I am able to open a new PR with the diff show in Codex but there is no option to update this PR after I request some more changes from Codex. This makes iteration difficult.
8 Likes
Same; it also prevents spinning up multiple agents operating on the same file / branch, because the second cannot pull changes that the first makes
2 Likes
I am facing the same issue, its not able to get the latest changes and resolve conflicts! do we need to manually pull the latest changes on each branch?
1 Like
Being able to push further iterations to the existing branch already created for a PR would be ideal. The way I have been dealing with this is once I’ve created a PR, any subsequent iteration is done from entirely new tasks targeting the PR branch that was created. More cumbersome, but does kind of get you there.
Just wanted to chime in and say I’m also finding this limitation pretty frustrating. Not being able to update an existing PR means I have to create a new one for every little change, which really disrupts the development flow. It makes Codex feel less helpful than it could be, especially when trying to iterate quickly. Hoping this feature gets added soon!
1 Like
Yep, this is a really big issue. Reusing the same feature branch on subsequent requests would fix the issue and then an option to push back to that branch. As it stands today, you lose the thread when submitting multiple requests.
It would be optimal if a single task of Codex would be associated with one (and only one) branch. And if we could have the conversation inside a GitHub Issues page, it would be even better, to keep the active PR as part of the context, which I am not sure we are doing right now.
This is solved on the web version of codex but from the it keeps pushing to nee PRs instead of updating the existing branch/PR
How is it solved? I just tried codex, and after asking it to make changes, there no longer is a way to create a PR with any changes it made. I ca still see the diffs but the only way forward is manually copying code for every file, which is super annoying… I don’t even get why there is an option to ask for changes if that means we can no longer get the updated code.
Huge +1. @codex implement a fix for PR review comments (whether from Codex or a human) is still cumbersome and not really solved. This isn’t getting enough attention.
Codex developer docs say that if your GitHub comment contains anything besides @codex review , Codex spins up a Cloud task “with the context of your PR.” In the LLM sense, sure — but in the developer sense it’s not actually working in the context of the existing PR branch.
By contrast, with Anthropic’s claude-code-actions, you can wire up a GitHub Action so a flow like @claude do a code review → human supervision → @claude implement a fix commits directly to the same PR with no additional configuration.
With Codex, you’d need a custom GitHub Action around the CLI (handling secrets, diffs, commit author, etc.) and probably a new trigger keyword since @codex is already bound to the connector bot. Rinse-repeat for every repository. I’ve seen a few GitHub Action experiments with Codex CLI, but none that commit fixes back into an existing PR.
This feels like a table-stakes feature for proper human-supervised, iterative PR review & code-gen remediation process on existing branches, and really should be supported out-of-the-box by the chatgpt-codex-connector GitHub App (which already has read/write access to PRs, code, actions, etc.).
3 Likes
+1 on this, super annoying
Yes.. I can’t believe this still hasn’t been solved. There’s an obvious path to solving it.. run a few git commands, analyze the intent of each diff and address the conflict markers in a way that stays true to both..
1 Like