fix(codex): remove unsupported 'user' field from /v1/responses payload

[xxddff]

What does this PR do?

This PR filters out the user field from the raw JSON body when proxying requests to the Codex upstream via /v1/responses.

Why is this change important?

Currently, when sending a request to the Codex upstream in the OpenAI /v1/responses format , the upstream returns a 400 Bad Request error because it does not support the user parameter.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @xxddff, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses an issue where requests to the Codex upstream via '/v1/responses' were failing due to an unsupported 'user' parameter. The change implements a filter to remove this field from the request payload, ensuring successful communication with the upstream API and improving the robustness of the proxy.

Highlights

• Unsupported field removal: The 'user' field is now explicitly removed from the '/v1/responses' payload when proxying requests to the Codex upstream, resolving a '400 Bad Request' error.
• Unit test added: A new unit test, 'TestUserFieldDeletion', was introduced to ensure the 'user' field is correctly filtered out from the request body.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Changelog

• internal/translator/codex/openai/responses/codex_openai-responses_request.go
  • Added a line to delete the 'user' field from the raw JSON request body.
• internal/translator/codex/openai/responses/codex_openai-responses_request_test.go
  • Introduced 'TestUserFieldDeletion' to validate the removal of the 'user' field.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request correctly addresses the issue of the unsupported user field in Codex API requests by removing it from the payload. The addition of a new test case ensures this change is properly verified. My review includes a couple of minor suggestions to improve comment clarity and test failure diagnostics, which will enhance the code's long-term maintainability. Overall, this is a good fix.