Make the parsing compatible with new & old API

[rawagner]

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Bug Fixes
  • Improved tool response event processing to support both legacy and current event formats, ensuring consistent message handling and enhanced system reliability across different configurations.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

The PR adds backward compatibility for legacy tool response events by introducing an isOldToolResponseStreamEvent type guard that detects tool_call events with a response property, and updates MessageEntry's action extraction logic to process both current and legacy event shapes while consolidating toolResults and toolCalls.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Type Guard Addition libs/chatbot/lib/components/ChatBot/types.ts	New type-guard function isOldToolResponseStreamEvent added to detect legacy tool response stream events matching the tool_call event shape with a response property in the token object.
Action Extraction Logic Extension libs/chatbot/lib/components/ChatBot/MessageEntry.tsx	Import list expanded and actions computation logic broadened to handle both isToolResponseStreamEvent (current shape) and isOldToolResponseStreamEvent (legacy shape); action extraction now iterates over combined toolResults and toolCalls arrays.

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant MessageEntry
    participant TypeGuard

    MessageEntry->>TypeGuard: Check event for isToolResponseStreamEvent(ev)
    alt Current Event Shape (tool_result)
        TypeGuard-->>MessageEntry: true
        MessageEntry->>MessageEntry: Extract action from event
    else Legacy Event Shape (tool_call with response)
        MessageEntry->>TypeGuard: Check event for isOldToolResponseStreamEvent(ev)
        TypeGuard-->>MessageEntry: true
        MessageEntry->>MessageEntry: Extract action from legacy event
    else No Match
        TypeGuard-->>MessageEntry: false
        MessageEntry->>MessageEntry: Skip event
    end
    
    rect rgb(230, 245, 245)
    Note over MessageEntry: Consolidate toolResults & toolCalls<br/>into single actions array
    end

Loading

Estimated code review effort

🎯 3 (Moderate) | ⏱️ ~20 minutes

• Verify the legacy event shape detection in isOldToolResponseStreamEvent matches actual old event structure
• Confirm toolResults and toolCalls are correctly merged and processed in the same iteration
• Test both current and legacy event paths to ensure no regressions in action extraction

Possibly related PRs

• Update logic to extract the tool response #3255: Modifies MessageEntry.tsx's tool-argument and response extraction logic for action construction.
• Add MessageEntry component for unified chatbot #3160: Extends handling to older event shapes and consolidates toolResults with toolCalls processing.
• Update types/parsing for latest lightspeed API #3226: Implements dual event-shape support with ToolResponseStreamEvent and type guards for backward compatibility.

Suggested labels

lgtm, approved, size/M

Suggested reviewers

• celdrake
• jgyselov
• ammont82

Poem

🐰 Old and new events now dance as one,
Two shapes of tools, their work is done,
Type guards unite the legacy call,
With merged toolResults, responses for all—
Compatibility blooms, no breakage at all! ✨

Pre-merge checks and finishing touches

✅ Passed checks (3 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The pull request title accurately reflects the main change: adding compatibility with both old and new API event parsing formats for tool responses.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

✨ Finishing touches

• 📝 Generate docstrings

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

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

[coderabbitai]

Actionable comments posted: 1

📜 Review details

Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 8297d25 and c629637.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• libs/chatbot/lib/components/ChatBot/MessageEntry.tsx (2 hunks)
• libs/chatbot/lib/components/ChatBot/types.ts (1 hunks)

🧰 Additional context used

🧠 Learnings (2)

📓 Common learnings

Learnt from: linoyaslan
Repo: openshift-assisted/assisted-installer-ui PR: 3190
File: libs/ui-lib/lib/ocm/components/clusterConfiguration/networkConfiguration/networkConfigurationValidation.ts:69-69
Timestamp: 2025-10-19T17:22:52.502Z
Learning: CIM UI changes in the repository openshift-assisted/assisted-installer-ui (e.g., files under libs/ui-lib/lib/cim/) are handled separately by the CIM team and should be tracked via separate issues rather than being included in PRs for other UI components.

📚 Learning: 2025-07-18T12:35:50.945Z

Learnt from: celdrake
Repo: openshift-assisted/assisted-installer-ui PR: 3051
File: libs/chatbot/lib/components/ChatBot/ChatBotWindow.tsx:196-222
Timestamp: 2025-07-18T12:35:50.945Z
Learning: In the assisted-installer-ui chatbot feedback implementation, the onFeedbackSubmit callback requires access to the messages array to retrieve both the bot response content and the associated user question for the API call, making it necessary to include messages in the useCallback dependency array rather than passing message content as props to avoid duplicating potentially long message data.

Applied to files:

• libs/chatbot/lib/components/ChatBot/MessageEntry.tsx

🧬 Code graph analysis (1)

libs/chatbot/lib/components/ChatBot/MessageEntry.tsx (2)

libs/chatbot/lib/components/ChatBot/types.ts (3)

• StreamEvent (19-24)
• isToolResponseStreamEvent (34-35)
• isOldToolResponseStreamEvent (37-38)

libs/chatbot/lib/components/ChatBot/helpers.ts (2)

• MsgAction (5-5)
• getToolAction (32-99)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (6)

• GitHub Check: tests
• GitHub Check: translation-files
• GitHub Check: unit-tests
• GitHub Check: circular-deps
• GitHub Check: format
• GitHub Check: lint

🔇 Additional comments (2)

libs/chatbot/lib/components/ChatBot/MessageEntry.tsx (2)

9-14: LGTM! Import appropriately includes the new type guard.

The import statement correctly includes isOldToolResponseStreamEvent needed for backward compatibility.

---

64-84: Manual verification required: confirm whether backend sends duplicate events in toolResults and toolCalls arrays.

The review comment raises a structurally valid concern—combining two arrays without deduplication can produce duplicates if the same event appears in both toolResults and toolCalls. However, the codebase search produced no test files, type definitions, or API contracts that clarify the backend behavior.

The suggested fix (tracking seen IDs with a Set) is defensive and reasonable, but determining whether it's necessary depends on:

• Whether the backend ever sends the same event in both arrays
• Whether events are guaranteed unique within each array

Without visibility into the backend API contract or test data, the necessity of the fix cannot be confirmed from the codebase alone.

[eranco74]

/lgtm

[rawagner]

/cherry-pick releases/v0.1-chatbot

[openshift-cherrypick-robot]

@rawagner: once the present PR merges, I will cherry-pick it on top of releases/v0.1-chatbot in a new PR and assign it to you.

Details

In response to this:

/cherry-pick releases/v0.1-chatbot

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: ammont82, rawagner

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [ammont82,rawagner]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[openshift-cherrypick-robot]

@rawagner: new pull request created: #3261

Details

In response to this:

/cherry-pick releases/v0.1-chatbot

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository.