feat: add escalation memory cache and ingest by mjnovice · Pull Request #805 · UiPath/uipath-langchain-python

mjnovice · 2026-04-23T23:35:36Z

Depends on #793

Summary

Adds memory cache check (_check_escalation_memory_cache) before HITL task creation — cache hit skips human escalation
Adds outcome ingest (_ingest_escalation_memory) after human resolution to persist for future recall
Gated by isAgentMemoryEnabled + memorySpaceId on the escalation resource config
Search settings (threshold, searchMode, fieldSettings) read from resource memory config
Span attributes (fromMemory, savedToMemory) for trace observability
Extracts completed_by_user email for memory ingest userId

Test plan

tests/agent/tools/test_escalation_memory.py — 7 tests for cache check, ingest, and space ID resolution
tests/agent/tools/test_escalation_tool.py — all 37 tests pass
tests/agent/tools/test_ixp_escalation_tool.py — all 16 tests pass
Ruff lint passes

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

mjnovice · 2026-04-24T00:03:57Z

Transferring review comments from @andreitava-uip on #793 that apply to escalation memory (now in this PR):

No private repo references in public library — Remove comments referencing .cs files from private repos. Applicable to all comments.
Move memory helpers to a separate file — The memory helpers are completely standalone and should be in their own file rather than in escalation_tool.py.
Hardcoded CONTINUE outcome — Is hardcoding CONTINUE correct? Do we not commit to memory other outcomes?

mjnovice · 2026-04-24T00:04:35Z

Another comment from @andreitava-uip on #793:

Lazy load question (escalation_tool.py, around line 438) — "Any reason for the lazy load?"

mjnovice · 2026-04-24T00:04:44Z

Another comment from @andreitava-uip on #793:

Hardcoded CONTINUE in tests (test_escalation_memory.py, line 58) — "This mirrors my other comment over whether the action result should get hardcoded to CONTINUE"

gcuip · 2026-04-24T14:53:23Z

+        folder_key = (
+            sdk.folders.retrieve_folder_key(folder_path) if folder_path else None
+        )
+        response = await sdk.memory.escalation_search_async(


you should define and use a retriever

gcuip · 2026-04-24T15:01:04Z

+def _get_escalation_memory_space_id(
+    resource: AgentEscalationResourceConfig,
+) -> str | None:
+    """Resolve memory space ID from escalation resource extra fields."""


how do you validate these values in the first place? or do you rely on the input being correct? what if access got revoked on the folder between different runs or if the memory spaces got deleted?

The Temporal backend follows a best-effort with lazy validation pattern here — no upfront validation of memorySpaceId/folderKey. Memory space and folder are resolved only when search/ingest is actually triggered, and all memory operations are wrapped in try/catch:

FetchFromMemory: returns null on any error — escalation proceeds normally

Ingest: catches errors, logs them, but still returns the escalation result

No retry logic — single attempt, any failure is a graceful no-op

(Ref: EscalationToolExecutor.cs lines 642-690 for search, 507-548 for ingest)

Our Python implementation follows the same pattern. We can take up additional validation (e.g. checking for deleted memory spaces or revoked folder access upfront) as an improvement in a separate PR.

Adds memory integration to the escalation tool: - Before creating HITL task: escalation_search_async() checks for cached answer - Cache hit returns cached result immediately, skipping human escalation - After human resolution: escalation_ingest_async() persists outcome - Gated by isAgentMemoryEnabled + memorySpaceId on the escalation resource - Search settings (threshold, searchMode, fieldSettings) read from resource config - Span attributes (fromMemory, savedToMemory) for trace observability Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

smflorentino · 2026-04-24T20:18:22Z

+    if not resource.is_agent_memory_enabled:
+        return None
+    props = getattr(resource, "properties", None)
+    if isinstance(props, dict):


this seems suspect

smflorentino · 2026-04-24T20:20:40Z

+        # Extract completed_by_user before validation drops extra fields
+        # Ref: EscalationToolExecutor.cs:514-516 — resolves ReviewedBy email
+        _completed_by_user = (
+            result.get("completed_by_user")


this seems supect - is your typing correct

smflorentino · 2026-04-24T20:21:29Z

+    return None
+
+
+async def _ingest_escalation_memory(


where is parent span ID pased?

smflorentino · 2026-04-24T20:23:13Z

+
+def _get_escalation_memory_settings(
+    resource: AgentEscalationResourceConfig,
+) -> dict[str, Any] | None:


this can't return a class?

smflorentino · 2026-04-24T20:25:15Z

@@ -262,6 +319,23 @@ async def create_escalation_task():
            EscalationAction(outcome_str) if outcome_str else EscalationAction.CONTINUE
        )

+        # --- Escalation memory: persist outcome for future recall ---
+        # Shape must match Temporal backend (EscalationToolExecutor.cs):
+        #   answer:     new { taskResult.Output, taskResult.Outcome }         (line 485)
+        #   attributes: new JsonObject { ["arguments"] = payload.Input.Arguments } (line 503)
+        #   spanId/traceId/userId: lines 522-526
+        if _memory_space_id:
+            span_id, trace_id = get_current_span_and_trace_ids()
+            await _ingest_escalation_memory(
+                _memory_space_id,
+                answer=json.dumps({"output": escalation_output, "outcome": outcome}),
+                attributes=json.dumps({"arguments": serialized_data}),
+                span_id=span_id,
+                trace_id=trace_id,
+                user_id=_get_user_email(_completed_by_user),
+                folder_path=folder_path,
+            )
+
        return {
            "action": escalation_action,
            "output": escalation_output,
@@ -333,3 +407,162 @@ async def escalation_wrapper(
    tool.set_tool_wrappers(awrapper=escalation_wrapper)

    return tool
+
+
+# --- Escalation memory helpers ---
+
+
+async def _check_escalation_memory_cache(
+    memory_space_id: str,
+    serialized_input: dict[str, Any],
+    folder_path: str | None = None,
+    memory_settings: dict[str, Any] | None = None,
+) -> dict[str, Any] | None:
+    """Check escalation memory for a cached answer.
+
+    SearchSettings (threshold, searchMode) are read from the user's memory
+    settings on the escalation resource, matching the Temporal backend's
+    BuildMemorySearchRequest (EscalationToolExecutor.cs:714-747).
+    result_count is always 1 for escalation memory.
+
+    Returns the cached result dict if found, None otherwise.
+    """
+
+    try:
+        from uipath.platform.memory import (
+            FieldSettings,
+            MemorySearchRequest,
+            SearchField,
+            SearchMode,
+            SearchSettings,
+        )
+
+        # Read search settings from user's memory config (threshold, searchMode),
+        # falling back to defaults. result_count is always 1 for escalation memory.
+        # Ref: EscalationToolExecutor.cs BuildMemorySearchRequest (lines 740-743)
+        threshold = 0.0
+        search_mode = SearchMode.Hybrid
+        field_settings_lookup: dict[str, dict[str, Any]] = {}
+        if memory_settings:
+            threshold = memory_settings.get("threshold", 0.0)
+            mode_str = memory_settings.get("searchMode", "Hybrid")
+            search_mode = (
+                SearchMode(mode_str)
+                if mode_str in SearchMode.__members__
+                else SearchMode.Hybrid
+            )
+            for fs in memory_settings.get("fieldSettings", []):
+                if isinstance(fs, dict) and "name" in fs:
+                    field_settings_lookup[fs["name"]] = fs
+
+        fields: list[SearchField] = []
+        for k, v in serialized_input.items():
+            if v is None:
+                continue
+            # When field settings are configured, only include fields with
+            # configured weights (matching Temporal backend behavior)
+            if field_settings_lookup and k not in field_settings_lookup:
+                continue
+            settings = FieldSettings()
+            if k in field_settings_lookup:
+                fs = field_settings_lookup[k]
+                settings = FieldSettings(weight=fs.get("weight", 1.0))
+            # key_path must be prefixed with field type (FieldBuilder.cs:15)
+            fields.append(
+                SearchField(
+                    key_path=["escalation-input", k],
+                    value=str(v),
+                    settings=settings,
+                )
+            )
+        if not fields:
+            return None
+
+        request = MemorySearchRequest(
+            fields=fields,
+            settings=SearchSettings(
+                threshold=threshold,
+                result_count=1,
+                search_mode=search_mode,
+            ),
+        )
+        sdk = UiPath()
+        folder_key = (
+            sdk.folders.retrieve_folder_key(folder_path) if folder_path else None
+        )
+        response = await sdk.memory.escalation_search_async(
+            memory_space_id=memory_space_id,
+            request=request,
+            folder_key=folder_key,
+        )
+        if response.results and response.results[0].answer:
+            cached = response.results[0].answer
+            _escalation_logger.info(
+                "Escalation memory cache hit for space '%s'", memory_space_id
+            )
+            # Ref: EscalationToolWorkflow.cs:103 — span.Attributes.FromMemory = true
+            set_span_attribute("fromMemory", True)
+            return {
+                "action": EscalationAction.CONTINUE,
+                "output": cached.output,
+                "outcome": cached.outcome,
+            }
+    except Exception:
+        _escalation_logger.warning(
+            "Escalation memory search failed for space '%s'",
+            memory_space_id,
+            exc_info=True,
+        )
+
+    return None
+
+
+async def _ingest_escalation_memory(
+    memory_space_id: str,
+    answer: str,
+    attributes: str,
+    span_id: str,
+    trace_id: str,
+    user_id: str | None = None,
+    folder_path: str | None = None,


why can this be None

smflorentino · 2026-04-24T20:26:07Z

+            "Ingested escalation outcome into memory space '%s'", memory_space_id
+        )
+    except Exception:
+        set_span_attribute("savedToMemory", False)


span needs to be set to error state? error message on span?

mjnovice force-pushed the feat/memory-loop-integration-scaffold branch 4 times, most recently from 8c8b6b1 to 4817a5e Compare April 24, 2026 06:42

Base automatically changed from feat/memory-loop-integration-scaffold to main April 24, 2026 07:12

gcuip reviewed Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

mjnovice force-pushed the feat/escalation-memory branch from 4938bc0 to 7bd14ea Compare April 24, 2026 16:30

smflorentino reviewed Apr 24, 2026

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: add escalation memory cache and ingest#805

feat: add escalation memory cache and ingest#805
mjnovice wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
feat/escalation-memory

mjnovice commented Apr 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

mjnovice commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

mjnovice commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

mjnovice commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

gcuip Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

gcuip Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

mjnovice Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

smflorentino Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

smflorentino Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

smflorentino Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

smflorentino Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

smflorentino Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

smflorentino Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

Conversation

mjnovice commented Apr 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary

Test plan

Uh oh!

mjnovice commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

mjnovice commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

mjnovice commented Apr 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

3 participants

mjnovice commented Apr 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading