fix: preserve quoted replies in text sends

[clawsweeper]

Summary

• construct complete quoted-reply context from the referenced stored message
• set the quoted participant correctly for incoming and own outgoing messages
• reject missing or unsupported quote targets before sending
• preserve reply fields through the sync --follow IPC delegate

Why

send text --reply-to currently emits only a stanza ID and optional participant. WhatsApp accepts and delivers the message but can omit the recipient-side quote box because QuotedMessage is absent. Direct-message lookups can also miss silently and still report a successful send.

Validation

• table-driven DM and group quote-context tests
• incoming and own-outgoing participant tests
• missing-row and unsupported-content failure tests proving no send occurs
• IPC request JSON round-trip coverage for reply fields
• ordinary text-send regression coverage
• full repository gate
• redacted recipient-side proof for direct and IPC-delegated sends

Closes #301

Thanks @odilorg for the detailed report and live reproduction evidence.

[clawsweeper]

Codex review: needs maintainer review before merge. Reviewed July 13, 2026, 6:26 PM ET / 22:26 UTC.

Summary
The PR builds complete quoted-message context for text sends, derives participants for incoming and own outgoing messages, preserves reply fields through IPC delegation, and adds focused regression tests.

Reproducibility: yes. The linked issue provides a concrete direct-message and IPC reproduction, and current-main source shows that reply context lacks QuotedMessage; this review did not independently run a live WhatsApp account.

Review metrics: 3 noteworthy metrics.

• Changed surface: 3 files; 278 additions, 4 deletions. The patch remains concentrated in text-send behavior and its regression coverage.
• Test expansion: 189 test additions. The added coverage exercises participant selection, failure paths, compatibility behavior, IPC serialization, and ordinary sends.
• Required checks: 3 successful checks. Tests, Linux release builds, and Docker validation completed successfully on the reviewed head.

Root-cause cluster
Relationship: fixed_by_candidate
Canonical: #301
Summary: This PR is the explicit candidate fix for the linked quoted-reply delivery issue.

Members:

• canonical: send text --reply-to: message delivers but the quote is silently dropped (0.11.1) #301 - The issue contains the reproduction and expected behavior, and this PR uses closing syntax for it.

Proposal only: this assessment does not dispatch repair, suppress jobs, mutate sibling items, close, or merge anything.

Merge readiness
Overall: 🐚 platinum hermit
Proof: 🌊 off-meta tidepool
Patch quality: 🐚 platinum hermit
Result: ready for maintainer review.

Overall follows the weaker of proof and patch quality, so missing proof can cap an otherwise strong patch.

Rank-up moves:

• none.

Next step before merge

• [P2] No repair job is indicated; the active PR can proceed through normal exact-head maintainer review and merge gating.

Security
Cleared: The Go send-logic and test changes do not alter dependencies, workflows, permissions, secrets, package resolution, or downloaded code.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land the focused implementation after normal exact-head maintainer review so stored targets render complete quotes while the documented unsynced group fallback remains compatible.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Yes. The linked issue provides a concrete direct-message and IPC reproduction, and current-main source shows that reply context lacks QuotedMessage; this review did not independently run a live WhatsApp account.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

Yes. Building complete context from stored messages while preserving the explicit unsynced-group fallback is the narrowest compatible correction, and the current head adds focused coverage for both paths.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against b1eb33538df3.

Label changes

Label justifications:

• P2: The PR fixes silently lost quoted-reply semantics in a bounded send workflow while ordinary message text continues to deliver.
• rating: 🐚 platinum hermit: Overall readiness is 🐚 platinum hermit; proof is 🌊 off-meta tidepool and patch quality is 🐚 platinum hermit.
• status: 👀 ready for maintainer look: ClawSweeper has no concrete contributor-facing blocker left for this PR. Not applicable: This is an autogenerated ClawSweeper bot repair PR, so the external-contributor proof gate does not apply; the body also reports redacted recipient-side direct and IPC validation.

Evidence reviewed

What I checked:

• Current-main defect: Current main creates reply context with a stanza ID and optional participant but does not populate QuotedMessage, matching the linked report's silently missing recipient-side quote. (github.com) (cmd/wacli/send.go:432, b1eb33538df3)
• PR implementation: The current branch constructs text reply context from stored message data, supplies the linked account identity for own outgoing quotes, and retains a compatibility path for explicitly identified unsynced group replies. (cmd/wacli/send.go:223, b92d1917c684)
• Regression coverage: The branch covers incoming and outgoing DM/group participants, missing and unsupported stored targets, the preserved unsynced group fallback, ordinary text sends, and IPC reply-field serialization. (cmd/wacli/send_test.go:303, b92d1917c684)
• Re-review continuity: The earlier P1 finding about preserving the documented unsynced group-reply workflow was repaired; the latest completed ClawSweeper review of this exact head passed with no findings. (cmd/wacli/send.go:456, b92d1917c684)
• Validation state: GitHub reports the PR cleanly mergeable, with the test, Linux release-build, and Docker checks successful on the current head. (b92d1917c684)
• Repository contract: The public send documentation describes quoted replies and the explicit sender parameter used when replying to an unsynced group message. (wacli.sh) (docs/send.md:33, b1eb33538df3)

