Close Language Gaps for Commands + Dialogs/Elicitations by MRayermannMSFT · Pull Request #960 · github/copilot-sdk

MRayermannMSFT · 2026-03-31T01:14:55Z

No description provided.

python/copilot/session.py

python/e2e/test_commands.py

python/e2e/test_ui_elicitation_multi_client.py

python/test_commands_and_elicitation.py

dotnet/src/Session.cs

dotnet/src/Client.cs

dotnet/src/Session.cs

+        catch (Exception error)
+        {
+            var message = error.Message;
+            try
+            {
+                await Rpc.Commands.HandlePendingCommandAsync(requestId, error: message);
+            }
+            catch (Exception ex) when (ex is IOException or ObjectDisposedException)
+            {
+                // Connection lost — nothing we can do
+            }
+        }


dotnet/src/Session.cs

+        catch
+        {
+            // Handler failed — attempt to cancel so the request doesn't hang
+            try
+            {
+                await Rpc.Ui.HandlePendingElicitationAsync(requestId, new SessionUiHandlePendingElicitationRequestResult
+                {
+                    Action = SessionUiElicitationResultAction.Cancel
+                });
+            }
+            catch (Exception ex) when (ex is IOException or ObjectDisposedException)
+            {
+                // Connection lost — nothing we can do
+            }
+        }


github-actions · 2026-03-31T01:22:50Z

✅ Cross-SDK Consistency Review Complete

I've reviewed this PR for consistency across all four SDK implementations (Node.js, Python, Go, .NET).

🎯 Overall Assessment: Exemplary Consistency

This PR successfully adds Commands and UI Elicitation features to all four SDKs with excellent cross-language consistency while appropriately adapting to each language's idioms.

Commands Feature ✅

All four SDKs provide:

Consistent command definition: CommandDefinition with name, description, and handler
Consistent context object: CommandContext with session ID, command name, command object, and args
Appropriate naming conventions:
- Node.js: registerCommands() with commands?: CommandDefinition[]
- Python: _register_commands() with commands: list[CommandDefinition]
- Go: registerCommands() with Commands []CommandDefinition
- .NET: RegisterCommands() with Commands: List(CommandDefinition)?

UI Elicitation Feature ✅

All four SDKs provide the same four UI methods:

elicitation() - Generic elicitation with custom schemas
confirm() - Boolean confirmation dialogs
select() - Single-choice selection from options
input() - Text input with validation

Handler registration is consistent:

Config parameter: onElicitationRequest / on_elicitation_request / OnElicitationRequest
Registration method: registerElicitationHandler() / _register_elicitation_handler() / RegisterElicitationHandler()
Capabilities check: All SDKs check capabilities.ui.elicitation before allowing calls

Language-appropriate async patterns:

Node.js/Python: async/await
Go: context.Context parameter
.NET: CancellationToken + Task(T)

Documentation & Tests ✅

✅ Documentation: All four README files include complete sections on Commands and UI Elicitation with code examples
✅ Test Coverage: Shared test snapshots ensure behavioral equivalence across SDKs
✅ E2E Tests: Each language has comprehensive E2E tests for both features

🏆 Conclusion

No consistency issues found. This PR maintains excellent feature parity across all four SDKs and demonstrates the gold standard for cross-language SDK development. All language-specific variations are appropriate adaptations to each ecosystem's conventions.

Great work! 🚀

Generated by SDK Consistency Review Agent for issue #960 · ◷

- Python: fix ruff formatting, add comments to empty except blocks, remove unused imports - .NET: simplify boolean expressions, combine nested ifs, narrow generic catch clause - Go: fix struct field alignment for go fmt compliance

dotnet/src/Session.cs

+                {
+                    string s => s,
+                    JsonElement { ValueKind: JsonValueKind.String } je => je.GetString(),
+                    _ => val?.ToString()


dotnet/src/Session.cs

+                {
+                    string s => s,
+                    JsonElement { ValueKind: JsonValueKind.String } je => je.GetString(),
+                    _ => val?.ToString()


…length

…ix capabilities type

github-actions · 2026-03-31T01:51:15Z

Cross-SDK Consistency Review: Commands & UI Elicitation ✅

This PR successfully closes the language gaps for Commands and UI Elicitation features across Python, Go, and .NET SDKs. The implementations maintain excellent consistency with the Node.js SDK reference implementation.

