's sound,
Legacy paths gracefully resolved, new directions found!

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 3

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	Docstring coverage is 100.00% which is sufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%.
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The pull request title directly and accurately reflects the main objective: adding backward compatibility for the memory_persistence configuration key.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

✨ Finishing Touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings (stacked PR)
• 📝 Generate docstrings (commit on current branch)

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch codex/memory-persistence-backcompat

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d255715fff

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".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Merge legacy memory_persistence fields instead of whole table

Using Option::or here makes [defaults.memory_persistence] win as an all-or-nothing table, so when both locations are present and the new table is only partially populated, values from legacy [memory_persistence] are silently dropped and replaced by hardcoded defaults (for example, message_interval reverts to 50). This breaks backward-compatibility during incremental migrations; precedence should be applied per field (enabled/message_interval) rather than by selecting one entire table.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.