Addressing PR comments

[Codex]

Original prompt

---

This section details on the original issue you should resolve

<issue_title>Are these tests really helpful?</issue_title>
<issue_description>The codebase includes many tests, however the real world problem still exists after passing all tests. Do we still need to keep all tests?</issue_description>

<agent_instructions>Please review the tests and try to minimize the real gap between tests and real world user's experience. </agent_instructions>

Comments on the Issue (you are @codex[agent] in this section)

• Fixes Are these tests really helpful? #7

[poseidonchan]

@claude[agent] review this PR, does it fully solve the issue?

[poseidonchan]

@claude[agent] review this PR, does it fully solve the issue?

@claude[agent] review this PR, does it fully solve the issue?

[Claude]

@claude[agent] review this PR, does it fully solve the issue?

@claude[agent] review this PR, does it fully solve the issue?

Yes, the PR solves the core parsing issue.

What was broken: The original code at events.py:310 only accepted arguments as a string (isinstance(args_s, str)), so when Codex sent dict-format arguments like {"cmd": ["ls", "-la"]}, those events were silently dropped—leaving the bot blind to tool executions.

What the fix does (51651fb):

• Accepts both string and dict arguments formats
• Properly converts list cmd values to shell strings using shlex.join()
• Handles escalation metadata in both formats for approval requests

Test coverage: Added 2 regression tests covering dict arguments with/without escalation. Existing integration tests in test_proxy_approval_flow.py validate the full event loop (ThreadStarted → ExecApprovalRequest → approval UI), though they use structured event objects rather than raw JSONL payloads.

The broader issue of test-vs-reality gap exists because unit tests focused on structured event objects while real events arrive as JSONL. This PR closes that specific gap for exec_command parsing.