[WRONG BRANCH] fix: tolerate incompatible Codex history schemas

[luvs01]

Motivation

• Restoring native Codex history could open and query an existing state_5.sqlite even when no backup manifest existed, which throws on databases missing the threads table or the first_user_message column and causes ocx stop/restore to fail.
• The intent is to preserve the earlier fast-path no-backup behavior while still allowing legacy-row recovery when the DB schema is known to be compatible.

Description

• Add hasCompatibleHistorySchema(stateDbPath: string): boolean which performs a readonly probe of the expected threads schema and returns false for absent/incompatible schemas while rethrowing recoverable lock/permission errors to preserve retry semantics.
• Guard restoreCodexHistoryProvider so that when the backup manifest is empty we skip opening/working the DB unless the compatibility probe returns true, making the no-backup path a safe no-op for incompatible or corrupt DBs.
• Add regression tests in tests/codex-history-provider.test.ts covering a DB with no threads table, a threads table missing first_user_message, and a corrupt sqlite file to assert the no-backup restore becomes a no-op.

Testing

• Ran the focused suite with the repository-bundled Bun and the codex history tests: node_modules/@oven/bun-linux-x64-baseline/bin/bun test --isolate tests/codex-history-provider.test.ts, and all 26 tests in that file passed.
• Type-checks ran: bun run typecheck succeeded.
• Privacy scan ran: bun run privacy:scan succeeded.
• The full test suite (bun run test) was attempted but an unrelated test timed out / failed elsewhere in the suite; the history-provider focused tests continued to pass.

---

Codex Task

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@luvs01, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 6 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: a693159d-9660-4ff3-a2e1-fe8508eb9c7b

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 57140d6 and a5bcd4a.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src/codex/history-provider.ts
• tests/codex-history-provider.test.ts

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[github-actions]

✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

[github-actions]

⏳ DRAFT

• wrong target branch (main); retarget to dev.

What to do

• Retarget this PR to dev — all contributions go to dev.

Its title has been prefixed with [WRONG BRANCH].
This pull request was already a draft. Its draft status will be preserved after every issue above is resolved.