Tracking issue for the 8 open gaps called out in the 0.4.26.1 release notes. None are consumer-blocking; this issue exists to make the "what ships next" decision quick in a fresh session.
How to use this issue
Pick a single item, open an implementation-planning session referencing this issue by URL, start with: "Survey chinchill-api usage for code paths that touch <item>. If none, confirm this is pure upstream-parity work and propose scope." Don't batch items — they're independent and each deserves its own PR.
Tier 1 — cheap, ship as 0.4.26.2
Target: land within a few days, one PR, short CHANGELOG.
Tier 2 — medium scope, own PR each
Target: one PR per item, CHANGELOG entry, no release per item (bundle 2–3 into 0.4.26.3).
Tier 3 — dedicated project
Blocked on feature completion
Prioritization signals
- None of these have reported consumer incidents. Priority comes from upstream-parity pressure (staying close to
vercel/chat) and whether chinchill-api hits the code path.
- chinchill-api started depending on chat_sdk recently but its webhook surface (Slack-primary) doesn't obviously exercise any of these. Confirm before picking items — the first implementation session should grep chinchill-api for the relevant symbols.
- Divergence tax: every month on different versions makes future upstream syncs harder. Tier 1 + 2 close most of the parity delta from
4.26.
Starting a fresh session
Recommended opening prompt for the next session:
Pick up the roadmap in issue #. Survey chinchill-api under /Users/patrickliang/GitHub/chinchill-api for usage of any of the listed symbols (getParticipants, onOptionsLoad, rehydrateAttachment, Gateway, Teams mTLS, Google Chat file uploads). Report which items are on their path; then propose scope for whichever Tier 1 item we pick off first.
Tracking issue for the 8 open gaps called out in the
0.4.26.1release notes. None are consumer-blocking; this issue exists to make the "what ships next" decision quick in a fresh session.How to use this issue
Pick a single item, open an implementation-planning session referencing this issue by URL, start with: "Survey chinchill-api usage for code paths that touch
<item>. If none, confirm this is pure upstream-parity work and propose scope." Don't batch items — they're independent and each deserves its own PR.Tier 1 — cheap, ship as
0.4.26.2Target: land within a few days, one PR, short CHANGELOG.
Thread.getParticipants()method #54 —Thread.getParticipants(). New public API. ~30 lines. Test via MockAdapter.process_reaction/process_action/process_slash_command/process_modal_*. Extend the existing_concurrent_semaphoreto cover non-message paths. Worth confirming upfront whether the right shape is "one shared bound" or "per-event-type bounds" — ask once, then implement.Tier 2 — medium scope, own PR each
Target: one PR per item, CHANGELOG entry, no release per item (bundle 2–3 into
0.4.26.3).onOptionsLoadhandler for dynamic select dropdown population #50 —onOptionsLoadhandler for dynamic select dropdowns. Touches webhook dispatch in Slack/Teams + handler registration inchat.py. Pure upstream-parity.rehydrate_attachmentto Adapter protocol +_rehydrate_message#52 —rehydrate_attachmentadapter hook for queue/debounce + attachments. TouchesThreadserialization + all 8 adapters' attachment handling. Largest test burden of this tier.teams/adapter.py. Requires thinking through cert storage + rotation ergonomics.google_chat/adapter.py.Tier 3 — dedicated project
Blocked on feature completion
Prioritization signals
vercel/chat) and whether chinchill-api hits the code path.4.26.Starting a fresh session
Recommended opening prompt for the next session: