mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-13 13:38:01 +02:00
codex/boat-runtime-prerequisite
33
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
8dd381f5dd |
perf(ci): run the db project as its own workspaces-c lane (#15831)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Pull requests to this repository run a large CI matrix. The slowest
check sets the time a contributor waits for a green run.
> - The `General tests (workspaces-b)` lane runs every non-server Vitest
project except `ui` and `cli` in one job, one project after the other.
After #15826 leveled the server shards, this lane became the slowest
check: 593s in run 38084171761, 523s in 38083084276 and 499s in
38083020834 (all 2026-10-10).
> - The `@paperclipai/db` project alone is 168s to 250s of that lane's
436s to 513s of vitest time. Its `client.test.ts` suite is 117s to 189s
and `backup-lib.test.ts` is 70s to 107s. The other seventeen projects
together are only 263s to 276s.
> - Vitest's native `--shard` does not level this lane. The db project
is already file-parallel, and a hash-ordered slice can put both slow
suites on one runner.
> - This pull request moves the db project into its own `workspaces-c`
lane in both `pr-trusted.yml` and `release-verify.yml`. The runner
script gains a `general-workspaces-c` group, and `general-workspaces-b`
drops the db project.
> - The benefit is that both lanes should finish in about 230s to 340s
instead of 499s to 593s, and `workspaces-b` leaves the critical path.
The cost is one more job per run, about 60s of setup.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Describe the enhancement**
The `General tests (workspaces-b)` PR check is the slowest check in the
run. It runs seventeen Vitest projects in sequence on one runner. The
`@paperclipai/db` project is one third to one half of its vitest time.
**Why is this needed**
The slowest check decides the wall-clock time of every PR run. In the
last three fully green runs on the current server-shard manifest,
`workspaces-b` took 499s, 523s and 593s (runs 38083020834, 38083084276
and 38084171761, 2026-10-10). The next slowest lanes, `Build` and the
server shards, sit at about 480s to 570s. A split of `workspaces-b`
removes 170s to 250s from this lane.
**Proposed solution**
Run the `@paperclipai/db` project as its own lane,
`general-workspaces-c`. Keep the other seventeen projects in
`general-workspaces-b`. Add the lane to both the PR and the release
verification matrix. Extend the guard tests so the three workspace lanes
still cover the root Vitest project list exactly once, so the new group
rejects shard flags, and so both workflows carry the lane unsharded.
**Alternatives considered**
- Vitest native `--shard` on `workspaces-b`, as `workspaces-a` does. The
db project is already file-parallel and its wall time is set by two long
suites, so a hash-ordered slice does not give a predictable split.
- Move `adapter-utils` (115s to 117s) into the new lane as well. That
makes the db lane 285s to 366s of tests and the rest 147s to 160s, which
is less level than db alone (168s to 250s) against the rest (263s to
276s).
- Three lanes. Not needed now: after this split both lanes sit under the
server shards and `Build`, so a third runner would not shorten the run.
## What Changed
- `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: new `general-workspaces-c` group that
runs `@paperclipai/db` alone. `general-workspaces-b` now excludes it.
Local `--mode all` runs all four general groups, so every project still
runs once. The dry-run output reports the new group's projects.
- `.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`: a `workspaces-c` entry in the
general tests matrix, with a comment that records the 2026-10-10
measurements.
- `.github/workflows/release-verify.yml`: the same `workspaces-c` entry,
to keep parity with the PR workflow.
- `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: the coverage
test includes the new group; shard flags are rejected for both
`workspaces-b` and `workspaces-c`; a new test asserts that
`workspaces-c` runs only the db project, that `workspaces-b` no longer
carries it, and that both workflows list both lanes without shard
arguments. The workflow check parses each `- group:` matrix entry with
comment lines removed, so a comment between keys cannot hide a shard
setting, and it first confirms the parser sees the shard keys on the
`workspaces-a` entries. A small parser test covers the
comment-between-keys case (Greptile P2).
- `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: the release
workflow must carry `general-workspaces-c`.
## Verification
- `GITHUB_WORKFLOW= node --test
scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 32 pass (was 29).
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: the
workflow parity test passes. Two unrelated tests in that file (`a
publisher lockfile lets a fresh smoke install retain validation after
... drift`) fail on my machine on pristine `master` too, because `pnpm`
is not on its PATH. They pass in CI.
- `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group
general-workspaces-c --dry-run` reports `["@paperclipai/db"]`; `--group
general-workspaces-b` reports the other seventeen projects.
- Both workflow files parse as YAML; the general tests matrix has 19
entries in `pr-trusted.yml` and 17 in `release-verify.yml`.
- This PR's own run exercises the script change but not the workflow
change: `pr.yml` calls `pr-trusted.yml@master`, so the matrix comes from
`master` and the `workspaces-c` job appears only on PR runs created
after the merge. Because the script comes from this branch, the
`workspaces-b` job in this PR's run (38090713637) ran the seventeen
remaining projects and finished in 340s, inside the expected 325s to
340s band. No job in that run ran `@paperclipai/db`.
- To cover the gap, I ran the new lane locally with the same command CI
uses, `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-workspaces-c`: 49 test
files, 180 tests, all passed, 111s of vitest time (
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4f680bc85c |
fix(release): retry verified canary tarball 404s (#15768)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Canary releases test the published npm packages through a clean onboarding install. > - A package can be announced in registry metadata while a fresh install gets a tarball 404. > - The existing ETARGET retry does not cover that distinct error. > - This pull request retries only a verified public canary tarball acquisition failure. > - Permanent errors still fail, and onboarding runs once after acquisition succeeds. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15743 **What happened?** The [Release run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37998601578) published canary `2026.1009.0-canary.17`. Its registry verification and publisher install passed. The separate fresh onboarding install then failed with a final npm E404 for that exact `@paperclipai/server` tarball. The tarball was available on a later read. This is a separate failure from ETARGET; it does not prove the cause of the registry visibility difference. **Expected behavior** Allow a bounded acquisition retry when the effective registry is public npm and fresh primary metadata announces the exact released canary tarball. Keep other E404, authentication, configuration, and onboarding errors fatal. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the offline helper fixture with a first-attempt E404 for an allowlisted package at the requested canary version. 2. Return canonical effective npm registry configuration and matching primary metadata. 3. Make the second install succeed. Confirm two installs and one onboarding invocation. 4. Keep the tarball unavailable. Confirm three installs, a final failure, and no onboarding invocation. **Paperclip version or commit** The observed run used commit `ce024457f3d747657501fbcfe8eac71f6772150f`. This fix builds on the merged acquisition helper and current master. **Deployment mode** Other: the published npm canary onboarding check in release CI. ## What Changed - Add a canary-only classifier for one unambiguous final E404 at the canonical tarball URL of a CI-published package from the existing release manifest. - Query effective npm registry configuration in the failed install's prefix, environment, and working directory. Keep bounded configuration output in memory without logging it. Respect scoped registry precedence. - Require fresh primary metadata to match the package, version, tarball URL, and valid SHA512 integrity syntax. Reject redirects, conflicting errors, truncated logs, other artifacts, and unknown or custom effective registries. - Share one five-second configuration and metadata deadline within the existing two-minute acquisition budget. Keep three install attempts, refreshed retry metadata, process cleanup, and one onboarding invocation. - Bound metadata header and body waits even if transport abort propagation stalls. Cancel the reader and any late response body without waiting for cancellation acknowledgements. - Preserve the existing ETARGET classifier and its character-based stderr tail. Add offline subprocess, actual npm configuration, body cancellation, budget, identity, and failure tests. Document the scope and limits. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/standard-image-contract.test.mjs`: 73 passed, no skips, under Node 22 on the PR head. - `pnpm test:release-registry`: 153 passed, no skips, on the PR head. This includes the existing real Playwright cleanup and startup timeout tests. - [Hosted CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38011028296) passed on this head. The rollup has 53 successful checks and two expected Storybook skips. This includes typecheck, build, the full general and serialized test suites, E2E, and Canary Dry Run. - The new tests use fixture-owned npm configuration and local HTTP servers. No published canary tarballs were downloaded or installed for this change. No release or deployment was triggered. - `pnpm test:run` was not run locally. The full split test suites passed in hosted CI. Independent source checks on this head passed 46 committed tests, 22 boundary checks, and six negative controls. Greptile scored this head 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - The source diff and PR text were checked for secrets, private identifiers, and unintended artifacts. ## Risks - The new retry is conservative. A configuration capture over 4 KiB, metadata over 64 KiB, or a check that exceeds five seconds denies retry. A persistent tarball failure still fails after three installs. - Matching primary metadata proves the announced artifact identity and integrity syntax. It does not independently verify tarball bytes. The subsequent npm install retains its integrity check. - Registry checks use npm's resolved global and applicable scope values. They do not add credentials or change npm configuration. Existing ETARGET behavior, onboarding assertions, and overall startup deadlines remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). The exact model variant and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, code execution, offline fixtures, and GitHub API tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
40701adecf |
fix(release): preserve pinned master identity for canary publishing (#15770)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A master push publishes a canary from its exact source commit. > - The publisher now checks out that commit by SHA. Git leaves HEAD detached. > - The release script requires the local branch name to be master. > - This pull request verifies the trusted push and source before attaching local master at the same commit. > - The canary can pass the existing branch guard without following a newer master tip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #15712 pinned the publisher checkout and bound the smoke lockfile to its source. I searched open PRs and issues for canary, detached HEAD, and checkout fixes. No overlapping fix was found. #15768 addresses a later tarball visibility error and does not change this branch guard. **What happened?** The canary publisher checks out the exact push SHA. The checkout is detached. `release.sh canary --skip-verify` then fails because the local branch is not master. Publication does not start. The [failed master run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38008956836) shows this failure. **Expected behavior** The trusted master publisher must keep the exact verified push commit and pass the existing local master guard. It must not follow a newer branch tip. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Check out a master push commit by its full SHA. 2. Confirm that HEAD is detached. 3. Run the real `require_on_master_branch` helper from `scripts/release-lib.sh`. 4. Observe the detached-HEAD rejection. The tests reproduce this without calling a publisher. **Paperclip version or commit** `baa94bbea58919bcc6cf247a708f04e6e1002679`. **Deployment mode** The GitHub Actions master canary publishing lane. ## What Changed - Add one step immediately after the pinned publisher checkout. - Require the canonical repository, a push event, and the master ref before changing any Git ref. - Validate the full source SHA and require the checked-out HEAD to match it. - Attach local master to that exact SHA and recheck HEAD. Do not fetch or select a floating branch. - Preserve release scripts, local branch guards, package authentication, other publishing lanes, and source-named lockfile artifacts. - Add disposable real-Git tests for a pinned source behind local and remote master, rejected trust and SHA inputs, unchanged refs on rejection, and the original branch guard. Document the branch handoff. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/standard-image-contract.test.mjs scripts/release-lib.test.mjs` passed all 82 tests on Node 25.6.1. Twelve new cases include eleven real-Git fixtures and one workflow invariant check. The tests run the actual workflow shell and the unchanged release guard. - `actionlint -shellcheck= .github/workflows/release.yml` passed. ShellCheck passed for the new shell. Full local actionlint reports four pre-existing advisories in other steps; their text matches the base exactly. This change adds no advisory. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on Node 25.6.1. The local tests cover the changed release flow; the full application test suite runs in hosted CI. - [Hosted full CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38011530698) passed all 47 jobs at commit `ffff774a2629663fa71e2fad5143da0696afc5e6`. This includes policy, typecheck, release registry, build, runner tests, application tests, browser tests, and the canary dry run. Hosted policy ran all 12 new guard tests and passed all 67 source-policy tests. - Greptile scored the same commit 5/5 with no actionable issues. There are zero review threads. Separate source review approved all three changed files and 32 dependencies. It passed 82 tests and caught four broken variants. - The supply chain scanner returned neutral with zero annotations. It cannot verify this inline workflow change and reports limited coverage for existing action references. Manual review confirmed that all action references and pins are unchanged. The security, Socket, and Snyk checks passed. - No live canary install, registry publication, Docker image operation, workflow rerun, or deployment was performed. Tests use disposable Git repositories and local fixtures. ## Risks Low risk. The new step changes only local Git state in the trusted canary publisher. A wrong event or source fails before ref changes. The original release and authentication guards remain in place. The exact checkout and artifact source stay unchanged. Revert the new step to restore the previous behavior. No runtime or database change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used repository inspection, code execution, Git and Bash fixtures, and independent agent review. The runtime does not expose a more specific model snapshot or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
e9dae72c0c |