✅ Consistent API Surface

All four SDKs now expose parallel APIs with appropriate language conventions:

Feature	Node.js	Python	Go	.NET
Commands config	`commands: CommandDefinition[]`	`commands: list[CommandDefinition]`	`Commands []CommandDefinition`	`Commands IEnumerable(CommandDefinition)`
UI confirm	`session.ui.confirm()`	`session.ui.confirm()`	`session.UI().Confirm()`	`session.Ui.ConfirmAsync()`
UI select	`session.ui.select()`	`session.ui.select()`	`session.UI().Select()`	`session.Ui.SelectAsync()`
UI input	`session.ui.input()`	`session.ui.input()`	`session.UI().Input()`	`session.Ui.InputAsync()`
Capabilities check	`capabilities.ui?.elicitation`	`capabilities.get("ui", {}).get("elicitation")`	`Capabilities().UI.Elicitation`	`Capabilities.Ui?.Elicitation`

The naming differences (camelCase vs PascalCase, Async suffix) correctly follow each language's conventions. ✨

✅ Consistent Behavior

All SDKs implement:

✅ Command registration at create_session/resume_session with handler storage
✅ Event routing for command.execute → handler → RPC response via commands.handlePendingCommand
✅ Capability gating for UI methods (throws if elicitation not supported)
✅ Auto-cancel on handler errors
✅ Comprehensive test coverage (E2E + unit tests)
✅ README documentation with code examples

⚠️ Minor Inconsistency Found

One small gap: Go's CommandDefinition.Description field is required while it's optional in Node.js, Python, and .NET.

I've added an inline comment on go/types.go suggesting making it *string to allow nil values. This ensures developers can define commands without descriptions consistently across all SDKs.

Overall: Excellent work bringing feature parity to all SDKs! 🎉 The implementations are well-structured, thoroughly tested, and maintain the parallel API design that makes the SDK easy to use across languages.

Generated by SDK Consistency Review Agent for issue #960 · ◷

github-actions · 2026-03-31T01:58:01Z

✅ Cross-SDK Consistency Review

I've reviewed this PR for consistency across all four SDK implementations (Node.js, Python, Go, and .NET).

Summary

This PR successfully adds Commands and UI Elicitation features to Go, .NET, and Python SDKs to achieve feature parity with the Node.js SDK. The implementation is excellent — all APIs are semantically consistent while following their respective language conventions.

What This PR Adds

Feature	Node.js	Python	Go	.NET
Command Definitions	✅ (baseline)	✅ Added	✅ Added	✅ Added
UI Elicitation Methods	✅ (baseline)	✅ Added	✅ Added	✅ Added
Session Capabilities	✅ (baseline)	✅ Added	✅ Added	✅ Added
Elicitation Handler Callback	✅ (baseline)	✅ Added	✅ Added	✅ Added

API Consistency Verification

Command Definitions

All SDKs now expose CommandDefinition with equivalent fields:

Node.js: { name, description?, handler }
Python: CommandDefinition(name, handler, description?)
Go: CommandDefinition{ Name, Description, Handler }
.NET: CommandDefinition { Name, Description?, Handler }

UI Elicitation Methods

All SDKs provide the same four methods with appropriate language naming:

Generic: elicitation() / Elicitation() / ElicitationAsync()
Confirm: confirm() / Confirm() / ConfirmAsync()
Select: select() / Select() / SelectAsync()
Input: input() / Input() / InputAsync()

Return types follow language idioms:

Node.js/Python/.NET: string | null (nullable)
Go: (string, bool, error) (idiomatic tuple return) ✅

Capabilities Access

Node.js: session.capabilities.ui?.elicitation
Python: session.capabilities["ui"]["elicitation"]
Go: session.Capabilities().UI.Elicitation
.NET: session.Capabilities.Ui?.Elicitation

Test Coverage

The PR includes comprehensive test coverage:

✅ Go: E2E tests in go/internal/e2e/commands_and_elicitation_test.go
✅ .NET: Unit tests in dotnet/test/{CommandsTests,ElicitationTests}.cs
✅ Python: E2E tests in python/e2e/test_{commands,ui_elicitation}.py
✅ Shared test snapshots in test/snapshots/{commands,elicitation}/

Conclusion

No consistency issues found. This PR maintains excellent cross-SDK consistency while respecting language-specific conventions. All four SDKs now have feature parity for Commands and UI Elicitation. 🎉

Generated by SDK Consistency Review Agent for issue #960 · ◷

…apabilities.changed reliably in replay proxy

github-actions · 2026-03-31T02:06:44Z

✅ Cross-SDK Consistency Review: PR #960

I've completed a comprehensive review of this PR to ensure consistency across all four SDK implementations (Node.js, Python, Go, and .NET).

Summary

Overall Assessment: Excellent consistency 🎉

This PR successfully brings Python, Go, and .NET up to feature parity with the existing Node.js SDK for Commands and UI Elicitation APIs. The implementations are highly consistent across all languages, with appropriate adaptations for language-specific idioms.

Features Added

1. Commands API ✅

All three SDKs now support slash commands with consistent structure:

Type Definition: CommandDefinition with Name, Description (optional), and Handler
Handler Context: CommandContext with session ID, command text, command name, and arguments
Registration: Commands registered via SessionConfig during createSession/resumeSession
Event Routing: Automatic dispatch to handlers on command.execute events

2. UI Elicitation API ✅

All three SDKs provide four UI methods:

elicitation() — Generic method with full schema control
confirm() — Boolean yes/no dialog
select() — Selection from a list of options
input() — Text input with validation options

All methods:

Are gated by capability checks (session.capabilities.ui?.elicitation)
Throw/error when capabilities are missing
Support accept, decline, and cancel actions

Language-Specific Adaptations (All Appropriate ✅)

The implementations correctly adapt to each language's conventions:

Aspect	Node.js	Python	Go	.NET
Naming	camelCase	snake_case	PascalCase (exported)	PascalCase
Null/None	`string \| null`	`str \| None`	`(string, bool, error)`	`string?`
Async	`async/await`	`async/await`	`context.Context`	`Task(T)` + `CancellationToken`
Error Handling	Throws `Error`	Raises `RuntimeError`	Returns `error`	Throws `InvalidOperationException`

Note on Go's (value, ok, error) pattern: Go's Select and Input methods return (string, bool, error) instead of nullable strings. This is an appropriate Go idiom (similar to map lookups) and is well-documented in the README.

