Commit Graph
3 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
Devin Foley d08abcba15 ci: cut PR wall clock from ~16 to ~6 minutes (#13521)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Every pull request runs the Trusted PR CI workflow before merge
> - The test suites roughly tripled in six weeks, and shard balance did
not keep up, so PR runs crept from ~4 to ~17 minutes
> - Slow CI delays every merge and every contributor
> - This pull request rebalances the shards from fresh measurements,
splits the largest test files, reuses the Rust build cache in three more
jobs, and takes the policy job off the critical path
> - The benefit is a PR wall clock near 6 minutes with the same coverage

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

PR CI wall clock. A typical green run took 16-17 minutes. Two months ago
it took about 4 minutes.

**Subsystem affected**

The Trusted PR CI workflow (`.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`), the
shard-duration manifests, the vitest shard runner scripts, the
`paperclip-runner` package scripts, and the dry-run branch of
`release.sh`.

**Current behavior**

The shard-duration manifests were stale. The general-server manifest had
durations for ~400 of 649 suites. The e2e manifest was missing 14 of 29
specs. Stale median weights made shard steps range 417s-806s (server)
and 277s-745s (e2e). Three jobs each paid a ~3m40s cold cargo release
build. Every test lane waited ~60s for the policy job before it could
start.

**Proposed behavior**

All lanes finish in a narrow ~200-290s band. The manifests carry fresh
measured durations for every suite. The three largest test files are
split so no single file caps a shard. The Rust cache restore runs in
every job that builds the Runner binary. Test lanes start as soon as the
gate resolves.

**Reason and benefit**

Merges stop waiting on CI. The projected wall clock is ~6 minutes for
the same test coverage.

## What Changed

- Rebuild `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` (646 suites) and
`scripts/e2e-shard-durations.json` (all specs) from per-suite completion
timestamps in runs 35036001734 and 35024948947.
- Move the PR server lane to the release-verify shape:
`general-server-without-chat` across twelve duration-balanced shards,
plus the chat integration suite split by collected test location across
three dedicated lanes.
- Split `tests/e2e/chat-adapters-ui.spec.ts` into `-providers` and
`-messaging` specs, and `tests/e2e/agent-chat.spec.ts` into `-sessions`
and `-projects` specs. Each pair shares fixtures through a `.shared.ts`
module. Playwright collects the same test sets (39 and 20 tests).
- Raise e2e shards to eight and serialized shards to nine.
- Run the runner package's `check:all` as four matrix lanes:
`check:static`, `check:runner`, and two native vitest `--shard` halves.
The union is exactly `check:all`.
- Add the read-only Rust cache restore (toolchain pin, `save-if: false`)
to the Canary Dry Run, Build, and Typecheck jobs.
- Make release.sh preview publish payloads concurrently in batches of
eight during `--dry-run`. The real publish path stays strictly serial.
- Drop the policy-job lockfile artifact chain. Each lane installs with
`--frozen-lockfile` and falls back to an inline `--resolution-only`
regeneration. The policy job stays a required check through the `verify`
and `e2e` aggregates.
- Update the shard-count mirrors and workflow assertions in the
partition and gate tests.

## Verification

- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` — 30 pass.
- `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/'*.test.mjs` — 410 pass.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs
scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs` — 42 pass.
- `playwright test --list` collects 39 tests across the chat-adapters
split and 20 across the agent-chat split, equal to the original files.
- A local vitest collection of the chat suite partitions 995 tests into
498/497 line shards.
- Projected shard weights: server 230s x12, chat ~143s x3, e2e 207-242s
x8, serialized ~216s x9.

## Risks

- The split spec files reorder tests relative to the original files.
Every describe seeds its own company, so the specs stay independent; a
hidden cross-describe dependency would surface as a deterministic
failure in one shard.
- The inline lockfile fallback changes install behavior for
manifest-changing and stacked PRs. The policy job still validates
resolution as a required check.
- `release.sh` changes are confined to the `--dry-run` preview branch.
The publish loop is untouched. `bash -n` passes and the release dry-run
tests pass.
- One PR now schedules ~44 fleet runners. If the RunsOn fleet caps
concurrency, queueing may absorb part of the gain; watch the first runs.

## Model Used

- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), extended thinking, with
tool use (shell, file edits) in Claude Code.

## 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
2026-09-16 11:45:14 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip 39eafad47d test(e2e): shorten and split Smoke Lab coverage (#12506)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip uses browser tests to protect critical operator flows.
> - The trusted pull request workflow runs the E2E catalog on three
existing runners.
> - Smoke Lab was one 168-second spec, so the shard scheduler could not
divide it.
> - The spec also repeated service-start calls, page loads, and
full-page screenshots.
> - This pull request removes that repeated work and divides the
scenario catalog into two independent specs.
> - The benefit is a shorter Smoke Lab run and a balanced E2E lane
without more AWS capacity.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #10629

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

This improves the trusted pull request E2E lane and its Smoke Lab
Playwright coverage.

**Current behavior**

Smoke Lab is one indivisible 168-second CI spec. It starts services for
every scenario, loads the same evidence page twice, and captures a
full-page success screenshot for all 56 lifecycle steps.

**Proposed behavior**

Start Smoke Lab services once per spec. Keep the per-scenario fixture
reset. Capture one representative success screenshot per scenario and
keep every failure screenshot. Run P1–P4 and P5–P7 as separate specs so
the existing duration-aware scheduler can put them on different runners.

**Reason and benefit**

The optimized lifecycle reduced local Smoke Lab wall time from 57.68
seconds to 37.04 seconds. This is a 35.8% reduction. The two halves also
let the existing three runners target about 125, 124, and 124 seconds of
recorded spec work instead of about 168, 125, and 124 seconds.

**Breaking changes**

None. The same seven scenarios and eight lifecycle steps still run. The
result API still records every step. Successful non-connect steps no
longer attach redundant screenshots.

## What Changed

- Reused one Smoke Lab service start within each spec while retaining
isolated fixture installation for every scenario.
- Removed the duplicate catalog evidence navigation.
- Reduced success screenshots from 56 to 7 while retaining screenshots
for every failed step.
- Split the shared lifecycle runner into P1–P4 and P5–P7 specs.
- Mark each successful split result as partial and keep dashboard health
amber until one run covers the full catalog.
- Updated the duration manifest and contributor docs for the split.

## Verification

- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on Node.js 24.20.0.
- `pnpm build` passed on Node.js 24.20.0.
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` passed 9 tests.
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/tools/smoke-lab-matrix.test.ts`
passed 8 tests.
- Both split specs passed together on Node.js 24.20.0 after the review
fixes: 2 passed in 35.7 seconds; shell wall time was 36.86 seconds.
- The pre-change Smoke Lab baseline passed with a 57.68-second shell
wall time. The optimized unsplit A/B run passed with a 37.04-second
shell wall time.
- The full local E2E catalog passed 44 tests and skipped 2 tests. One
existing `pipelines-tutorial-flow.spec.ts` assertion failed again when
run alone.
- The broad local unit run reproduced failures in untouched
workspace-runtime suites. Typecheck, build, shard tests, and all changed
browser coverage pass. CI remains the authoritative full-suite result.

## Risks

- The split duration weights use the measured local reduction and the
previous 168-second CI weight. They should be refreshed after two real
pull request runs.
- Service state is shared within each half. Fixture installation still
runs before every scenario to reset connection, policy, and catalog
state.
- Each half records passed execution with partial coverage. Dashboard
health recognizes the partial flag and stays amber because no single
runner covers the full catalog. A failed half still records failed/red.
- Fewer success screenshots reduce redundant artifacts. Every scenario
keeps its connect screenshot, and every failure still captures evidence.

> 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. The exact deployment ID and context window are
not exposed in this session. The model used agentic reasoning, code
editing, shell execution, browser testing, and GitHub 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>
2026-08-31 10:15:39 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 1944c86153 fix(ci): preserve required e2e check for sharded runs (#9923)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pull request workflow is the main merge gate for changes to that
app.
> - The Playwright e2e lane is expensive because every spec shares one
isolated server and runs serially.
> - Splitting that lane across runners shortens the critical path, but
the public required-check contract still needs a check named exactly
`e2e`.
> - This pull request shards the real e2e work while preserving a fast
aggregate `e2e` job for branch protection.
> - The benefit is a faster PR workflow without making otherwise-good
PRs unmergeable because a legacy required check disappeared.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No public GitHub issue exists for this CI follow-up.

Related prior CI work:

- Refs #8360
- Refs #9168
- Refs #9516

Bug report:

### What happened?

Sharding the PR e2e lane directly at the workflow job level changes the
emitted check names to shard-specific names, while existing branch
protection expects a check named exactly `e2e`.

### Expected behavior

The PR workflow should be able to run e2e specs across multiple runners
while still emitting a stable aggregate check named `e2e`.

### Steps to reproduce

1. Open a PR against `master`.
2. Run the PR workflow with the e2e lane split only as a matrix job.
3. Observe that the shard checks complete, but a required check named
exactly `e2e` never appears.

### Paperclip version or commit

Current `master`.

### Deployment mode

GitHub Actions pull request workflow.

## What Changed

- Added `scripts/e2e-shard.mjs`, which partitions default Playwright e2e
specs by recorded per-spec duration.
- Added `scripts/e2e-shard-durations.json` with measured e2e spec
durations so the slow smoke-lab spec does not dominate one runner.
- Split the PR workflow e2e lane into two `e2e_shards` matrix jobs and
added a fast aggregate job named exactly `e2e`.
- Added `scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` to lock the shard
partition, ignored-spec sync, manifest coverage, and aggregate
required-check contract.

## Verification

- `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`
- `git diff --check upstream/master..HEAD`
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related e2e-shard / required-check
PRs and issues before opening this PR; no direct duplicate was found.

## Risks

Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest can drift as specs
are added or runtimes change; missing specs fall back to the median
known duration, and the focused shard test catches empty, overlapping,
or badly imbalanced partitions.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex CLI coding agent, with shell/tool execution and
repository inspection.

## 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>
2026-07-20 16:40:19 -07:00