ci: use a Docker Hub mirror for image builds (#15756)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Image workflows build the exact source selected for a release. > - BuildKit fetches the Dockerfile frontend and base images from Docker Hub. > - Docker Hub token failures can stop these builds before application code runs. > - BuildKit supports a public image cache with canonical Docker Hub fallback. > - This pull request configures that cache in the two affected image builders. > - The build inputs and publication gates stay the same. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** [Docker run 37995539183](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37995539183) failed before application builds started. The AMD64 job received HTTP 504 from the Docker Hub token endpoint while it fetched `docker/dockerfile:1.20`. The ARM64 job fetched the frontend, then received the same error while it resolved `node:24-trixie-slim`. [Release preview run 37992058052](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37992058052) also failed while it fetched the frontend. **Expected behavior** Use the supported public cache when it has the requested Docker Hub image. Retain canonical Docker Hub fallback when the cache has no usable copy. Preserve build and publish failures. **Steps to reproduce** Run either affected image builder during a Docker Hub token failure. The unconfigured BuildKit container contacts Docker Hub for the frontend and base image. It cannot use a host Docker daemon mirror for those build requests. **Paperclip version or commit** The observed Docker run used `00d944f96c8c4aba8332ce224df2be73a601228a`. The preview used `b6b3cb3761dabd1bd668054e7a99a245d53707c4`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions image builds. No application runtime change. The public PR and issue search found no matching open registry-mirror change. #15743 addresses a separate npm canary dependency publication failure. ## What Changed - Add the official `docker.io` to `mirror.gcr.io` BuildKit configuration to the public Docker build matrix and the release preview image builder. - Keep all existing action references, image sources, targets, build arguments, platforms, credentials, cache settings, outputs, permissions, triggers, and publication gates. - Extend the existing dependency-free workflow tests to check mirror placement, verified HTTPS, both native platforms, preview isolation, and publication access. - Document cache eviction, tag freshness, canonical fallback, and builder bootstrap limits. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/standard-image-contract.test.mjs`: 43 passed on the final source. No dependency install required. - Six offline controls removed each builder's mirror, changed the registry or cache host, enabled insecure transport, or added preview registry login. Each control failed the new check as expected. - `actionlint -shellcheck='' .github/workflows/docker.yml .github/workflows/release.yml`: workflow validation passed. With optional ShellCheck enabled, the ten diagnostics match the unchanged base exactly. This PR changes no shell scripts. - A real TOML parser accepted the inline configuration. Removing the new block from each workflow produced byte-identical base files. - Read-only registry metadata checks confirmed matching raw bytes and SHA256 values for the current Node24 index and both native manifests. The Dockerfile frontend index and both native manifests also match Docker Hub and Google. No image config blobs or layers were fetched. - Full application tests, typecheck, and build were not repeated locally because application source is unchanged. [Hosted CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37998739440) passed the full required checks on `25fd57f`, including all test shards, build, typecheck, policy, E2E, and canary dry run. - The supply-chain advisory returned neutral because it cannot verify these infrastructure edits. It reported zero annotations. Independent review confirmed all action references, Dockerfiles, package files, and lockfiles are unchanged. The other 53 checks passed; two Storybook checks skipped as expected. - Independent review approved all four changed files and the workflow graph. Greptile scored the same source 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - No Docker build, workflow rerun, image publish, or deployment was started for verification. A normal image workflow after merge must prove full image acquisition. ## Risks Google is a cache, not an outage guarantee. It can evict images. Mutable tags can lag upstream changes or deletions. Matching manifests now does not prove future tag freshness or blob availability. A cache miss can still fail when Docker Hub is unavailable. The initial `moby/buildkit:buildx-stable-1` bootstrap uses the host Docker daemon before this configuration takes effect and remains dependent on Docker Hub. The registry mirror applies to image pull and resolution only. GHCR publication and cache writes keep their existing routes. See [Docker's supported configuration](https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/configure-builder/#registry-mirror) and [Google's cache limits](https://docs.cloud.google.com/artifact-registry/docs/pull-cached-dockerhub-images). ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning and code execution tools. The exact service variant and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
935fb63ed5 |
fix(release): retry incomplete canary dependency publications (#15743)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Release checks must test the exact package that a new user installs. > - The canary onboarding smoke uses a fresh npm dependency graph. > - An upstream package can reference a dependency before that version is available. > - The smoke then exits before Paperclip onboarding starts. > - This pull request retries only that npm acquisition failure within the existing startup limit. > - Onboarding still runs once, and all other errors remain visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** [Release run 37986221440](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37986221440) published `2026.1009.0-canary.13`, then failed the onboarding smoke. The retained server log contains npm `ETARGET` for `@aws-sdk/credential-provider-env@^3.972.73`. The upstream parent package was published before this dependency. The missing version became available during the smoke startup. Paperclip onboarding never ran. **Expected behavior** Retry a short dependency publication window before onboarding starts. Stop on a permanent install failure. Never repeat onboarding to hide a startup failure. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start the exact-version canary smoke with an empty npm cache. 2. Make the first npm install return `ETARGET` because a dependency version is not available. 3. Make the next install succeed after registry metadata changes. 4. Confirm that onboarding starts once. Repeat with permanent `ETARGET` and an unrelated failure; onboarding must not start. **Paperclip version or commit** The observed release source was `cb291bf1298ab484a2792c05eb977f3440f1f351`. **Deployment mode** Linux release CI. The change affects the canary smoke harness. Related: #15712 fixes a separate lockfile mismatch in the smoke's repository dependency install. This change covers the fresh published-package npm install. ## What Changed - Separate npm package acquisition from the onboarding command. - Retry only the final npm `ETARGET` error, up to three attempts with online metadata and clean temporary prefixes. - Share a two-minute acquisition budget across attempts and backoff. Keep the existing five-minute Playwright startup limit. - Run the installed exact-version CLI once. Preserve authentication, network, lifecycle, and onboarding failures. - Stop owned process groups on cancellation and remove owned install prefixes. Keep server logs and instance data for diagnostics. - Keep dependency-free helper subprocess tests in the required policy lane. Run real Playwright lifecycle tests in the required release-registry lane after its dependencies are installed. - Document the bounded behavior in the release runbook. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: 24 passed in a clean source snapshot with no `node_modules`. These cover transient and permanent missing versions, other npm errors, nested error codes, onboarding failure, deadline expiry, and cancellation. - `pnpm test:release-registry`: 153 passed, including real Playwright teardown with a descendant that ignores SIGTERM and startup-timeout cleanup of a detached npm installer. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm test:run`: deliberately stopped after complete hosted CI passed; this is not a local full-suite pass. The run's 15 warm-runtime real-DB cases failed before assertions because the local macOS PostgreSQL package lacked library symlinks after installation with `--ignore-scripts`. After running the package's local hydration step, all 15 affected cases passed in a targeted rerun. The remaining aggregate was stopped with exact owned-process cleanup. - [Hosted CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37994486323) is complete and green at `1c80e6f`: all tests, build, typecheck, policy, release registry, E2E, and canary dry run passed. Greptile scored the same head 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - Independent review covered all seven changed files and the exact policy and release-registry commands. It also used real npm 11.9 against a loopback registry: a required version was absent, then became available. The retry refreshed metadata and started the installed exact-version CLI once. The one-attempt negative control failed. - The new subprocess tests use local npm and CLI fixtures. They do not contact a registry or start a real Paperclip instance. - The patch preserves the exact-version clean-install check. It adds no dependency pins, credentials, or workflow reruns. ## Risks The install phase now has a two-minute budget inside the existing five-minute startup limit. An unusually slow valid install can still fail the smoke. Permanent missing versions remain failures after the bounded retry. The lifecycle tests cover the Linux release runner behavior; Playwright does not support graceful SIGTERM on Windows. No application, database, or deployment behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning and code execution tools. The exact service variant and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
23b9aaa8e6 |
fix(release): reuse publisher lockfile for canary smoke (#15712)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Every master push publishes an exact canary and tests its onboarding flow. > - The publisher resolves dependencies before building, while the smoke job checks out the committed lockfile again. > - Patch or manifest changes can land before the separate lockfile refresh, so the smoke fails before testing the published app. > - This pull request passes the publisher's resolved lockfile to the same-source smoke job. > - The smoke keeps frozen dependency validation and tests the exact published canary version. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10393, #13689. Related work: #13690 documents lockfile drift; #12115 addresses refresh-PR check triggering. This change addresses the canary smoke handoff. #15678 only refreshed the opencode importer. #15164 incidentally corrected the earlier patch hash on master. **What happened?** Canary publication succeeded, but the fresh onboarding smoke install failed with `ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH` on sources `0b80ea17ef` and `ab8dcab809`. The committed `acpx@0.13.1` hash no longer matched its patch. A later run on `6080daf262` failed with `ERR_PNPM_OUTDATED_LOCKFILE` after an `opencode-ai` manifest addition. The current master lockfile has since caught up; the workflow still permits this race on future changes. **Expected behavior** The exact published canary reaches the onboarding smoke with test dependencies resolved for its source. A mismatched or missing lockfile must fail validation. **Steps to reproduce** Check out either affected source and run `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` with pnpm 9.15.4. The smoke fails before a browser starts, although the publisher already installed that source with a resolved lockfile. ## What Changed - Pin both canary publisher and onboarding smoke checkouts to the triggering SHA. - Save the publisher's resolved lockfile before restoring tracked files or rewriting release versions. - Restore that same-run, source-named artifact before the unchanged frozen smoke install. - Add offline real-pnpm regressions for patch-hash and manifest drift, plus wrong-source rejection and workflow binding checks. - Document artifact retention and job reruns. No manifest or committed lockfile changes. ## Verification - Focused release workflow, exact-source verification and image-contract tests: 45 passed. - Negative control: both new real-pnpm fixture cases fail against the original workflow with their respective original lockfile errors; both pass with the handoff. - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed on the current source. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after reclaiming disposable build-cache space. - The browser onboarding smoke passed against exact published `2026.1009.0-canary.7`: 1 test passed using a fresh temporary instance. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted twice. The first hit disk exhaustion; the second reported one chat integration failure and then a Vitest worker `ENOTCONN` crash before completing. This is not a full-suite pass. The named chat case passed in isolation without changes. All full sharded PR CI checks passed on the final head. - Independent source review and a clean-checkout run also passed all 45 focused tests, with separate real-pnpm negative controls. - The supply-chain scan is neutral because managed intelligence could not scan the pinned official `download-artifact` action. It reported no defect; independent review inspected the action source, same-run scope and v4/v4 compatibility. - Reviewed the diff for secrets, personal data and generated artifacts; none found. ## Risks - The smoke now depends on a same-run GitHub artifact retained for 14 days. A missing artifact intentionally fails instead of resolving a different dependency set. - A publisher rerun replaces its source-named artifact; a smoke-only rerun reuses the retained artifact. - Frozen validation and the exact published version remain required. The source app and publication logic do not change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution and parallel independent review. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4265cb3a2b |
