build: 同步上游并升级技术栈与依赖 - #1
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…3518) * feat(studio): let an agent drive Studio's selection and playhead Adds `studio_select` and `studio_seek`, so an agent and the human are looking at the same element and the same instant. Selecting reveals the inspector, exactly as a click does, which is what makes the agent's move visible. Selection is shared state, not a per-call argument, and that is forced rather than chosen. Most of Studio's edit handlers read the ambient React selection, and `applyDomSelection` only schedules a state update, so selecting and committing inside ONE call would write to whatever was selected before. Two tool calls are separated by a render, so the contract is select first, then act. That is also how a human works: click, then type. `studio_seek` uses `requestSeek`, not `setCurrentTime`. The latter only moves the timeline's displayed number and leaves the composition where it was. Two things the tools refuse to fake: Seek does not clamp. `seek()` already clamps against the adapter's duration, which can differ from the store's, and clamping again would give that invariant two owners that can disagree. The tool reports where the playhead actually landed instead, read back afterwards. `requestSeek` is fire-and-forget, so it cannot report that no adapter was mounted to receive it. The tool compares the playhead before and after and fails rather than claiming a seek that never happened. Select separates three failures that a single message would have merged: the preview is not mounted yet (wait), no element matches the handle (re-read), and the element cannot be selected (try a neighbour). The agent's next move differs for each, so collapsing them would cost it a round trip or a retry loop. * feat(studio): give an agent eyes with studio_frame Renders the composition to a PNG at a given time and returns the URL. This is what turns the tool set from a remote control into a loop: author a change, capture the instant it affects, look, adjust. No agent can judge motion from source, because "what does this look like at 2.4 seconds" is not a question a file answers. Reuses Studio's existing capture endpoint via `buildFrameCaptureUrl` rather than inventing a second one. Two things this does not fake: It reports the time the playhead LANDED on, not the time requested. The player clamps, so those differ at the ends, and attaching the wrong time to a frame is how an agent draws a confident wrong conclusion about motion. It waits before capturing, by default 150ms. The frame is rendered from the file on disk, and the render cache is cleared by a file watcher with a 40ms write-stability threshold, so a capture that beats the watcher renders the PRE-edit composition. That exact staleness was a real bug here once. An agent reading a stale frame as "my edit failed" would thrash, so the wait is on by default, `settleMs` makes it tunable, and the tool description names the failure rather than leaving it to be rediscovered. It probes with HEAD before returning, so a URL that 404s comes back as a failure with a hint instead of as a link the agent cannot render. * feat(studio): add studio_inspect, so an agent reads before it writes Everything about one element in one call: resolved styles, text fields, box, data attributes, GSAP animations, and what the element will and will not accept. The point is to prevent a failed write rather than to satisfy curiosity. `can.reasonIfDisabled` is passed through verbatim from Studio's own capabilities, so an agent that reads first should never attempt an edit the element would refuse. Three things it refuses to get wrong: Animations are reported ONLY for the current selection, because that is the only element Studio parses them for. Attributing them to any other element would be reporting the wrong element's motion, which is worse than reporting none. When a handle names something else the field is empty and `animationEditingBlocked` says why. `animationEditingBlocked` also carries the two states where animation editing is off entirely, multiple timelines and an unsupported timeline pattern. Both live on the selection context. Learning them from a read costs one call; learning them from a failed write costs a retry loop. Inspecting a handle does NOT change what is selected. It is a read, and stealing the human's selection would be a side effect they did not ask for. There is a test asserting `applySelection` is never called. Nothing selected and no handle given is a failure, not an empty result. An empty result would assert "this element has nothing", which is a different and false claim. * feat(studio): let an agent edit text and styles, guarded The first tools that change the composition. Both act on the current selection and take no handle, which is forced rather than chosen: the handlers read the ambient React selection, and `applyDomSelection` only schedules a state update, so selecting and committing inside one call would write to whatever was selected before. Select first, then edit. Also plumbs the write-blocked state, which was the blocker for shipping any write at all. `domEditSaveQueuePaused` and the external-file conflict both lived on App and were unreachable from the tool surface, so `canWrite` was optimistic and a comment said so. They now derive into a single `writeBlockedReason` on the shell context: one field, one owner, conflict taking precedence because resolving it is what unblocks the queue. That guard matters more than it looks. Both states are BANNERS in Studio with no lock behind them, so nothing else was stopping a programmatic write from landing on top of a conflict the user had been asked to adjudicate. Three things the tools refuse to fake: They check the outcome, not the absence of a throw. Studio has several paths where a failed commit resolves anyway, so awaiting the handler proves nothing. The tagged outcome added earlier is what proves the write landed. A partial style result is reported as partial. `handleDomStyleCommit` is one property per call, so N properties are N commits; the result carries `applied` and `rejected` maps rather than a single boolean that would have to pick a side. Style commits run sequentially, never concurrently. Two commits racing through Studio's client-side read-modify-write can record undo entries that both claim the same starting content. There is a test that measures concurrency rather than trusting the loop. Every decline reason maps to a hint naming what to do instead, so a refusal routes the agent rather than just stopping it. * feat(studio): add studio_inspect, so an agent reads before it writes (heygen-com#3517) Everything about one element in one call: resolved styles, text fields, box, data attributes, GSAP animations, and what the element will and will not accept. The point is to prevent a failed write rather than to satisfy curiosity. `can.reasonIfDisabled` is passed through verbatim from Studio's own capabilities, so an agent that reads first should never attempt an edit the element would refuse. Three things it refuses to get wrong: Animations are reported ONLY for the current selection, because that is the only element Studio parses them for. Attributing them to any other element would be reporting the wrong element's motion, which is worse than reporting none. When a handle names something else the field is empty and `animationEditingBlocked` says why. `animationEditingBlocked` also carries the two states where animation editing is off entirely, multiple timelines and an unsupported timeline pattern. Both live on the selection context. Learning them from a read costs one call; learning them from a failed write costs a retry loop. Inspecting a handle does NOT change what is selected. It is a read, and stealing the human's selection would be a side effect they did not ask for. There is a test asserting `applySelection` is never called. Nothing selected and no handle given is a failure, not an empty result. An empty result would assert "this element has nothing", which is a different and false claim. * feat(studio): move, resize and rotate, verified by reading back (heygen-com#3519) `studio_transform` does what a drag does, and then checks. The box in the result is READ BACK after the write, never echoed from the request, and `applied` lists what actually took effect. That is not belt-and-braces. The plan for this unit said to re-derive the geometry handlers' behaviour rather than trust any description of them, and doing that turned up three different behaviours behind one interface. The handlers on `DomEditActionsValue` are the GSAP-AWARE wrappers, aliased in `useDomEditSession.ts:534-538`, not the CSS ones in `useDomGeometryCommits.ts` that an earlier note in this workstream described. `handleGsapAwarePathOffsetCommit` and `handleGsapAwareRotationCommit` are `if (gsapCommitMutation) { ...intercept... }` with no else branch. Their own comments say the absence is deliberate: position and rotation are written as GSAP code and there is no CSS fallback to write to. So they can return having done nothing. `handleGsapAwareBoxSizeCommit` is not like the other two. It runs through `runGestureTransaction` with separate scale and width/height routes, so resize works more generally. Reading back is what turns that middle case from a silent lie into a reported one. A move that did nothing comes back in `unchanged` with a reason. Three smaller decisions: Operations re-read between each other, so a move is judged against the box AFTER a resize in the same call. Comparing against the original would credit the resize's change to the move. Rotation is reported as dispatched, not verified. `rotate` is an individual transform property and does not appear in the computed transform, so there is no honest box-derived signal, and claiming one would be worse than saying so. x pairs with y and width pairs with height. Accepting one alone would mean inventing the other from the current value, which moves the element somewhere the caller did not ask for. The pairing rule and its minimum live in one `parsePair` helper rather than as four separate branches. --------- Co-authored-by: miga-heygen <miguel.sierra_miga@heygen.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
构建了什么
heygen-com/hyperframes同步到f84b4c23dcc8b4acbb597e3ad1d293788eaa379b，保留 fork 既有内容。bun.lock。为什么觉得它会很酷/值得合并
这次升级把可直接采用的新运行时、构建链、云 SDK 和前端依赖一次性推进，同时用失败证据保留少数必要的兼容上限，避免为了追逐版本号而引入大范围源码重写。上游同步和依赖升级分成独立提交，后续审阅、二分和回滚都更清晰。
官方迁移来源
验证
bun install --frozen-lockfilebun run buildbun run lintbun run format:checkbun run test:scripts：通过bun run typecheck:scripts：通过bun run test:skills：553 通过bun run --cwd packages/core test：125 个测试文件、2587 个测试通过bun run --cwd packages/studio test：414 个测试文件、4615 个测试通过，1 个文件跳过、18 个 todobun run --cwd packages/studio-server vitest run src/helpers/proxyTranscoder.test.ts：20 通过git diff --check影响
回滚
按相反顺序 revert
6ffce3fb87e36db298041f64a4971d512174ee95和上游 merge 提交0b0eb21064dbcec5d105c78b1ea0bf790d4c1eb8，即可分别撤销依赖升级与上游同步。阻塞项
残余风险：本 PR 不自动合并；兼容上限、外部 CI/运行环境限制及未覆盖场景以本节和“影响”中的记录为准。
根级
bun run test会并行启动全部 workspace；本机两次均使 Studio 出现互不相关的超时和级联断言。相同最终快照在 Studio/Core 独占运行时全部通过，因此保留该聚合调度问题为残余风险，未通过放宽测试超时掩盖。Hosted checks 将在 PR 创建后继续核对；本 PR 不自动 merge。