mirror of
https://github.com/larksuite/cli.git
synced 2026-07-07 09:11:44 +08:00
020aeb87ad
* feat(drive): pre-flight per-text-element byte limit for +add-comment
The open-platform comment API returns an opaque [1069302] Invalid or
missing parameters whenever a single reply_elements[i] text exceeds
its implicit byte budget. The error does not name which element failed
or that length is the cause, so callers resort to binary-search
debugging.
Empirically: Chinese text up to ~80 chars (~240 bytes) lands; ~130
chars (~390 bytes) fails. Set the pre-flight limit to 300 bytes which
sits safely inside the known-good zone.
- parseCommentReplyElements now rejects any text element whose UTF-8
byte length exceeds 300, with an ExitError naming the element index
(#N, 1-based) and both the rune and byte counts, plus an ErrWithHint
recommending the correct remediation (split into multiple text
elements — the comment UI renders them as one contiguous comment).
- The previous 1000-rune check is removed: it was too lenient (a
Chinese text under that cap would still fail server-side).
- skills/lark-drive/references/lark-drive-add-comment.md documents
the per-element limit and the correct split pattern so agents
avoid constructing oversized single elements upstream.
Addresses Case 12 in the 踩坑列表 doc.
* fix(drive): correct +add-comment hint to match actual escape coverage
`escapeCommentText` only expands `<` and `>` (each → 4 bytes via
`<` / `>`); `&` is intentionally left as-is. Both the over-limit
hint and the inline comment in `parseCommentReplyElements` previously
claimed `&` was also escaped, with a "4-5 bytes each" range that
implicitly assumed `&` (5 bytes) — a string of 300 `&` chars
would actually fit in the budget, but a user reading the hint would
think otherwise and pre-emptively split it.
Code:
- Hint string ends with `Note: '<' and '>' are HTML-escaped and
counted in their escaped form (4 bytes each).` (was: included `&`
and "4-5 bytes")
- Inline comment above the budget check now matches:
`escapeCommentText only expands '<' and '>' (each becomes 4 bytes:
< / >); '&' is intentionally left as-is.`
Tests (regression):
- New `300 ampersands accepted (escapeCommentText leaves '&' as-is)`
subtest pins that 300 `&` chars stay within budget. Without the fix
this also passed (function was always correct), but the hint was
lying — the test pins the budget contract loud and clear.
- New `TestParseCommentReplyElementsHintMatchesEscape` asserts the
hint string itself: must mention `'<' and '>'` / `4 bytes`, must NOT
mention `'&'` / `&` / `4-5 bytes`. Catches a future drift if
`escapeCommentText` is changed without updating the hint, or
vice-versa.
The skill md (`skills/lark-drive/references/lark-drive-add-comment.md`)
already had the right wording (`每个 < 或 > 占 4 字节`), so it was the
in-Go strings that drifted; this commit aligns code with doc.
* fix(drive): rewrite +add-comment length cap to match real server behavior
The original PR set a 300-byte per-element pre-flight check, justified
by the empirical pattern "~80 Chinese chars succeeds, ~130 fails". A
fresh round of probing the live `/open-apis/drive/v1/files/{token}/
new_comments` endpoint with a real docx shows that pattern does not
reproduce, and the actual contract is very different:
- 10000 ASCII / 10000 Chinese / 10000 '<' (escaped to 40000 bytes)
in a single text element: all OK
- 10001 of any of the above in a single text element: [1069302]
- 5000 + 5000 across two text elements (total 10000): OK
- 5000 + 5001 across two text elements (total 10001): [1069302]
- 4000 + 4000 + 4000 across three (total 12000): [1069302]
Two consequences:
1. The cap is *10000 runes total across all reply_elements text*, not
300 bytes per element. The old check rejected legitimate input
anywhere from ~100 to 10000 Chinese chars (≈100x too aggressive).
2. The hint that recommended "split the content across multiple
{\"type\":\"text\",\"text\":\"...\"} elements" was actively wrong —
splitting doesn't bypass a total cap. A user told to split a
10001-char message into 5000+5001 hits the same opaque [1069302].
This commit:
- Replaces `maxCommentTextElementBytes = 300` with
`maxCommentTotalRunes = 10000`. The constant's doc comment records
the probe matrix above so future maintainers know how it was
derived.
- Switches the measurement from `len(escapeCommentText(input.Text))`
to `utf8.RuneCountInString(input.Text)`. Server counts raw runes;
byte width and post-escape form are irrelevant. The escape itself
still happens — `<` and `>` still get rendered literally — but it
no longer participates in the length check.
- Tracks a running `totalRunes` across the whole reply_elements array
and bails at the first element that pushes the cumulative total
over the 10000-rune budget, with index reporting that points at the
offending element.
- Rewrites the over-cap hint to (a) name the actual 10000-rune budget,
(b) explicitly say splitting does NOT help, (c) drop the wrong
"comment UI still renders them as one contiguous comment" framing
that implied splitting was a workaround.
- Adds a `TestParseCommentReplyElementsHintForbidsSplitAdvice`
watchdog that fails if any future drift puts the discredited split
advice back into the hint.
Tests: 11 cases on TestParseCommentReplyElementsTextLength covering
single-element boundary (ASCII / Chinese / angle brackets at exactly
10000 and at 10001), multi-element total cap (5000+5000 OK, 5000+5001
rejected with index pointing at element #2), early-element-overshoot
indexing (first element at 10001 reports index #1, not the trailing
element), and mention_user not double-counting toward the cap.
Skill md updated: removes the 300-byte / "split into multiple
elements" advice; documents the 10000-rune total cap with a note that
the schema currently advertises 1-1000 chars and is out of date,
plus a procedure for re-probing if the server-side limit ever moves.
Manual API verification: rebuilt binary and posted comments at
boundary lengths — all OK cases (100 / 5000 / 10000 chars, 5000+5000
split) accepted by server; over-cap cases (10001 / 10100 single, and
5000+5001 split) rejected by the new pre-flight before reaching the
network.
---------
Co-authored-by: fangshuyu <fangshuyu@bytedance.com>