fix(ci): cache native server integration builds in release verification (#15619)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Release verification must run the same server integration coverage as PR verification. > - Three server suites use real Rust Runner binaries. > - PR checks already run them with the shared Rust dependency cache, but release checks cold-build them inside ordinary server test shards. > - A cold Dot Runner build can consume its entire setup deadline before any test runs. > - This pull request gives release verification a required cached native integration lane and preserves every test. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** On master commit `1881894973a2b25838d8abed9bd8aeebc3af4441`, [Cloud readiness run 37837810707](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37837810707) failed in server shard 7. Dot Runner's `cargo build --release` exceeded its 300-second child-process deadline. The other 1,640 tests in that shard passed. The failed setup then tried to remove an undefined temporary path and emitted a second error. Cargo output was captured as an opaque buffer, which obscured build progress. **What did you expect to happen?** Build fixture binaries before tests in a lane with the existing Rust dependency cache. Run all native integration tests and make their result required for release readiness. A setup failure should keep its original diagnostic. **Steps to reproduce** Run release verification on a clean runner. The existing `general-server-without-chat` group retains the three Cargo-backed suites outside the PR workflow. The Dot suite can time out during a cold release build. Run the new workflow and partition tests against the previous source to reproduce five routing and coverage failures deterministically. **Version / commit** Observed at `1881894973a2b25838d8abed9bd8aeebc3af4441`; this change is based on `ed6abbf158b`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions Release and Cloud readiness verification. No application runtime or deployment action changes. Related work: #15581 also edits Dot integration tests for onboarding behavior. It does not repair release test routing. Searches found no open PR for this failure. ## What Changed - Add an explicit server test group that excludes the dedicated chat and native suites. Preserve the existing PR and local test groups. - Run all three native server suites in one required matrix lane with the existing trusted Rust dependency cache. - Build debug and release fixture binaries in a visible step with a 10-minute limit before tests start. Keep Cargo freshness checks and the existing test deadlines. - Stream Cargo diagnostics and clean up safely when Dot setup stops before creating its temporary directory. - Test complete, non-overlapping partitions for Release, Cloud readiness, other callers, and existing PR/local groups. Check cache restrictions, build order, and the source verification dependency. ## Verification - Passed 44 workflow and partition tests: `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. - The same tests fail in five relevant cases against the previous workflow and selector. They pass after this correction. - An independent review repeated all 44 tests successfully. - Passed `actionlint .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`, `git diff --check`, and a secret scan. - Passed all 381 workflow policy tests: `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'`. - Passed full `pnpm build` in a clean worktree. - Built debug and release fixture binaries, then passed all 32 tests in the three real native integration suites: `pnpm test:run:general -- --group general-server-native-runner` (49.5 seconds, no skips). - Passed full `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Injected a synthetic Cargo setup failure. The suite reports that failure without the secondary undefined-path cleanup error. - Exact-head CI completed: 53 successful checks, including all server shards, both native Runner lanes, build, typecheck, browser tests, and the canary dry run. Two optional Storybook checks were skipped. - Started the duplicate local `pnpm test:run` aggregate and stopped it after exact-head CI passed. No completed local aggregate result is claimed. All test processes owned by that run exited. - Greptile scored the final head `ffe5ab5a28af2dfea9db1c1952c652f070bf52f8` at 5/5 with no review threads. - `Superagent Supply Chain Scan` is neutral, not passed: it only supports exact dependency pin replacements and cannot verify structural edits to `.github/workflows/release-verify.yml`. It reported no annotations. Independent source review, Greptile, actionlint, and the workflow policy tests cover this structural change. - GitHub still requires a code-owner review for the workflow files. There are no merge conflicts. ## Risks - Adds one CI matrix job, which increases concurrent runner demand. The existing cache writer and trust restrictions stay in place. - Missing dependencies still compile from the lockfile. A build that exceeds its step limit fails visibly; failed tests still block source verification. - Workflow execution uses the new lane after merge. PR tests validate the workflow contract and run the existing native test lane. - The supply chain scanner cannot analyze this workflow structure. Its neutral result is an explicit coverage limit; it is not counted as a successful scan. - No runtime, schema, deployment, publication, credential, or test-timeout changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and independent agent review. The exact deployed model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
18e8c121d9 |
fix(runner): include Grok support in public installs with sandbox prerequisites (#14024)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents through a shared native runner. > - Built-in harness support should ship with Paperclip's public distribution. > - Grok already speaks ACP; it does not require a new public bridge package. > - Sandbox provisioning owns the native executable and its pinned version. > - The runner must verify that prerequisite without downloading it during npm installation. > - This change separates built-in launcher identity from external runtime identity. > - Clean npm installation and live staging checks verify the distribution boundary. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13882, #13973, #13977, #13979. This follow-up now targets master after #13882 was squash-merged. It replaces the private `@paperclipai/grok-acp` workspace package with runner-owned assets. Current master is included so the branch also contains the merged scheduler, complete-event capture, and durable cleanup fixes. ## What Changed - Ship Grok launcher and qualification metadata inside the runner's compiled output and the public server's vendored runner tree. - Remove the separate Grok npm package and all package-manager install hooks for this runtime. - Require the checksum-verified Grok Build 1.0.13 binary at `/opt/paperclip/providers/grok/1.0.13/grok` in the selected execution environment. Provision it explicitly in the Daytona image and CI setup. - Keep native binaries outside the provider pack. Bind the built-in launcher into the pack manifest. - Preserve executable leases, descriptor-backed startup, credential fences, permissions, and exact ACP model admission. - Use `builtin:grok-acp` and `native:grok` as profile identities. Historical package-profile sessions fail closed on resume rather than being silently reinterpreted. - Resolve built-in assets from the authenticated sidecar location, including public server npm layouts. Keep the controller path out of provider environments. - Add clean npm tarball installation verification to the existing trusted canary CI job and the admitted manual EC2 verification path. It stages a unified release version and runs npm lifecycle scripts, then verifies missing-prerequisite rejection and admission after separate provisioning without credentials or inference. - Include the controller-owned provider pack in stamped Cloud images. Unstamped local images omit the pack and remain usable; remote ACPX requires full source provenance. - Correct CLI approval-page metadata for an already authenticated Cloud board user; approval authorization remains unchanged. - Honor explicit native-runner enablement in the Cloud agent picker and direct setup page, keeping the flag disabled by default. - Allow selecting the execution environment before connecting credentials. Include Grok in the existing authenticated hello-probe flow, targeting its pinned native prerequisite for runner setup. - Recover an existing subscription sign-in conflict through an explicit cancel-and-retry action, serialized after cancellation succeeds. - Preserve the selected ACPX harness before normalizing config fields, so new Grok agents use the Grok default model. - Keep the credential-free Cloud provider pack root-owned and readable after runtime UID remapping; verify manifest and referenced asset access under an unrelated unprivileged UID during image builds. - Archive prior failover backups alongside explicitly replaced harness state, preserving evidence while preventing stale backups from blocking a fresh replacement. - Update Daytona image content inputs and contract tests for the built-in assets and explicit provisioner. - Document and regression-test the shared `approve-all` default for Grok setup, saved configuration, and native execution. Explicitly saved restrictions remain unchanged. ## Verification Current merge-repair head `df09eb3e1a619430ad8419a0ee9aedd486689b05` incorporates master `f1a394bd30cb56fb9e479f98b9f50176fe921858` after the base PR was squash-merged. All 12 conflicts came from incoming files identical to the tested pre-squash base. The final tree exactly matches a three-way merge using that original base, preserving built-in Grok distribution and removal of the obsolete private package. All 252 focused runner/UI tests, six npm-isolation tests, and token gates pass. Fresh exact-head Greptile review is 5/5 with no outstanding findings; security scans and EC2 native compilation pass. All current-head CI is green: 56 successful checks/statuses and four intentional skips ([run 36468768035](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36468768035)). The repository owner explicitly authorized bypassing code-owner approval after all checks passed; no CI checks or repository protection settings are bypassed or changed. The only remaining PR was removed from the completed stack metadata to permit native auto-merge. Earlier integration head `78cb306ecc41b5c96577c26c1d89153b0ef865a1` includes master `3447609d2247e75e55d91493dda91a608364f672` (2026-09-28). Two master advances during verification overlapped the eval catalog; the final merge preserves Grok qualification, completion updates, and bounded API-response reading in all 348 cells. All 77 focused catalog/eval/workflow tests pass. Both native stack layers (#14397) are mergeable, and both exact-head Greptile reviews are 5/5 with successful security scans and no unresolved review threads. All current-head CI is green: 56 successful checks/statuses and four intentional skips ([CI attempts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36447124691)). The initial attempt lost two EC2 runners to shutdown signals and stalled a third shard during dependency preparation; all three passed the same-commit failed-job-only retry. Trunk code-owner requirements remain enforced. The review summary’s non-blocking saved-asset offset classification note concerns code already merged in #14301; those runtime files are identical to master and outside this stack’s diff. Historical live evidence below retains its original source revisions. [Final public npm verification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36445542764) passed on `76ea70cd4d13786a042af9df82f0fd7a8c85ae30`: 17 public packages, an executed offline lifecycle sentinel, unchanged consumer lock, built-in launcher, missing-prerequisite rejection, and verified separately provisioned binary/command lease. Provisioning and cleanup require no host privilege elevation; only the positive probe mounts the temporary native binary read-only. The verifier is unchanged by the final master merge. All six isolation tests and an offline npm smoke test pass. The prior head had 56 green CI checks and a 5/5 review after two unchanged tests timed out and passed a failed-job-only retry ([CI attempts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36444597313)). All 56 recovery-display/lineage tests pass; re-review cleared the already-covered missed-retry concern. Earlier EC2 failures remain retained: [npm lockfile rejection](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36436311203), [missing compiler in the slim image](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36440210984), and the aggregate 15-minute test timeouts in those broad runs. Both broad attempts passed typecheck, token gates, Product E2E type/unit checks and build. The focused EC2 lane preserves the existing trusted-actor and immutable-source gates. Earlier documentation/test checkpoint `ff244c4fd78a7ede5a3e00efe09f475f133ef33e` leaves runtime behavior unchanged. 154 focused tests pass across configuration building, native provider resolution, permission policy, credentials, UI configuration, and new-agent setup (including both Grok auth modes); token gates pass. All fresh CI is green for this head: 56 successful checks/statuses and two intentional skips ([run 36367065119](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36367065119)). Greptile is 5/5 with no new findings. Grok already inherits the shared `approve-all` default, so unattended setup requires no manual permission change. Runtime head `bb5a9307991f1ac567b781970ef11b39d518e19b` fixes a final staging continuation failure before provider startup: explicit replacement archived the old harness but left its failover backups active, which caused `runner_harness_state_mismatch`. The regression fails before the fix and passes after it; all eight adjacent recovery-safety cases also pass. Old backups remain inspectable inside the continuity archive. All fresh CI is green at this head ([run 36360839248](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36360839248)), with a 5/5 review. One unrelated Cursor test timed out in the initial server shard; the same-commit failed-job rerun passed, and both attempts are retained. Staging deployment is confirmed healthy on this revision. The controller image is `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip@sha256:6ad91c487910ccd2596ff7aed0a3a3ea5233d12b51b83cd6e1402237749b9673`. The final browser-created staging task passed on this exact revision with API authentication: context read → structured human question → controller restart → answer submission → same native provider session resumed → document saved → task Done. The two turns took approximately 119s and 77s. The actual write receipt was applied, and the saved document has exactly one revision containing the selected answer and requested marker. Usage and cost were not reported. [Controller image build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36360889243). - Previous integration head `a44f7dbb6b6f77cd9ed893756ca453307f281e5f`: all CI green (53 successful checks/statuses, two intentional skips), including repository typecheck/build/tests, native Runner tests, browser shards, and canary installation checks. [CI run 36358672529](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36358672529). Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Focused checks cover Grok credentials, executable admission, launcher assets, provider-pack paths/permissions, workflow contracts, setup defaults, CLI authorization, and subscription conflict recovery. All 39 protocol definitions validate. Final integration checks pass 124 catalog/evidence/cache tests and nine project-form tests; token gates pass. Some local dependency checks could not load the stale installed dependency tree; the corresponding fresh EC2 checks pass. - Clean public npm installation passed on EC2 at `8b172ebcf8e02e30662d830c00f3961e3bd459ec` ([run 36164964900](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36164964900)): 17 unified-version packages, lifecycle scripts enabled, built-in launcher present, no separate Grok package or npm-downloaded binary, missing prerequisite rejected, separately provisioned native executable and command lease verified. No credentials or inference were used. Subsequent changes preserve this npm asset layout. - The immutable Daytona prerequisite image is `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:98957d5be0ac774d086b6402b5849e8e6356fec70fb8c09fca6eb4ed6de918e0`, built from `5a2db471f3ddabe77f9f80e76ed27f996cb97fba`. The previous Cloud controller image was `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip@sha256:fd914e1ab1e45f741e8e078ff452d16f082d7ac05f9b4b3506d3a3c64150d204`, built from `a44f7dbb6b6f77cd9ed893756ca453307f281e5f`; it is superseded by the latest image above. Its EC2 build verified provider-pack access under an unrelated unprivileged UID. - Browser staging at `40f898bc4cba73c1dff4e6344a3983ba0fb247ef` passed full Grok onboarding with the correct `grok-4.7` model, saved credential delivery, and pinned Daytona execution. A browser-created task read context and asked the structured human question. After a controller restart, answering the persisted question resumed the same native provider session, saved the requested document, and completed the task. Actual tool outcomes and durable state agree: one question and one document revision. The two successful turns took 42.7s and 63.1s; usage and cost were not reported. - Restricted policy returned the expected `approval_required` outcome. Functional staging tests explicitly selected `approve-all`; controller authorization and governed approvals remain enforced. Temporary board CLI access was revoked and verified rejected (HTTP 401), and the disposable onboarding agent was paused. Failures remain retained: the pre-fix continuation failure (its task remains blocked; the passing final task is fresh), the original Cloud provider-pack permission failure, the expected restricted-policy denial, the superseded npm staging failure, and an earlier monolithic CI infrastructure timeout. Browser CI exposed a project alias/form race; the final stack uses master's stronger draft-preservation fix and all browser shards pass. Historical full subscription/API protocol and Product rosters retain their original source revisions and do not qualify this packaging revision. No local Docker or Rust build was used. ## Risks The branch includes master’s draft-preservation fix for project URL aliases. It keeps the same project’s edit form mounted and clears prior data when the project or company changes. Custom sandboxes and local execution hosts must provision the pinned binary before Grok starts. Missing, changed, unsupported-platform, and symlinked executables fail admission. The new builtin profile cannot resume sessions created with the former private-package profile. Existing Claude/Codex npm bridge profiles retain their package pins. Grok restricted modes preserve the selected policy but cannot automatically admit Paperclip calls: ACP permission metadata does not independently bind tool authority, so those calls stop with `approval_required`. New Grok configurations default to `approve-all`, including API configurations that omit the mode. Existing explicitly restricted configurations remain restricted; controller authorization and governed approvals remain enforced. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
8ee8f1fd6e |
ci: retire recurring public cloud image builds (#13827)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Core publishes standard images and source verification for downstream services. > - Managed services can now compose private images from the signed standard image. > - Core still builds a second public cloud image on every master push and release. > - That duplicate producer consumes build capacity and retains an obsolete readiness contract. > - This pull request retires recurring cloud publication while preserving the standard producer and rollback artifacts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13797 and #13789. Related: #12856 changes image dependency packaging; it does not retire this producer. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Core's recurring Docker publication and Cloud readiness workflow. **Current behavior** Master pushes call the legacy cloud publisher from Cloud readiness. Release tags and manual Docker runs call it too. Canary promotion also requires the legacy image. **Proposed behavior** Publish standard Core images and retain `Cloud source verified v1`. Let downstream services build their managed image. Keep explicit commit previews and existing images available. ## What Changed - Remove `docker-cloud.yml`, its master and release callers, and its unused cache selector. - Remove the legacy image/migrator wait and `Cloud deployable v1` job. Keep the full source verification workflow and exact source-proof name. - Make canary promotion inspect and promote the standard image only. - Preserve signed standard-image publication, direct migrator publication, and explicit `release.yml` previews. The preview path still uses the Dockerfile `cloud` target. - Update workflow, preview, build-stamp, and packaging tests. Exercise the promotion shell with mocked registry commands, including missing-image and missing-tag cases. - Document frozen legacy aliases, consumer requirements, preview compatibility, and rollback retention. ## Verification - All 377 workflow tests pass: `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs`. - All 129 release-registry tests pass: `pnpm test:release-registry`. - Focused source-proof, standard-image, preview, and workflow tests pass: 256 tests. - Focused image packaging/build-stamp tests pass: 16 tests. - Actionlint passes on all three changed workflow files. `git diff --check` passes. - Full local `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` pass. - The policy follow-up updates an old assertion that required the removed readiness job. All 37 source-proof/release-workflow tests pass locally. - Full local `pnpm test:run` did not complete successfully while the Mac ran out of disk space. No full-suite pass is claimed. Removed 1.2 GiB of generated Cargo output from this isolated worktree with `cargo clean`. GitHub CI passed on the final head: 52 successful checks and 2 optional skips. - Fresh Greptile review for `4f5fe1951f0bd7f7739cf6655d395ff78f1ed944`: **5/5**, successful current-head check, zero review threads. - September 23 refresh: the unchanged PR head merges cleanly with current master `db8f8fe5b73a2697684a30261b0d306a9c631aba`. In an isolated temporary worktree, all 377 workflow tests and 29 release/preview tests pass on the combined tree. `git diff --cached --check` passes. - Refreshed Actionlint workflow validation passes with ShellCheck disabled. Full Actionlint reports the same 10 existing ShellCheck diagnostics as master, with no added diagnostics. No source changes or new PR commits were needed. - The full local build/typecheck and current-head Linux CI results above remain the verification for the unchanged PR head. They were not rerun for this metadata-only refresh. No image publication or tenant deployment was initiated for this refresh. ## Risks **Deployment prerequisite satisfied (September 23):** The combined cleanup release is deployed to staging and production, and production Support is verified. Active managed-fleet automation uses standard-image composition. Explicit immutable previews remain supported by the retained preview publisher. This PR is ready for maintainer review; keep auto-merge disabled and wait for explicit merge authorization. - A consumer still selecting `Cloud deployable v1` will stop advancing at the last legacy-ready commit. Confirm active automatic consumers use the standard-image composition contract before merge. - Legacy cloud release-channel aliases stop advancing. Standard self-hosted aliases continue. - This PR deletes no registry images, cache tags, migrators, credentials, or runner infrastructure. Existing immutable releases remain usable for rollback. - Explicit legacy previews remain for commit-specific operator deployments. Retiring that compatibility path requires a separate consumer migration. - These changes affect CI publication, not database schema or application behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime does not expose a more specific model identifier or context-window size. Used repository inspection, reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
db8f8fe5b7 |
fix(evals): select Grok subscription protocol credentials explicitly (#13901)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through shared runner contracts. > - Direct protocol evals qualify provider behavior against a mock control plane. > - Grok supports API keys and company subscription credentials. > - The hosted protocol workflow selected an API key for every Grok cell. > - Product subscription support did not enable subscription protocol runs. > - This change adds explicit subscription selection and checks the recorded authentication mode. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13878, #13882, #12618. The direct Grok protocol roster cannot run with subscription authentication through the trusted default-branch workflow. Add an explicit selector while keeping API-key dispatches compatible. Keep the actor allowlist, protected environment, immutable source revisions, and publication gates. ## What Changed - Add `grok_authentication` with `api_key` and `subscription` choices. Keep `api_key` as the compatibility default. - Deliver the protected `GROK_AUTH_JSON` secret only to a subscription-selected Grok cell. Do not provide an API key to that cell. - Read authentication mode from the pinned eval program's actual roster summary. Retain it in the cell, catalog, campaign roster, and result. - Reject missing or mismatched authentication evidence during aggregation. Preserve cell metadata and an allowlisted failure reason before failing a cell, so malformed evidence cannot hide the retained attempt. - Document credential setup, source separation, and temporary-secret cleanup. ## Verification - `node --test packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/runner-protocol-eval-campaign.test.mjs packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/runner-protocol-eval-workflow-security.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: 34 tests passed. - Validated all 39 Grok cells at eval revision `3213dbec7e8ca1865ea95e6db7e7d34b095eb47a`; every selected cell requests only the subscription credential. Validation made zero provider calls. - Negative coverage rejects invalid selectors and missing or API authentication evidence in an otherwise passing subscription attempt. - `git diff --check` passed. All 53 current-head checks passed; the unchanged callback-drain timing test passed its bounded rerun, and the failed attempt is retained. Greptile reviewed `ecd3dcc0e998f07cf56fcb1f087946f50f388bec` at 5/5 with no remaining findings. - No Docker or broad builds ran on the developer machine. CI performs repository checks on the configured fleet. ## Risks Grok runs require an eval revision that records `authenticationMode` in the roster summary. Missing evidence fails closed. The credential contains account access and refresh tokens; an owner must approve its delivery to the protected environment before a live run. The change adds no PR trigger or authorization bypass. Live subscription protocol qualification remains pending this workflow reaching master. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b648d8cdda |
fix(evals): support explicit Grok qualification workflows (#13878)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their provider connections. > - Product E2E checks real tasks through the browser, server, and runner. > - Grok qualification needs separate API-key and subscription evidence. > - Product subscription tests and direct Grok protocol evals need explicit credential delivery. > - This change supplies each credential only to its selected profile and prepares the pinned binary. > - Maintainer authorization and protected-environment gates remain required. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13845, #13847, #13850, #13882. The Grok feature branch has a manual subscription qualification profile. The trusted master workflow must admit its selected credential and prepare the same verified binary and artifact verifier as the API profile. Direct protocol evals also need the selected xAI key and pinned Grok binary. These prerequisites do not register or schedule the new profiles on master. ## What Changed - Deliver `GROK_AUTH_JSON` from the protected paid environment only when the selected profile requests that credential. - Install the checksum-verified Grok binary for the local subscription profile. - Prepare the pinned artifact verifier for the manual subscription suite. - Extend workflow security assertions to cover the new credential and profile. - Add the ACPX Grok credential mapping to the trusted-master catalog, then deliver only the selected `XAI_API_KEY` to direct protocol cells and install the target’s checksum-verified Grok binary before packaging. - Allow a direct-protocol concurrency override from two cases up to the existing configured ceiling; it can only lower concurrency. - Document the Grok protocol workflow and its API-only credential boundary. - Render missing LLM usage and cost as Unavailable, and label partial observations with coverage. Preserve raw records, grades, and actual zero costs. - Preserve measured campaign source metadata during report regeneration instead of inheriting the renderer checkout or CI event; skip empty legacy source records when recovering older provenance. ## Verification - Latest commit `05d05801477104c8155977bbbe3e119a5241f960`: all 54 reported checks successful, two intentional skips, Greptile 5/5, and zero unresolved review threads. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35890978288). - After merging current master, all 17 workflow security/image tests and 23 catalog/workflow policy tests passed. The trusted catalog also generated all 39 pinned Grok cells with `XAI_API_KEY` and one case per shard. The new policy tests execute the concurrency guard against valid, out-of-range, and malformed values. - The Grok branch separately passed 450 Product harness unit tests, including private company credential staging, cleanup, and token-fragment redaction. - The fresh-login native subscription smoke passed three repetitions of tool execution, session resume, restrictive permissions, and cleanup. These are setup evidence; full subscription Product qualification remains pending. - All 72 focused report/billing/history/catalog tests and the Product harness typecheck passed for the report-display change. The initial sandbox run could not open the tsx IPC socket; the permitted rerun passed. A zero-provider-call replay of the actual 16-cell Grok campaign preserved all result records, grades, timing, and source provenance while correcting missing usage labels. - Review the thirteen-file diff. Provider credentials still enter only the selected paid-test step; default-branch, numeric-actor, and environment restrictions are unchanged. ## Risks This admits a refreshable subscription credential to explicitly selected trusted tests. Store it only in `runner-e2e-paid`, use a test login, and remove it after qualification. Unselected profiles receive an empty value. Pull requests cannot trigger the paid workflow. This PR changes no fleet admission or actor allowlist. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d2e940f4c1 |
ci: run release Runner protocol and Rust checks in parallel (#13326)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys verified images from merged source commits. > - Cloud readiness waits for every release verification check. > - Runner verification currently runs long TypeScript tests before Rust checks. > - These checks can run on independent runners with their own build directories. > - This PR runs them in parallel while preserving all checks and the shared dependency cache. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13194. Related prior work: #13142 and #13259. A search found no duplicate parallel release-check change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Time from merge to Cloud source verification and deployment readiness. **Current behavior** Recent successful runs take roughly 13 minutes from merge to deployable. In run 34705914878, Runner verification took 11m23s. Protocol tests finished before Rust tests and API authority checks started. **Proposed behavior** Run protocol and Rust verification in two matrix jobs. Cloud readiness still requires both jobs to pass. **Reason and benefit** Remove the serial dependency between independent checks. Expected improvement is about 2–3 minutes on a typical cached run, until the image build or server tests become the longest job. This is an estimate; post-merge timing will confirm it. **Breaking changes** Individual release Runner job names gain a lane suffix. Cloud source and readiness marker names stay the same. PR runner routing is unchanged. ## What Changed - Split release Runner checks into protocol and Rust lanes. Keep every constituent of `check:all` exactly once. - Restore the existing Rust dependency cache in both lanes. Allow only the Rust lane to save it after warming both build profiles. - Add coverage and cache authorization regressions. Document the parallel verification and single cache writer. ## Verification - Passed 477 workflow and source-verification tests with `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. - Passed `actionlint`, `git diff --check`, and the private AWS routing regression suite. - Passed local `pnpm -r typecheck` and the standalone `check:runner && check:api-authority` lane, including all 1,671 API tests before the protocol lane had built TypeScript output. - The broad local protocol run under Node 25 had four failures. The two affected files passed under CI's Node 24.19.0: 67 passed, 6 platform skips. - Local `pnpm test:run` aborted when disk space ran out; local `pnpm build` could not run afterward. These are local verification limits. [Linux CI run 34710421424](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34710421424) passed full typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build, release dry run, and browser checks. Native protocol CI passed 1,986 tests, plus 1,671 API tests and the Rust suites. - Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. All 33 current-head checks are successful or intentionally skipped. ## Risks - Uses one additional short-lived verification runner per release verification. The existing AWS exact-master restriction remains in place. - The Rust lane warms debug dependencies so its cache save also serves protocol tests. Both lanes always rebuild workspace code. - A workflow regression could omit a check. The new coverage test compares the matrix checks directly with `check:all`; Cloud readiness depends on the complete reusable workflow. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