Testing Coverage ✅

Comprehensive test coverage added for all three SDKs:

Python:

python/test_commands_and_elicitation.py (unit tests)
python/e2e/test_commands.py
python/e2e/test_ui_elicitation.py
python/e2e/test_ui_elicitation_multi_client.py

Go:

go/internal/e2e/commands_and_elicitation_test.go
Updated existing unit tests in go/client_test.go and go/session_test.go

.NET:

dotnet/test/CommandsTests.cs
dotnet/test/ElicitationTests.cs
dotnet/test/MultiClientCommandsElicitationTests.cs

Shared test snapshots added for replay proxy:

test/snapshots/commands/*.yaml
test/snapshots/elicitation/*.yaml

Documentation ✅

All README files updated with:

Clear examples of command registration
UI elicitation capability checking
All four UI methods with code samples
Elicitation request handlers (server→client)
Proper error handling guidance

Verified Consistency Points ✅

Field Names: Consistent across SDKs (accounting for casing conventions)
Method Signatures: Semantically equivalent with language-appropriate types
Capability Checks: All SDKs check capabilities.ui.elicitation before calling UI methods
Error Messages: Consistent wording across SDKs for capability errors
Command Registration: All SDKs support commands in both create and resume flows
RPC Wire Format: Commands serialized as {name, description} arrays (handlers stay client-side)
Action Values: All use "accept", "decline", "cancel" (enum in .NET/Python, string in Go)

No Issues Found

I found no cross-SDK inconsistencies that need to be addressed. The PR maintains excellent feature parity while respecting language-specific conventions.

Recommendation

✅ Approve from a cross-SDK consistency perspective

This PR exemplifies how to properly implement cross-language SDKs: consistent APIs that feel natural in each language.

Generated by SDK Consistency Review Agent for issue #960 · ◷

Close Language Gaps for Commands + Dialogs/Elicitations

357a0b0

github-code-quality bot found potential problems Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

Fix code quality review feedback and formatting issues

fac218c

- Python: fix ruff formatting, add comments to empty except blocks, remove unused imports - .NET: simplify boolean expressions, combine nested ifs, narrow generic catch clause - Go: fix struct field alignment for go fmt compliance

github-code-quality bot found potential problems Mar 31, 2026

View reviewed changes

dotnet/src/Session.cs

{

string s => s,

JsonElement { ValueKind: JsonValueKind.String } je => je.GetString(),

_ => val?.ToString()

dotnet/src/Session.cs

{

string s => s,

JsonElement { ValueKind: JsonValueKind.String } je => je.GetString(),

_ => val?.ToString()

MRayermannMSFT added 3 commits March 30, 2026 18:32

Fix Python ruff lint errors: unused imports, import sort order, line …

5f3099a

…length

Fix Python type checker errors: remove unused type-ignore comments, f…

3c33c84

…ix capabilities type

Fix Go struct field alignment for go fmt compliance

3ed7e2e

Fix Python E2E tests: use correct snapshot directory 'multi_client'

1f9357b

Skip flaky Python E2E disconnect test: force_stop() doesn't trigger c…

9f69e53

…apabilities.changed reliably in replay proxy

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Close Language Gaps for Commands + Dialogs/Elicitations#960

Close Language Gaps for Commands + Dialogs/Elicitations#960
MRayermannMSFT wants to merge 7 commits intomainfrom
mrayermannmsft/uiandcommandsgaps

MRayermannMSFT commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

Conversation

MRayermannMSFT commented Mar 31, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 31, 2026

✅ Cross-SDK Consistency Review Complete

🎯 Overall Assessment: Exemplary Consistency

Commands Feature ✅

UI Elicitation Feature ✅

Documentation & Tests ✅

🏆 Conclusion

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 31, 2026

Cross-SDK Consistency Review: Commands & UI Elicitation ✅

✅ Consistent API Surface

✅ Consistent Behavior

⚠️ Minor Inconsistency Found

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 31, 2026

✅ Cross-SDK Consistency Review

Summary

What This PR Adds

API Consistency Verification

Command Definitions

UI Elicitation Methods

Capabilities Access

Test Coverage

Conclusion

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Mar 31, 2026

✅ Cross-SDK Consistency Review: PR #960

Summary

Features Added

1. Commands API ✅

2. UI Elicitation API ✅

Language-Specific Adaptations (All Appropriate ✅)

Testing Coverage ✅

Documentation ✅

Verified Consistency Points ✅

No Issues Found

Recommendation

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant