refactor: narrow web image input v1

This commit is contained in:
Tianyi Cui
2026-07-29 23:18:57 +08:00
parent 8348a409aa
commit 3a4c436d83
69 changed files with 280 additions and 613 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
# Bilingual-pair consistency record (docs/i18n/README.md): the git blob hash of each
# side as of the last confirmed-consistent state. Both languages carry equal authority;
# after editing either side, bring the other along and re-record with:
# pnpm run verify-translation-pairing --write .agents/notes/implemented/simplification/2026-07-29-narrow-web-image-input-v1.md
2026-07-29-narrow-web-image-input-v1.md: 5a42c7acea778f8d1ff00e30bde0f849de12eb6b
2026-07-29-narrow-web-image-input-v1.zh.md: 0459074d0145c0d43008d32196ac6577eca958f3

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
# Agent Note: Narrow Web image input version one
Status: implemented
English | [中文](2026-07-29-narrow-web-image-input-v1.zh.md)
## Problem
The first durable Web image-input slice also introduced speculative surfaces for multiple-image transactions, arbitrary CLI provider mounting, output-modality discovery, alternative text, and provider-neutral visual token pricing. None was required to paste or drop one image, persist it before its message event, replay it through a visual adapter, or render it from authorized history. Keeping those surfaces would turn unchosen future behavior into public contracts and make the initial capability harder to review and maintain.
## Decision
Version one accepts at most one image in a submitted prompt. The client gives immediate feedback, the host enforces the invariant, and the attachment seam validates and commits that one object. Deployment configuration retains per-image byte and pixel limits; request buffering derives from the per-image byte limit. There is no batch prevalidation, aggregate byte limit, image-count setting, transaction layer, or rollback protocol.
The CLI only patches the selected provider and model. The boot composition must already register the route, as it does for the shipped DeepSeek, OpenAI, and Anthropic routes; the CLI does not inspect the yml provider roster or dynamically mount an adapter.
Exact-model metadata carries only the input modalities that current admission decisions consume. `ImageBlock` carries the durable attachment reference; its optional display name supplies accessible UI text, so the core block has no separate alternative-text field. Provider-neutral token estimation does not apply one provider's visual pricing formula to other routes.
The attachment seam exposes its limits plus `saveImage` and `readImage`. The host depends on that seam rather than implementation re-exports. Browser draft and historical-image operations remain concrete conversation-plugin internals; the public `IConversation` face contains only the input registry and the scoped send, cancel, and history verbs used across package boundaries.
## Alternatives considered
**Keep multiple images and add transaction or rollback machinery.** Without garbage collection, a partially persisted batch needs an ownership or reclamation design. One image satisfies the initial user path without creating that lifecycle.
**Keep future-facing fields and methods as placeholders.** Output modalities, block alternative text, batch validation, and active-model handshake data had no current decision consumer. Adding them later with their first consumer preserves freedom to choose the correct contract.
**Estimate every image with one tile formula.** Visual pricing varies by provider, model, detail mode, and preprocessing. A hard-coded provider-neutral estimate would look authoritative while being wrong; provider usage is the authoritative accounting source.
**Mount any CLI-selected provider dynamically.** Configuration already owns plugin composition and credentials. Making selection also mutate composition duplicates that responsibility and requires parsing the config tree outside the loader.
## Consequences
The initial feature has fewer public fields, lifecycle operations, configuration knobs, and route-assembly branches. A prompt needing multiple images is rejected and must wait for an explicit multi-image persistence design. A provider absent from the composition cannot be selected solely with CLI flags. Pre-request token pressure may undercount visual input until a provider-aware estimator is designed, while reported usage remains exact.
Reintroducing any removed surface requires a concrete consumer and its failure, lifecycle, replay, and testing contract rather than compatibility with this pre-release shape.

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
# Agent Note: 收窄 Web 图片输入第一版
Status: implemented
[English](2026-07-29-narrow-web-image-input-v1.md) | 中文
## 问题
首个持久化 Web 图片输入切片还引入了多张图片事务、由 CLI(命令行界面)挂载任意提供方、输出模态发现、替代文本以及与提供方无关的视觉 token 定价等推测性表面。要实现粘贴或拖放一张图片、在其消息事件之前将其持久化、通过视觉适配器回放它,或从经授权的历史记录中渲染它,并不需要上述任何表面。保留这些表面会把尚未选择的未来行为变成公共契约,并使初始能力更难评审和维护。
## 决策
第一版在每条提交的提示词中最多接受一张图片。客户端立即提供反馈,宿主强制执行该不变量,附件服务边界则校验并提交这一个对象。部署配置保留单张图片的字节和像素限制;请求缓冲上限由单张图片的字节限制派生。不设批量预校验、总字节限制、图片数量设置、事务层或回滚协议。
CLI 只修改选定的提供方和模型。启动组合必须已经注册该路由,随项目交付的 DeepSeek、OpenAI 和 Anthropic 路由正是如此;CLI 不会检查 yml 提供方清单,也不会动态挂载适配器。
确切模型元数据只携带当前准入决策会消费的输入模态。`ImageBlock` 携带持久附件引用;其可选显示名称提供无障碍 UI 文本,因此核心块没有单独的替代文本字段。与提供方无关的 token 估算不会把某一提供方的视觉定价公式应用于其他路由。
附件服务边界公开其限制以及 `saveImage` 和 `readImage`。宿主依赖该服务边界,而不是实现层重新导出的内容。浏览器草稿和历史图片操作仍是具体会话插件的内部实现;公开的 `IConversation` 表面只包含输入注册表,以及跨包边界使用的按作用域发送、取消和历史记录操作。
## 曾考虑的替代方案
**保留多张图片,并添加事务或回滚机制。** 没有垃圾回收时,部分持久化的批次需要一套所有权或回收设计。一张图片即可满足首个用户路径,而不引入该生命周期。
**将面向未来的字段和方法保留为占位符。** 输出模态、块替代文本、批量校验和活跃模型握手数据目前都没有决策消费方。等到第一个消费方出现时再加入这些内容,可以保留选择正确契约的自由。
**使用一种图块公式估算每张图片。** 视觉定价因提供方、模型、细节模式和预处理而异。一项硬编码且与提供方无关的估算会看似权威,实际却是错误的;提供方用量才是权威核算来源。
**动态挂载 CLI 选择的任意提供方。** 配置已经负责插件组合和凭据。让选择操作同时改变组合会造成职责重复,并要求在加载器之外解析配置树。
## 后果
初始功能具有更少的公开字段、生命周期操作、配置项和路由组装分支。需要多张图片的提示词会被拒绝,必须等待明确的多张图片持久化设计。未加入组合的提供方无法仅凭 CLI 标志选择。在设计出提供方感知型估算器之前,请求前的 token 压力计算可能少计视觉输入,而上报的用量仍保持精确。
重新引入任何已移除表面时,都必须有具体消费方,并为其定义失败、生命周期、回放和测试契约,而不是为了兼容这一预发布形态。