37d7dfb0e3 |
ci: allow dependency changes in cloud eval verification (#13286)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud deployment requires source verification for the exact merged commit. > - Contributor PRs leave lockfile updates to a separate bot PR. > - Most release checks can refresh an outdated lockfile while installing dependencies. > - Two Runner checks still require a frozen lockfile and fail after dependency changes. > - This PR gives those checks the same install policy as the other release checks. > - A valid dependency change can become deployable without waiting for another merge. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13257. The dependency change in #13256 exposed this gap. The separate lockfile update is #13279. Related #12115 addresses the bot PR check trigger; this PR fixes exact-source cloud verification itself. **What happened?** [Cloud readiness for |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4fde92107e |
fix(ci): reuse cloud source verification for npm canaries (#13233)
Reuse the exact master source-verification result before npm canary publication, removing a duplicate verification matrix while preserving fail-closed release checks. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
974949a39b |
ci: spread cloud server verification across ten runners (#13227)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud waits for source verification before deploying a new image. > - The slowest server verification job spends about ten minutes running tests. > - Each job uses one test worker to preserve test isolation. > - This pull request distributes those suites across ten standard hosted runners. > - The benefit is a shorter verification path with the same test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Current behavior** In [readiness run 34572340764](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34572340764), the slowest server job ran for 638 seconds. Test execution used 594 seconds. This held readiness behind the image job. **Proposed behavior** Use ten general server jobs in the reusable release verification workflow. Keep the three chat jobs and every existing prerequisite. The complete partition test verifies that no server suite is omitted or duplicated. **Reason and benefit** Reduce merge-to-deployable time on the existing runner type. The next longest prerequisite was Runner verification at 526 seconds, so the initial expected total gain is about two minutes rather than a halving of readiness time. Measure actual queue and execution time before claiming a result. Related: #13198 introduced the separate chat lane. #12577 refreshes duration estimates; this change leaves that manifest alone. ## What Changed - Increase the general server matrix from five jobs to ten. - Verify the ten-way partition covers the complete server suite when combined with the chat lane. - Document runner demand and the unchanged local and PR grouping. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 29 passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`: passed. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed, including the complete Linux test partition, build, typecheck, and browser gates. Greptile: 5/5 with zero open findings. - [Ten-shard timing probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34606772388): all 16 jobs passed; slowest server job 6m 23s versus 10m 38s in the earlier five-shard sample. This compares the server lane, not total readiness, and is not a controlled same-source A/B. - The full local `pnpm test:run` is also running. It has reproduced previously observed macOS-only failures in unchanged skill-cache and native-session suites; the corresponding Linux CI suites passed. Final local results will be attached separately. No affected-workflow test failed. ## Risks Five additional concurrent jobs per release verification run increase runner demand and repeated setup work. Queueing can offset the gain. Test workers, timeouts, permissions, and readiness requirements stay unchanged. Revert the matrix and its partition test to restore the previous split. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed by this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the affected workflow tests locally and they pass; full-suite macOS limitations are disclosed above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
fc06f7f05f |
fix(ci): isolate chaos verification by caller workflow (#13208)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud deployments require verified artifacts for the merged source commit. > - Cloud readiness and the npm release independently run the same source checks. > - Their shared chaos workflow used only the source ref as its concurrency key. > - One caller could cancel the other caller's required job for the same commit. > - This pull request scopes that key to the caller workflow and source ref. > - Both callers can finish their checks without blocking deployment readiness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13192 and #13205. Searched for related open issues and PRs; no duplicate fix was found. **What happened?** The master push for `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f` started Cloud readiness and Release together. GitHub cancelled the Cloud readiness chaos job before it acquired a runner. Its annotation reported a higher-priority waiting request for the same concurrency group. The required readiness gate cannot pass after that cancellation. **Expected behavior** Cloud readiness and Release must each finish source verification for the same SHA. Standalone chaos evals must also have a separate group. **Steps to reproduce** Merge a commit to master while the npm release queue is empty. Both callers reach the reusable chaos workflow with the same source SHA. See [the cancelled job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34569569760/job/103168603926). **Paperclip version or commit** `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions on master. ## What Changed - Add the caller workflow name to the chaos workflow concurrency group. Retain source isolation and cancellation of duplicate calls within the same workflow. - Add a regression test that evaluates the group for Cloud readiness, Release, and standalone evals at the same source SHA. - Document the concurrency boundary in the readiness runbook. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/preview-artifacts.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passed: 26 tests. - The new regression test fails against the previous concurrency key and passes with this fix. - `actionlint -shellcheck= -pyflakes= .github/workflows/runner-chaos-evals.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml .github/workflows/cloud-readiness.yml` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - The full local typecheck passed for the same application source in #13205. Its macOS general-server test phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged application test files: missing Cargo/Runner test binaries, filesystem permissions, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-test count mismatch. Linux CI test checks passed. The full local build passed with Cargo on PATH. This PR changes workflow configuration, its test, and documentation only. - All CI checks pass on the final head, including typecheck, tests, browser suites, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. After merge, verify both callers' chaos jobs complete for the same master SHA and record the resulting readiness time. ## Risks - Two callers may now run chaos tests at the same time. This uses two existing GitHub runners, which is the intended cost of independent verification. - Renaming a caller changes its concurrency group. The fixed prefix keeps this child group separate from caller-level concurrency groups. - The readiness gate continues to require every verification prerequisite. No gate is bypassed. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, and command/API tools. Exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed by this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (26 focused workflow/artifact tests) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
42961b6ef1 |
fix(ci): split release chat verification into test shards (#13198)
Split release chat verification into three validated test-line shards and balance other server suites across five runners using the measured native Runner integration cost. Retire each chat case's fixtures after assertions, preserve complete test coverage, and exercise the real shard CLI in PR tests. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
c5c80e1feb |
ci(release-verify): split server tests five ways like pr-trusted (#13185)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every master push publishes a canary through release.yml, gated by release-verify.yml — the fleet's staging deploys and the nightly/beta/stable chain all start from those canaries > - release-verify splits the server test suite across three shards with a 20-minute job cap, while pr-trusted splits the same suite across five > - The server suite grew on 2026-09-10 and the three shards moved to 17-19 minutes; that evening every push-triggered canary run was cancelled by the 20-minute cap mid-verify, and no canary published after 18:50 UTC > - This pull request mirrors pr-trusted's five-way server split in release-verify, putting shards back at the 10-15 minute range with real headroom > - The benefit is a canary lane that reports test verdicts instead of dying on an infrastructure cap ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Push-triggered Release runs stopped publishing canaries on 2026-09-10. Runs at 19:34, 22:30, and 22:37 UTC were all cancelled by "The job has exceeded the maximum execution time of 20m0s" on a `verify_canary / General tests (server (N/3))` shard. No canary published after 18:50 UTC, which also starves the staging fleet's continuous deploys. **Expected behavior** release-verify's server shards finish well inside the 20-minute cap and runs conclude with a test verdict, as pr-trusted's five-way split of the same suite does (10-15 minutes per shard). **Steps to reproduce** 1. Compare server shard durations in the `verify_canary` job across 2026-09-10: 11-14 minutes in the morning, 17-19 minutes from 15:06 UTC, over 20 minutes by evening. 2. Observe runs 34521169020, 34537798488, and 34538332689 cancelled at the cap. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `d1ba17eec` (current tip; its canary run was one of the cancelled ones). ## What Changed - `release-verify.yml`: the `general-server` matrix goes from three shards to five, byte-for-byte the shape `pr-trusted.yml` already runs, with a comment recording why. ## Verification - The identical five-way split runs green on every pr-trusted run (10-15 minutes per shard today, including on PRs merged this evening). - The suite's own growth (slower chat-connector tests) is being addressed separately; this PR only removes the artificial cliff. ## Risks - Low risk: two more runners per verify run; no test content changes. If shard durations regress further, the cap fires again — which is the correct signal once shards have honest headroom. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking, tool use via Claude Code CLI. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
2a05b5ed34 |
ci: split runner verification from build (#13142)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip uses GitHub Actions to verify changes before release. > - The Paperclip Runner has a separate verification boundary. > - The build job currently runs this verification before the workspace build. > - This pull request moves runner verification into its own parallel job. > - The benefit is clearer CI results and less wait time for independent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The trusted PR and release verification workflows run Paperclip Runner verification inside the Build job. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (GitHub Actions CI workflows). **Current behavior** The Build job runs `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` before it builds the workspace. A runner verification failure appears as a Build failure. The workspace build cannot run in parallel with runner verification. **Proposed behavior** Each workflow has a `Verify Paperclip Runner` job with the same checkout, dependency install, and command. The Build job only builds its required outputs. Both jobs run after the same gate and policy jobs. **Reason and benefit** The runner command is an independent verification boundary. A dedicated job gives it a clear status and allows it to run in parallel with Build. **Breaking changes** None. The same runner verification command still runs in both workflows. ## What Changed - Added a dedicated `Verify Paperclip Runner` job to the trusted PR workflow. - Added a dedicated `Verify Paperclip Runner` job to the release verification workflow. - Kept the Build jobs independent and retained their existing build commands. - Updated the trusted-workflow policy test for the additional dependency-install job. ## Verification - Ran `git diff --check`. - Ran `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`. - Ran `pnpm exec prettier --check .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`. - Confirmed both jobs retain their prior runner, dependency, and policy prerequisites. ## Risks Low risk. The runner verification job repeats the existing setup. It adds one parallel GitHub Actions runner to each affected workflow. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, 128k context window, reasoning and tool-use capabilities. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
af8439a70b |
feat(runner): restore direct live eval campaigns and reports (#12909)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Runner executes agents through native and managed provider drivers. > - The direct live eval layer had drifted from the current Runner contracts. > - The old local workflow did not provide a complete parallel campaign or durable report history. > - The Runner also needed current native OpenCode and OpenRouter qualification. > - This pull request restores the direct campaign, corrects the runtime gaps that the campaign found, and adds safe hosted Evalbook history. > - The benefit is repeatable model comparison against an immutable Runner and eval source revision. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11297 Refs #11634 **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the direct live `paperclip-runner` eval workflow, provider execution contract, and static Evalbook reporting path. **Current behavior** The direct evals do not have one maintained full campaign on current `master`. OpenCode has no qualified multi-model OpenRouter roster. Parallel provider bursts can compact committed events before the transport observes them. Local reports do not have a separate safe S3 history index. **Proposed behavior** Run one immutable roster-plus-case matrix. Use the shared paid AWS runner fleet. Keep raw artifacts access-controlled. Publish a sanitized canonical Evalbook report under the separate `runner-protocol-evals` S3 prefix. Keep immutable campaign directories plus root history, latest, and latest-green pointers. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can compare native Codex, native OpenCode, ACPX, Claude Managed, and AWS AgentCore behavior over time. They can inspect failures without mixing this direct protocol layer with browser full-stack E2E. **Breaking changes** None. The new workflow and S3 prefix are additive. The existing Runner full-stack E2E workflow and report remain separate. ## What Changed - Added a trusted two-shard direct live workflow for up to 393 roster-plus-case cells. - Reused the numeric actor allowlist, protected paid environment, and RunsOn fleet controls from Runner full-stack E2E. - Added immutable Runner and eval revision resolution, exact credential boundaries, bounded retries, and cost ceilings. - Added a public report projection that removes sessions, transcripts, tool payloads, state, traces, raw failures, remote profile identities, and credential-shaped values. - Added additive S3 history under `runner-protocol-evals`, with immutable campaigns and mutable root index pointers. - Added native OpenCode model injection and current OpenRouter pricing contracts. - Fixed direct eval completion, workflow execution, semantic discovery, warm-attach state reset, executable binding, and event-burst handling. - Kept Runner browser full-stack E2E behavior and publication separate. - Documented local and hosted direct eval operation. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:runner-protocol-eval-publish` — 15 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:typescript` — passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/runner-protocol-live-evals.yml .github/workflows/runner-full-stack-e2e.yml` — passed. - Local current matrix at the revision in [paperclip-evals#17](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/17) — 323 cells across 10 enabled configurations completed. - Final local current matrix — 269 passed, 11 behavior failures, and 43 expected macOS-only ACPX platform failures. - Targeted Runner checks — 13/13 eval-session tests, 15/15 publisher/security tests, and package typecheck passed; complete PR CI is green, including all browser E2E shards. ## Risks - Paid live campaigns can consume provider budget. Actor authorization, exact per-cell ceilings, protected environments, and explicit schedule enablement bound this risk. - Public reports can leak provider data. The workflow publishes only a separately projected report and validates every file before upload. - The new workflow cannot publish until it is present on the default branch. This pull request does not change the existing `runner-full-stack-e2e` publication path. - The campaign is large. It uses two GitHub matrices and caps combined concurrency at the shared fleet limit. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used reasoning, code editing, browser inspection, repository tools, and live provider execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
5716fe907e |
test(runner): add full-stack acceptance and eval gates (#12700)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner subsystem executes agent work across local and managed provider backends. > - The lower pull requests restore the task runtime, provider backends, and managed-provider control plane. > - The restored system needs repeatable full-stack checks before it can ship safely. > - Paid live checks also need clear access, cost, and secret controls. > - This pull request adds acceptance, live evaluation, chaos, and release gates for the restored runner stack. > - The benefit is measurable runner parity with safer release decisions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This change covers runner tests, release workflows, server contracts, and evaluation tools. **Problem or motivation** The runner stack did not have one complete acceptance surface for native Codex, ACPX, Claude Managed, and AWS AgentCore. Release checks could miss provider drift, task-view regressions, cost-policy errors, and destructive cleanup errors. **Proposed solution** Add a 57-cell full-stack catalog, a Daytona image, and opt-in paid workflows. Add live evaluation, chaos, cost-limit, redaction, and release contract checks. Add AWS AgentCore infrastructure and guarded provisioning tools. Keep the native runner experimental flag off by default. **Alternatives considered** We considered manual smoke tests only. They do not give repeatable evidence and they do not protect release branches. We also considered one large pull request. The stacked pull requests keep each review below the Greptile file limit. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the shipped Cloud / Sandbox agents milestone and the shipped Agent evals & feedback milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. Related stack: - #12699 adds managed provider backends and lifecycle support. - #12691 adds qualified OpenCode and ACPX provider backends. - #12685 restores task runtime rendering and steering. ## What Changed - Add the runner full-stack harness with 57 catalog cells and 60 unit tests. - Add a Daytona runner image with digest-pinned base images and base-aware image-content checks. - Add guarded live evaluation and chaos workflows with a fixed 40-execution matrix; live and full-stack paid schedules now run only on Sundays or by manual dispatch. - Add in-flight reported-usage cost stops, post-turn cost caps, exact-threshold failure classification, secret redaction, retry classification, and actor authorization. - Reattach stream and hard-budget listeners before restart-recovery continuations so restored paid sessions cannot bypass in-flight interruption. - Preserve OpenCode usage and cost across tool-loop messages and turns while exposing an explicit current-run delta to durable accounting. - Keep PNG/WebM evidence in access-controlled artifacts only, reject SVG, and publish only pruned inert structured per-attempt evidence. - Add AWS AgentCore infrastructure, provisioning checks, and smoke tools; reject unsafe model identifiers, require exact stack ownership markers, and make failed-stack replacement explicit. - Add evaluation-session contracts and capability reports. - Add release workflow checks for immutable action pins, frozen dependency installs, exact weekly cron shape, paid-run guards, provider-secret isolation, and chaos test paths. - Reauthorize the original and triggering numeric actor IDs as the first step of every provider-secret job, including partial reruns, before checkout or provider access. - Give each full-stack matrix cell only its matching provider credential, expose Daytona only to Daytona cells, and disable shared dependency caches anywhere paid credentials or OIDC write access are present. - Protect the legacy manual E2E workflow with the same default-branch, allowlist, environment, and per-job authorization boundary. - Rotate live-eval candidates by week and retain 120 days of compatible history so the seven-week trend window remains viable. - Restore the root runner-acceptance commands and reconcile reported snapshots, raw receipts, and terminal usage without double counting or losing late usage. - Mark ACPX token deltas exact only when every budget field is present, keep cumulative cost/request authority separate, reject non-USD cost labeling, and include thought tokens in output-token budgets. - Keep `enableNativeRunner` off by default. The acceptance harness enables it only in its isolated test instance. ## Verification Passed locally: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck` - `pnpm test:runner-acceptance:typecheck` - `pnpm test:runner-acceptance` (19 tests) - focused OpenCode proxy, driver, runnerd transport, live-session, and turn-stream tests (106 tests) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner exec vitest run src/live/clean-room-server.test.ts` (22 tests) - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` (62 tests) - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:runner-workflow-evals` (22 tests) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `node --test packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/aws-agentcore-provisioning.test.mjs` (6 tests) - `git diff --check` - `cargo test --manifest-path packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml -p paperclip-runner-core --lib --locked` (161 tests) - focused ACPX provider-event tests (10 tests) - The rebased PR changes 92 files. `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. I did not run paid live provider jobs or provision AWS resources. Those checks need credentials and can create cost. ## Risks The paid workflows can create provider cost. They require an allowlisted original and triggering actor, the protected `runner-e2e-paid` environment, explicit opt-in variables, and cost limits. The four provider credentials exist only in that master-only environment, which requires allowlisted reviewer approval and disables administrator bypass; repository and organization Actions scopes contain no copies. Provider usage arrives after a billable request, so the live guard cannot prevent one request from crossing a threshold. It interrupts immediately on the first reported threshold hit and permits no continuation. Visual evidence can contain secrets rendered as pixels. PNG/WebM remain only in access-controlled workflow artifacts; SVG and per-attempt XML are excluded, and S3/Pages receive a pruned structured dashboard. The AWS scripts can create cloud resources. They use explicit commands, least-privilege roles, KMS encryption, saved nonsecret metadata, and explicit teardown. This pull request does not enable the experimental native runner for existing instances. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The model used extended reasoning, tool use, code execution, and parallel subagents. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
dda4dff645 |
fix(onboarding): restore browser launch and gate canaries (#12667)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The onboarding command starts the local server and opens the first-run wizard. > - Interactive onboarding stopped opening the browser by default. > - Organization creation could also succeed in the API while the wizard stayed on the name step. > - The npm canary workflow did not prove that the published package could complete this path. > - This pull request repairs the startup and organization transitions and adds an exact-version canary smoke gate. > - The benefit is a quickstart that works for users and is tested after each canary publish. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #12557 covers a separate final-route onboarding handoff. **What happened?** Interactive `paperclipai onboard` runs did not open the onboarding page. The organization API request could succeed while a same-company context update caused the wizard to stay on the organization step. The canary release lane did not test the exact published npm package through this path. **Expected behavior** Interactive onboarding must open the browser once. A successful organization request must advance to the first-agent step when the surrounding context adopts the same organization. Each published canary must install in a clean environment and reach the model connection step. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `npx paperclipai@canary onboard --data-dir "$(mktemp -d /tmp/paperclip-canary.XXXXXX)"` in an interactive terminal. 2. Enter an organization name while the company context refreshes from the create response. 3. Observe that the browser does not open or that the wizard can remain on the organization step after the API creates it. 4. Inspect the canary release lane and observe that no post-publish onboarding test runs against the exact npm version. **Paperclip version or commit** The issue reproduced with `2026.901.0-canary.8` and the source state before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local trusted quickstart with embedded PostgreSQL. The install source can be npm or a source checkout. ## What Changed - Open the browser once for interactive foreground onboarding. - Preserve explicit browser opt-outs and restore the prior environment value after startup. - Accept a same-company context update after organization creation and reject a different-company takeover with an explicit error. - Export the exact canary version from the publish job. - Install and test that exact npm version in a clean Playwright smoke job through the "Connect a model" step. - Upload server logs, traces, screenshots, and the Playwright report when the canary smoke fails. - Document the interactive default and headless opt-outs. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts ui/src/components/OnboardingWizard.step.test.tsx --reporter=dot` passes with 37 tests. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passes with 9 tests. - `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts` passes with 2 tests. - `PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.901.0-canary.8 pnpm run test:canary-onboarding-smoke` passes against the published npm package. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - A fresh interactive source run opens the browser and reaches "Connect a model" after organization and agent naming. ## Risks - Low risk. Automatic browser opening only applies to interactive foreground onboarding. - `PAPERCLIP_NO_BROWSER=1` and `PAPERCLIP_OPEN_ON_LISTEN=false` keep headless runs silent. - A different organization context still blocks the pending create transition. - The canary package is immutable before the smoke runs. A smoke failure leaves the package published but makes the release workflow red. - This change does not modify REST APIs, database schemas, or shared data types. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment snapshot or context-window size. The model used reasoning, browser automation, repository tools, shell commands, code editing, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ffff1fe6e3 |
feat(runner): define package API and verification boundary (#12129)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package now has protocol, transport, provider, catalog, and authorization foundations. > - Its first upstream package boundary should expose only the implemented runtime and test-helper surfaces. > - Rust correctness belongs in the repository existing build verification, without introducing a parallel release process. > - Direct package creation must build the files declared by the package manifest. > - This pull request defines the minimal package API and verifies the optimized runner binaries in the existing PR and release Build jobs. > - The benefit is a production-ready runner package boundary with minimal build-process change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 This pull request replaces one bounded part of the archived large runner change. It follows the package-local authorization change in #12126. ## What Changed - Export only `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner` and `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`. - Keep Node-only fixture loading and semantic conformance helpers out of the runtime root. - Add a provider-neutral semantic conformance kit with stable JSON comparison and fail-closed input checks. - Keep deferred SDK, eval, browser, React, lab, and command surfaces private. - Pin the runner Rust toolchain to 1.97.1 with the minimal profile and `rustfmt`. - Run the Rust workspace tests in release mode. - Launch the optimized `paperclip-runnerd` and fake-harness binaries in process-level integration coverage. - Add one `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` step to each existing PR and release Build job. - Make the existing server `prepack` lifecycle run its existing build after it prepares UI assets. - Document that no production adapter starts runnerd yet. This revision adds no standalone GitHub Actions job. It adds no server runner dependency or runner vendoring. It adds no Docker bootstrap or clean-consumer harness. It does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` - 66 TypeScript tests - 8 protocol contract tests - 56 Rust unit and integration tests - Release-mode integration coverage launches the optimized runnerd and fake-harness binaries. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts` (2 tests) - Clean `pnpm pack` from `server/` rebuilt the server and produced both `package/dist/index.js` and `package/dist/index.d.ts`. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` (8 tests) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` - No `pnpm-lock.yaml` diff. - The diff changes 12 files. ## Risks The runner adds Rust work to the existing Build jobs. These jobs can take longer on a cold cache. The pinned toolchain makes contributor and CI behavior reproducible. Cargo tests use `--release` to verify optimized executables. The server prepack lifecycle now performs the build that its published entry points require. This can make direct server packing slower. This pull request does not wire runnerd into the server. It does not select runnerd for any adapter. Existing application execution and finalization paths remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. Agentic coding mode used repository tools, code execution, and automated tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
2ec984502a |
fix(release): stop smoke_beta silently skipping on promote-mode betas (#11582)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release channel system re-smokes every published beta as post-publish verification (`smoke_beta`) > - The candidate-branch beta lane (#11209) added `verify_beta_candidate` to `publish_beta`'s needs; that job is skipped on every normal promote-mode beta > - `smoke_beta`'s condition has no status-check function, so GitHub attaches an implicit `success()` that evaluates the needs chain transitively — a skipped ancestor makes it false > - This pull request makes the condition explicit so promote-mode betas smoke again, and pins the shape in the workflow wiring test > - The benefit is that the post-publish beta gate actually runs instead of silently skipping ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Beta `2026.818.0-beta.0` (run 32082007439) published successfully, but its post-publish `smoke_beta` job was skipped. No configuration or input asked for that: the run was a plain `channel: beta` dispatch with `dry_run` at its default `false`, and the same expression `!inputs.dry_run` evaluated true inside `publish_beta`'s own steps (the Docker dispatch step ran). **Expected behavior** Every non-dry-run beta publish is followed by the release smoke suite against the exact published version, as documented in `doc/RELEASING.md` and `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`. **Steps to reproduce** Dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: beta` promoting a nightly (promote mode). `verify_beta_candidate` is skipped by design; `publish_beta` runs through its explicit `!cancelled()` condition; `smoke_beta` then skips because its implicit `success()` sees the skipped ancestor in the transitive needs chain (actions/runner#2205 semantics). The beta published on 2026-08-11 predated #11209, so this never surfaced before. **Paperclip version or commit** master at `43ab441f0` (workflow file, current head). Related (not duplicates): #11209 introduced the candidate lane whose skipped job triggers this; #11208 covers the adjacent tag-push failure playbooks. ## What Changed - `smoke_beta`'s condition becomes `!cancelled() && needs.publish_beta.result == 'success' && !inputs.dry_run` — an explicit status-check function suppresses the implicit `success()`, and the result check keeps the dependency on a successful publish. - A comment above the job records why the explicit form is load-bearing. - `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` pins the new shape so the implicit form cannot silently return. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 8 pass, including the new assertion. - `release.yml` re-parsed as YAML. - The exact skip is visible on run 32082007439 (`smoke_beta: skipped` after `publish_beta: success`); the coverage gap for that beta was closed manually by dispatching `release-smoke.yml` with `paperclip_version: beta` (run 32084880767). - Not exercised end-to-end: the corrected condition needs the next real promote-mode beta to demonstrate; the expression change is minimal and the semantics are the documented actions/runner behavior. ## Risks - Low risk: condition-only change on one job plus a test. Dry runs still skip the smoke (`!inputs.dry_run` retained). Candidate-mode betas, where `verify_beta_candidate` actually runs, behave as before. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code) ## Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
71e9d6bb0b |
feat(release): candidate-branch beta builds and the release checklist (#11209)
> Follow-up to #11208 (merged): rebased onto master and ready for review. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release channels promote artifacts along canary → nightly → beta → stable, with the happy path being promotion of an existing build > - When one or two targeted fixes are needed before a beta or stable, the only options today are waiting for the next nightly or absorbing a whole day of unrelated master changes > - The channel model was designed with an escape hatch for exactly this: short-lived candidate branches carrying only cherry-picked fixes > - This pull request implements candidate-branch beta builds with full verification, documents the stable fix path through the soak-justification gate, and adds the release captain's checklist > - The benefit is that a surgical fix can ship forward without either delay or blast radius, with its provenance recorded ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11008 — completes the fix-path half of the channel model introduced there. **Subsystem affected** Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`, `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`, new `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`, tests. **Problem or motivation** Beta promotion only accepts commits that already shipped as a nightly, and stable promotion expects a soaked beta. There is no supported way to ship one or two cherry-picked fixes between lanes: an urgent fix must wait for the nightly cycle or pull in every unrelated master change from the day. The original channel design called for candidate branches to cover this, and they were deferred from the initial implementation. **Proposed solution** Candidate-branch beta builds: cut `candidate/beta-<target>` from a nightly's source commit, cherry-pick the fixes, and dispatch `channel: beta` with the new `candidate_branch` input. Selection enforces the naming convention, rejects heads that already shipped as a beta or predate the candidate tooling, and records the cherry-picked commits in the job summary. Because candidate heads never went through a canary or nightly, publication is gated on a full `release-verify` run (promoted nightlies keep skipping re-verification). The stable fix path (`candidate/release-<target>` as `source_ref`) works through the existing soak gate: the justification requirement is the deliberate, recorded trade-off for shipping unsoaked bits, and is now documented as such. ## What Changed - `scripts/release.sh`: `--from-candidate` flag (beta only) waives the shipped-a-nightly requirement while keeping the duplicate-beta guard - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: `candidate_branch` dispatch input; candidate mode in `select_beta` (naming validation, duplicate and tooling-era rejection, cherry-pick recording); new `verify_beta_candidate` job gating candidate publishes on full verification - `doc/RELEASING.md`: beta fix-path and stable fix-path sections - `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md` (new): the release captain's checklist for all four lanes as built - Tests: dry-run fixture coverage for `--from-candidate` (waives the nightly guard, keeps the duplicate guard, rejected outside beta) and wiring tests for candidate validation plus the verification gate ## Verification - `node --test` on the four affected suites: 42 pass in total (17 + 25 across the two runs), including the 5 new tests - `bash -n` on `release.sh`; YAML parse of the workflow - After merge: exercise the path end to end the first time a real cherry-picked beta is needed — dispatch with a `candidate/beta-*` branch and confirm the summary records the picks and verification runs ## Risks - Candidate builds bypass the smoke-tested-nightly provenance by design; the compensating controls are full verification before publish, the post-publish beta smoke, the human `npm-beta` gate, and recorded cherry-picks - The stable fix path rides the existing justification mechanism rather than adding a second bypass — one recorded escape hatch, not two ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under human direction. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
2da6a248c3 |
fix(release): surface recovery commands when a lane tag push is rejected (#11208)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release subsystem's promotion lanes publish to npm, then push a lane tag and dispatch the Docker image build at that tag > - The first nightly of the beta-tooling merge published to npm and then died at the tag push: GITHUB_TOKEN may not create refs pointing at workflow-modifying commits from dispatch or scheduled runs > - The failure was a bare `remote rejected` with no guidance, leaving the release half-finished (npm live, no tag, no images) until an operator reverse-engineered the recovery > - This pull request makes every lane's tag push degrade into exact recovery instructions in the job summary > - The benefit is that a rare platform-permission rejection becomes a two-minute runbook operation instead of a forensic exercise ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11008 — the incident occurred promoting that change's own merge commit, the first workflow-modifying commit to flow through the lanes it introduced. **Subsystem affected** Release automation: `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`, workflow wiring tests. **Problem or motivation** Run 31445344811 published `2026.811.0-nightly.0` to npm, then failed pushing `nightly/v2026.811.0-nightly.0`: `refusing to allow a GitHub App to create or update workflow .github/workflows/release.yml without workflows permission`. The tagged commit modifies workflow files, and GITHUB_TOKEN may not create refs pointing at such commits from dispatch or scheduled runs (push-event runs are exempt, which is why the canary tag on the same commit succeeded). The job failed with no explanation and the Docker dispatch never ran. **Proposed solution** Wrap the nightly, beta, and stable tag pushes: on rejection, write the exact recovery commands into the job summary — create and push the tag with maintainer credentials, dispatch `docker.yml` at the tag, and for stable also run `create-github-release.sh` — then fail the job. Document the cause and recovery in the failure playbooks and pin the three recovery blocks with a wiring test. ## What Changed - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: recovery-summary wrappers on the nightly, beta, and stable tag-push steps - `doc/RELEASING.md`: failure-playbook entry for the workflows-permission rejection - `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test asserting all three lanes carry the recovery summary ## Verification - Wiring tests: 6 pass; YAML parse of the workflow - The recovery commands are exactly the ones used to resolve the real incident (tag push + `docker.yml` dispatch for `nightly/v2026.811.0-nightly.0`) ## Risks - Low. The happy path is unchanged (a successful push skips the wrapper); the failure path trades a bare error for actionable output and still fails the job, since the release state is genuinely incomplete ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under human direction. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d648becb90 |
refactor(ci): split workspaces-a into two Vitest native shards
Split the slow workspaces-a CI lane into two Vitest native shards and keep release verification in parity. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
6601014898 |
fix(release): reject promotion sources that predate their channel tooling (#11197)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release subsystem promotes builds along canary → nightly → beta → stable, and each publish job checks out the promotion's source commit and runs that tree's release tooling > - The first beta dispatch failed with `unexpected argument: beta`: the selected nightly's source predated the beta channel, so its `release.sh` did not know the argument > - The failure was clean (argument parsing, nothing published) but cryptic, and the same trap waits for any promotion of a source older than its target channel's tooling > - This pull request makes the selection jobs reject such sources with an actionable error and documents the property > - The benefit is that a bootstrapping or old-source promotion fails in seconds with instructions, instead of mid-publish with a parser error ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11008 — the guard hardens the beta promotion flow introduced there, after its first dispatch surfaced the gap described below. **Subsystem affected** Release automation: `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`, workflow wiring tests. **Problem or motivation** Run 31444045044 (first beta dispatch) failed in `publish_beta` with `unexpected argument: beta`. Promotions deliberately build from the pinned source commit, which means they also run that commit's `scripts/release.sh` — and a source that predates the target channel's introduction cannot publish it. Nothing guards this today; the error surfaces deep in the publish job with no explanation. **Proposed solution** Guard at selection time: `select_nightly` requires the source canary's `release.sh` to know the nightly channel, and `select_beta` requires the source nightly's `release.sh` to know the beta channel. Each guard literally matches the channel case arm and fails closed with a clear message naming the remedy (promote a newer source). Document the tooling-era property in `RELEASING.md` and pin the guards with a wiring test. ## What Changed - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: tooling-era guards in `select_nightly` and `select_beta` - `doc/RELEASING.md`: documents that promotions run the source commit's release tooling - `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test pinning both guards ## Verification - Wiring tests: 5 pass - Guard expressions exercised against real commits: accepts the beta-capable merge commit of the beta-channel change, rejects a pre-beta commit - YAML parse of the workflow - After merge: the next beta dispatch selects a beta-capable nightly and passes the guard ## Risks - Low. Selection-time check only; the guards match the channel case arm literally and fail closed (with the same actionable message) if that line is ever reformatted ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under human direction. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
8f7b8b3fda |
feat(release): add human-gated beta channel with stable soak enforcement (#11008)