Likely related people:

• dinakars777: The repository identifies this person as the current maintainer, and the prior review routed the send-command compatibility decision to them. (role: current repository maintainer; confidence: high; files: cmd/wacli/send.go, cmd/wacli/send_test.go, docs/send.md)
• steipete: The repository identifies this person as the creator and former maintainer, making them relevant to the historical send CLI contract. (role: creator and former maintainer; confidence: medium; files: cmd/wacli/send.go, docs/send.md)

What the crustacean ranks mean

• 🦀 challenger crab: rare, exceptional readiness with strong proof, clean implementation, and convincing validation.
• 🦞 diamond lobster: very strong readiness with only minor maintainer review expected.
• 🐚 platinum hermit: good normal PR, likely mergeable with ordinary maintainer review.
• 🦐 gold shrimp: useful signal, but proof or patch confidence is still limited.
• 🦪 silver shellfish: thin signal; proof, validation, or implementation needs work.
• 🧂 unranked krab: not merge-ready because proof is missing/unusable or there are serious correctness or safety concerns.
• 🌊 off-meta tidepool: rating does not apply to this item.

Shiny media proof means a screenshot, video, or linked artifact directly shows the changed behavior. Runtime, network, CSP, and security claims still need visible diagnostics.

How this review workflow works

• ClawSweeper keeps one durable marker-backed review comment per issue or PR.
• Re-runs edit this comment so the latest verdict, findings, and automation markers stay together instead of adding duplicate bot comments.
• A fresh review can be triggered by eligible @clawsweeper re-review comments, exact-item GitHub events, scheduled/background review runs, or manual workflow dispatch.
• PR/issue authors and users with repository write access can comment @clawsweeper re-review or @clawsweeper re-run on an open PR or issue to request a fresh review only.
• Maintainers can also comment @clawsweeper review to request a fresh review only.
• Fresh-review commands do not start repair, autofix, rebase, CI repair, or automerge.
• Maintainer-only repair and merge flows require explicit commands such as @clawsweeper autofix, @clawsweeper automerge, @clawsweeper fix ci, or @clawsweeper address review.
• Maintainers can comment @clawsweeper explain to ask for more context, or @clawsweeper stop to stop active automation.

Review history (3 earlier review cycles)

• reviewed 2026-07-13T21:51:40.981Z sha 706d774 :: found issues before merge. :: [P1] Preserve the documented unsynced group-reply path
• reviewed 2026-07-13T22:00:46.556Z sha 706d774 :: found issues before merge. :: [P1] Preserve the documented unsynced group-reply path
• reviewed 2026-07-13T22:13:17.334Z sha b92d191 :: passed. :: none

[clawsweeper]

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper autofix is enabled.

• Head: 706d774b1da4
• Label: clawsweeper:autofix
• Action: exact-head review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
• Flow: review this head, repair/rebase only if needed, then re-review the exact repaired head until no actionable findings remain.

This is fix-only; I will not merge this PR.

Re-review progress:

• State: Complete
• Detail: The targeted re-review published an exact durable review comment and queued an executing target-wide serialized router scan.
• Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29288174319
• Updated: 2026-07-13T22:02:36.825Z

[clawsweeper]

🦞✅
ClawSweeper autofix is complete for this exact head.

Source: clawsweeper[bot]
Feedback: structured ClawSweeper verdict: pass (sha=b92d1917c684c1d960b3245ea4f165a111dc5db3)
Head: b92d1917c684

No actionable findings remain. I removed the repair-loop label and left the PR open for maintainer review and merge.

Automerge progress:

• 2026-07-13 22:02:26 UTC review requested repair 706d774b1da4 (structured ClawSweeper needs-human verdict with repairable P-severity findings...)

• 2026-07-13 21:56:17 UTC repair queued 706d774b1da4 (autonomous) Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29288163697

• 2026-07-13 21:58:29 UTC repair started (running) in 0s Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29288163697 automerge-openclaw-wacli-302

• 2026-07-13 21:58:32 UTC validation plan (passed) in 3s Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29288163697 git diff --check

• 2026-07-13 22:03:00 UTC Codex edit 1 706d774b1da4 (complete) in 4m 32s Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29288163697 exit 0

• 2026-07-13 22:04:55 UTC validation and review 1 b92d1917c684 (complete) in 6m 27s Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29288163697 already-current

• 2026-07-13 22:06:30 UTC repair completed b92d1917c684 (branch updated) in 8m 1s Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29288163697 initial automerge rebase is delegated to Codex repair

• 2026-07-13 22:06:29 UTC review queued b92d1917c684 (after repair)

• 2026-07-13 22:15:22 UTC automerge wait b92d1917c684 (ready) in 16m 54s Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29288163697 checks and exact-head review are ready

• 2026-07-13 22:15:23 UTC repair finished b92d1917c684 (pushed) in 16m 55s Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/29288163697 repair_contributor_branch

• 2026-07-13 22:15:10 UTC review passed b92d1917c684 (structured ClawSweeper verdict: pass (sha=b92d1917c684c1d960b3245ea4f165a111dc5...)