useLangGraphInterrupt seems to force resume a node

[misty stump]

I have a node that takes user input and uses the input to update the message. Then it goes to the next node. The node returns
Command(
resume=user_input,
update={
"messages": [
user_input,
]
},
goto="<next-node>",
)
However, from the LangSmith traces, I'm seeing {"graph":null,"update":null,"resume":"<user input>","goto":null} being returned from the UI, causing the conversation to be stuck. Is this a correct observation? And how do I resolve this? Thanks!

[dapper drift]

Hi @misty stump, UI is only returning the resume field, causing the conversation to stall because your node isn’t handling the resume input properly. Have you had a chance to check this CopilotKit example.

[misty stump]

@dapper drift Thanks. This example doesn't use interrupt though. What exactly does the UI return? Is it an instance of Command? It doesn't seem to be just purely user input

[exotic adder]

Hey!

Eventually what's being sent after resolving the interrupt (user interaction), is the equivalent of what's shown here in the "invoke" method call:
https://langchain-ai.github.io/langgraph/concepts/human_in_the_loop/#review-edit-state

So something like so: Command(resume={USER_ANSWER})

[misty stump]

Thanks @exotic adder! This is helpful. Is it possible to modify it to fit my use case? I want to use the update and goto fields as well.
My (multi)-agent app works on the studio but fails when integrated wiith copilotkit

[misty stump]

I tried the following but it didn't work

    """Ask the user for input."""
    # Get the Command object from the frontend
    command = interrupt(state.messages[-1].content)

    # Modify the Command object
    modified_command = Command(
        resume=command.resume,  # Use the original resume value
        update={
            "messages": [
                command.resume,  # Add the resume value to messages
            ]
        },
        goto="next_agent",
    )```

[severe carbon]

Hi @misty stump, would you mind opening a GitHub Issue as it sounds like adding the other fields would be a feature request and this seems reasonable?

[misty stump]

Yeah sure, will do!