> Follow-up to #11006 (merged): rebased onto master and ready for review. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release subsystem now publishes canary (every master push), nightly (scheduled, smoke-gated, added in #11006), and stable (manual) > - There is still no human-approved release-candidate lane between nightly and stable, and nothing enforces that a stable actually soaked anywhere before shipping > - Betas need a real approval gate, and stables need a soak policy that is data, not prose > - This pull request adds the beta channel: a manual promotion of a chosen nightly behind the `npm-beta` environment gate, re-smoked after publish, plus a stable preflight that enforces a 3-day beta soak with a written-justification bypass > - The benefit is a complete canary → nightly → beta → stable train where every stable shipped as a beta first, and emergencies leave a written trace ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`, `scripts/release-lib.sh`, `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `.github/workflows/docker.yml`, `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`. **Problem or motivation** After #11006 the project has canary and nightly prerelease lanes, but no release-candidate lane. Stable promotion has no enforced soak: any ref can ship as stable directly. There is no approval boundary for a broader-audience prerelease, and no structured way to record why an emergency release skipped validation. **Proposed solution** Add a `beta` channel: a manual dispatch that promotes a chosen nightly's source commit, publishes behind the `npm-beta` GitHub environment (required reviewers are the gate), re-smokes the published beta, and tags `beta/vX`. Enforce in the stable path that the source commit shipped as a beta at least 3 days earlier (measured from the beta's npm publish time), with a `skip_soak_justification` input as the recorded emergency bypass. **Alternatives considered** Codifying the soak policy in docs only. Rejected: an unenforced policy decays; the preflight makes the policy executable while the justification input keeps the emergency path usable and auditable. ## What Changed - `scripts/release.sh` + `scripts/release-lib.sh`: `beta` channel — requires HEAD to carry a `nightly/v*` tag, publishes the package set as `YYYY.MDD.P-beta.N` under dist-tag `beta`, tags `beta/vYYYY.MDD.P-beta.N` - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: - `channel: beta` dispatch path: `select_beta` resolves the newest (or an explicit `source_version`) nightly and fails loudly on selection problems; `publish_beta` runs behind the `npm-beta` environment, pushes the tag, and dispatches `docker.yml`; `smoke_beta` re-runs the release smoke suite against the exact published beta version - stable path: new `preflight_stable` job enforces the 3-day beta soak from the beta's npm publish time; `skip_soak_justification` bypasses with the reason echoed into the job summary; dry runs report without blocking - `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: `beta/v*` tags publish `:beta` on both images, with exact version stamping - `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: `beta` added to the dispatch choice list - Docs: `CHANNELS.md` beta entries; `RELEASING.md` beta lane, soak gate, and failure playbook; `RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md` `npm-beta` environment setup, including the warning to create the environment before the first beta dispatch (GitHub auto-creates unprotected environments on first reference) - Tests: beta version-counting coverage in `scripts/release-registry-versions.test.mjs`; beta identity and nightly-tag guard coverage in `scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs` ## Verification - `node --test` on the two touched suites: 17 pass, including the 3 new beta tests - `bash -n` on both shell scripts and YAML parse of all three workflows - After merge, in order: create the `npm-beta` environment, dispatch `channel: beta` with `dry_run: true` to preview, then a real promotion of a published nightly through the approval gate, then a stable dry-run against a young beta to see the soak gate report ## Risks - If the `npm-beta` environment does not exist when the first beta dispatch runs, GitHub creates it with no protection rules and the beta publishes without approval. Mitigated by documentation and by creating the environment before merge (operator step) - Until the first beta exists, every stable dispatch requires `skip_soak_justification`. This is deliberate — the first beta ships immediately after this merges — but it is a behavior change to the stable dispatch - The soak clock reads the beta's npm publish time from the registry; a registry outage makes the preflight fall back to requiring justification (fail-closed) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use (repository exploration, local test execution, live registry and git verification). All code, tests, and docs in this PR were model-authored under human direction. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
f94f6003c6 |
fix(release-smoke): pin the smoke container to the lan bind preset (#11189)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release subsystem's nightly lane gates every nightly on the release smoke suite, which boots the published artifact in a Docker container and drives real onboarding > - The gate kept failing even after the readiness budget fix (#11187), and the new container-log dump revealed the server was healthy but listening on 127.0.0.1 inside the container, unreachable through Docker's port mapping > - `onboard --yes` without an explicit `--bind` prefers trusted-local quickstart defaults: it writes a loopback bind into the instance config and ignores the deployment env vars the harness passes, and that config outranks `HOST` at runtime > - This pull request pins the smoke container to the `lan` bind preset and adds a wiring test for it > - The benefit is a working nightly gate, verified end to end against a real published canary ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Release smoke testing: `docker/Dockerfile.onboard-smoke`, `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. **Problem or motivation** Nightly run 31428558684 failed in smoke with the server unreachable at the mapped port for the full 420 second budget. The container logs (captured thanks to #11187) show a fully booted server with `Bind loopback (127.0.0.1)`. The harness sets `HOST=0.0.0.0` and the deployment env vars, but `onboard --yes` without `--bind` deliberately prefers trusted-local defaults, writes `bind: loopback` into the instance config, and the config outranks `HOST` at runtime. A loopback listener inside a container is invisible to the port mapping, so the health check can never pass. This behavior predates the current stable, so the harness was silently broken against every recent version — it only surfaced now because the nightly lane is the suite's first CI consumer. **Proposed solution** Pass `--bind lan` in the smoke container command (the flag is supported by `latest` and canary alike; it selects the all-interfaces preset and keeps the env-driven authenticated deployment), and pin the flag with a wiring test so it cannot regress silently. ## What Changed - `docker/Dockerfile.onboard-smoke`: the onboard command is now `onboard --yes --bind lan --data-dir ...`, with a comment explaining why the flag is load-bearing - `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test asserting the smoke Dockerfile pins a non-loopback bind preset ## Verification - Full local harness run against the real nightly candidate `2026.810.0-canary.1`: container healthy, bind banner shows `lan (0.0.0.0)`, authenticated bootstrap completed (admin created, bootstrap invite accepted, board session verified), `/api/health` returns `bootstrapStatus: ready` - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: 4 pass - After merge: dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: nightly` to run the gate end to end in CI ## Risks - Low. The change only affects the smoke container. `--bind lan` inside a container exposes the port to the container network only; reachability from outside still goes through Docker's explicit port mapping ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use (CI log forensics, upstream source tracing, local Docker reproduction and verification). All changes model-authored under human direction. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
30f6999cbe |
fix(release-smoke): configurable readiness timeout and diagnostics for slow containers (#11187)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release subsystem's nightly lane (#11006) gates every nightly publish on the release smoke suite, which boots the published artifact in a Docker container > - The suite's first CI execution failed at the health readiness check: the harness hard-codes a 90 second budget, but a CI container cold-installs paperclipai from npm and initializes embedded postgres with no warm caches > - When the timeout expired with the container still running, the harness printed no container logs, so the failure gave no diagnostics > - This pull request makes the readiness budget configurable, raises it for CI, and dumps container logs on timeout > - The benefit is that the nightly gate measures the artifact, not the runner's cold caches, and a red smoke run is diagnosable from its logs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Release smoke testing: `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`, `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`. **Problem or motivation** Run 31426044332 (first forced nightly after #11006) failed in `smoke_nightly` with `server did not become ready at http://localhost:3232/api/health` after exactly 90 seconds. The harness's readiness window is hard-coded to 90 attempts at 1 second. Locally that works because the npm cache is warm; in CI the container downloads the full package set and embedded postgres first. The timeout path also printed no container logs when the container was still running, so there was no way to see how far boot had progressed. **Proposed solution** Make the readiness budget an environment variable (`SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS`, default unchanged at 90 for local use), set it to 420 in the CI workflow, and dump the last 150 container log lines when the readiness check times out on a still-running container. ## What Changed - `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`: `SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS` env var (default 90) replaces the hard-coded readiness budget; timeout with a still-running container now prints the tail of `docker logs` - `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: sets `SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS=420` for CI runs ## Verification - `bash -n` on the harness and YAML parse of the workflow - The real proof is the next `channel: nightly` dispatch of `release.yml`, which re-runs this suite in CI with the new budget ## Risks - Low. The local default is unchanged; CI runs simply wait longer before declaring failure, and a genuinely broken artifact still fails (with logs now) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use. Diagnosis from CI run logs; patch model-authored under human direction. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin FoleyandDevin Foley
|
b6e58019f2 |
ci: split serialized tests into five shards (#10923)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses CI to keep control-plane changes safe and mergeable. > - The PR workflow splits serialized server tests across isolated runners. > - A recent successful run spent 305 seconds in serialized shard 2/4. > - That job was the slowest check in the run. > - The four shards reported about 739 seconds of Vitest suite time. > - This pull request adds a fifth serialized shard and keeps release verification aligned. > - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path with no loss of test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The PR and release verification workflows run serialized server tests in four shards. **Current behavior** Successful PR run 30876682788 spent 305 seconds in `Verify serialized server suites (2/4)`. The test step used 256 seconds and made this job the slowest check. **Proposed behavior** Run the same serialized suite set in five complete and non-overlapping shards. **Reason and benefit** The measured suites reported about 739 seconds of total Vitest time. Five runners reduce the expected average suite time from about 185 seconds to about 148 seconds before setup overhead. **Breaking changes** None. The change only alters CI partition size. ## What Changed - Split serialized server tests into five shards in the PR workflow. - Apply the same five-shard layout to release verification. - Add a partition test that proves complete and non-overlapping serialized coverage. - Update release workflow coverage tests for five shards. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk. CI uses one additional runner for the serialized lane. - Round-robin partition weights can still vary as suite timings change. > This change does not overlap with planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. Related PR #10663 optimized the separate general-server lane. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, agentic coding with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cec0fc249a |
[codex] Parallelize release verify workflow (#9168)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Releases publish the same app and package set that operators install, so release verification should keep full release-strength coverage. > - The release workflow currently verifies stable and canary releases with one serial job that typechecks, runs all tests, and builds. > - The PR workflow already proves the test surface can be split into grouped general suites and serialized shards without changing coverage. > - This pull request extracts the release verify work into a reusable workflow and fans out the independent lanes. > - The benefit is faster stable and canary release verification while preserving the existing publish and preview gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this CI improvement. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Problem or motivation** Release verification spends most of its wall time in a single serial test step even though the same stable test surface is already partitioned for PR CI. Stable dispatches and master-push canaries therefore wait on one long runner after setup, typecheck, tests, and build run sequentially. **Proposed solution** Add a reusable release verification workflow with parallel typecheck, grouped general tests, serialized test shards, and build lanes. Have both stable and canary release verification call it with the ref they need to verify. **Alternatives considered** Keeping the serial `pnpm test:run` job preserves the old shape but keeps stable and canary releases waiting on one long runner. Skipping verification when a source SHA already has green CI would be faster, but adds stale-check and lookup risk beyond this change. **Roadmap alignment** No overlapping item found in `ROADMAP.md`; this is release CI maintenance. **Additional context** The new workflow keeps the release-strength full `pnpm -r typecheck`, uses the existing stable test grouping/sharding entry points, and leaves publish/preview jobs unchanged. ## What Changed - Added `.github/workflows/release-verify.yml` as a `workflow_call` workflow accepting a `ref` input. - Split release verification into parallel `typecheck`, `general_tests`, `serialized_tests`, and `build` jobs with 20-minute lane timeouts. - Mirrored the PR workflow's stable test partition: `general-server` shards 1-3, `general-workspaces-a`, `general-workspaces-b`, and four serialized shards. - Replaced `release.yml` `verify_canary` and `verify_stable` job bodies with calls to the reusable workflow while leaving publish and preview jobs unchanged. - Added a Node test that guards the release workflow delegation and split verify surface. ## Verification - `actionlint 1.7.12 .github/workflows/release.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml` - `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` - `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Release verification now starts more jobs per release event, increasing total runner setup/install minutes. This matches the existing PR CI tradeoff and should reduce release wall time substantially. - The called workflow checks out the requested ref shallowly. That is intentional for verify lanes; publish and preview jobs still retain their existing full-history checkouts. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent in local tool-use mode with shell execution, repository editing, GitHub connector access, and medium reasoning. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |