Skip to content

docs(attachments): add required conversationKey param to messages endpoint#2299

Merged
siddseethepalli merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/attachment-docs-conversationkey
Feb 15, 2026
Merged

docs(attachments): add required conversationKey param to messages endpoint#2299
siddseethepalli merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
fix/attachment-docs-conversationkey

Conversation

@siddseethepalli
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@siddseethepalli siddseethepalli commented Feb 15, 2026

Summary

  • Add the required conversationKey query parameter to the GET /v1/assistants/:id/messages endpoint documentation in README.md
  • The endpoint returns 400 without this parameter, but the docs omitted it — callers following the docs would fail

Addresses feedback from PR #2281 (codex review comment about missing conversationKey).

The other two codex review comments on #2281 were incorrect:

  1. "Stop advertising host attachments" — claimed approveHostRead is hardcoded to false, but approveHostAttachmentRead() actually delegates to the permission checker and can return true when trusted.
  2. "Correct IPC docs for completion and handoff attachments" — claimed message_complete and generation_handoff don't include attachments, but both events conditionally include the attachments field when emittedAttachments.length > 0.

Test plan

  • Verified handleListMessages in http-server.ts requires conversationKey query parameter (returns 400 without it)
  • README docs now accurately reflect the endpoint signature

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 noreply@anthropic.com


Open with Devin

The GET /v1/assistants/:id/messages endpoint requires a conversationKey
query parameter, but the docs omitted it — callers following the docs
would get a 400 error.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@devin-ai-integration devin-ai-integration Bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

✅ Devin Review: No Issues Found

Devin Review analyzed this PR and found no potential bugs to report.

View in Devin Review to see 2 additional findings.

Open in Devin Review

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant