Commit Graph
15 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
1d23cb6962 ci: pin a checkout-independent Rust cache path so PR lanes hit master's cache (#14394)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Paperclip ships a native Runner binary, written in Rust, and seven
CI lanes build it on every pull request
> - `Canary Dry Run` is the slowest check on every green PR run, and
most of its time is `cargo build --release` on third-party crates
> - Master saves a Rust dependency cache for these lanes, but every PR
lane logs `No cache found` and compiles every crate from zero
> - The cache key matches, but GitHub also compares a hash of the
absolute cache paths, and the master writer (RunsOn fleet,
`/home/runner/_work/...`) and the PR readers (GitHub-hosted,
`/home/runner/work/...`) hash different paths
> - This pull request gives both sides a checkout-independent workspace
path, so the hashes match and the PR lanes restore master's cache
> - The benefit is about 2.5 minutes less wall clock per PR run and
about 18 fewer runner-minutes per run

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No public issue exists for this problem. The description below follows
the enhancement template.

Related prior PRs on the same cache: Refs #13194, Refs #13259, Refs
#13457, Refs #13459, Refs #13500, Refs #13586. None of them pins the
workspace path, so none of them fixes this miss.

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

The `Swatinem/rust-cache` restore step in the PR workflow lanes that
build the Runner: `Canary Dry Run`, `Build`, `Typecheck + Release
Registry`, and the four `Verify Paperclip Runner` lanes.

**Subsystem affected**

CI workflows under `.github/workflows/`, their guard tests under
`.github/scripts/tests/`, and `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`.

**Current behavior**

Every PR lane logs `No cache found` although master holds an entry with
the exact key. Run 36424309181 computed
`v0-rust-release-runner-v1-Linux-x64-c3a3ca66-a95b0328`, and master
holds a 678 MB entry with that key. GitHub matches a cache entry on the
key and on a version hash of the absolute paths in the cache. The master
writer runs on the RunsOn fleet, where the checkout is
`/home/runner/_work/paperclip/paperclip`. The PR readers run on
GitHub-hosted `ubuntu-latest`, where the checkout is
`/home/runner/work/paperclip/paperclip`. The stored version `5c40870d…`
is the sha256 of the `_work` paths plus `zstd-without-long|1.0`. The
`work` paths hash to `1656e9ee…`. The key can never match, so each lane
compiles every third-party crate again.

**Proposed behavior**

The writer and the readers pass the same checkout-independent path to
`rust-cache`. Both runner layouts then produce the same version hash,
and the PR lanes restore master's cache.

**Reason and benefit**

`Canary Dry Run` takes 533s on a green run. 251s of that is dependency
compilation that a warm cache removes. Seven lanes pay this cost in
every PR run.

**Breaking changes**

None. This change affects CI only.

## What Changed

- Add a `Pin the Runner Rust workspace path` step before `rust-cache` in
the master writer (`release-verify.yml`, typecheck and runner lanes) and
in all four PR readers (`pr-trusted.yml`). The step creates the symlink
`$HOME/paperclip-runner-rust` →
`$GITHUB_WORKSPACE/packages/paperclip-runner/runner` and passes that
path to `rust-cache` as `workspaces: <path> -> target`. `rust-cache`
resolves the input with `path.resolve`, which does not follow symlinks,
so both runner layouts now produce the same cache paths and the same
version hash. `$HOME` is `/home/runner` on both images, which is why the
`~/.cargo` paths already agreed.
- Bump the shared keys `release-runner-v1` → `release-runner-v2` and
`release-typecheck-v1` → `release-typecheck-v2`. The old, unreachable
entries are then visibly orphaned instead of sharing a key with the new
ones.
- Extend the guard tests `pr-runner-rust-cache`, `release-runner-cache`,
and `typecheck-rust-cache`. They now require the pin step in both
workflows with identical text, placed before the cache step, and they
reject a `workspaces:` value that resolves under the checkout. The
`pr-runner-rust-cache` test checks all four PR reader jobs and fails if
a `rust-cache` step appears in a PR job that is not in its reader list.
- Update `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md` to name the
`release-runner-v2` key and to explain the pinned workspace path.

### Expected savings once merged

Measured from run 36424309181. "Removed" is the dependency-compile time
that a warm restore removes, minus about 18s to restore the 680 MB
entry. The fleet writer's own restore shows this cost.

| Lane | Today | Removed | Expected |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canary Dry Run | 533s | ~150s | ~380s |
| Typecheck + Release Registry | 462s | ~155s | ~305s |
| Verify Paperclip Runner (vitest 2/2) | 453s | ~245s | ~210s |
| Verify Paperclip Runner (rust) | 400s | ~175s | ~225s |
| Build | 348s | ~130s | ~220s |
| Verify Paperclip Runner (static checks) | 321s | ~170s | ~150s |
| Verify Paperclip Runner (vitest 1/2) | 346s | ~70s | ~275s |

- Wall clock per PR run: about 533s → about 385s. That is about 2.5
minutes faster to a green check set. `Canary Dry Run` stays the longest
check. The rest is the non-cargo work in `release.sh` (standalone
package builds ~30s, publish-payload preview ~73s).
- Runner time: about 18 runner-minutes saved per PR run across the seven
lanes.
- The first master push after merge compiles from zero once in the fleet
writer (about 4 extra minutes on that one run) and saves the v2 entry.
Later PRs hit it. When a PR changes `Cargo.lock`, the prefix restore key
still gives a partial hit, as before.

## Verification

- Run the guard tests for the three cache lanes:
`node --test .github/scripts/tests/pr-runner-rust-cache.test.mjs
.github/scripts/tests/release-runner-cache.test.mjs
.github/scripts/tests/typecheck-rust-cache.test.mjs`
  Result: 21 pass, 0 fail.
- Run the full guard suite: `node --test
'.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'`. Result: 376 pass, 3 fail. The 3
failures are in `docker-canary-promotion.test.mjs`. They hit a sandbox
temp-file ENOENT and fail the same way on the unmodified branch.
- Run `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`.
Result: 14 pass.
- Local archive test: create a tar from the `_work` layout through the
symlink (relative `../../../paperclip-runner-rust/target` entries, `tar
-P -C $GITHUB_WORKSPACE`, the same way `@actions/cache` does). Extract
it on the `work` layout. The files land in the real target directory and
the symlink stays intact.
- After merge, open any GitHub-hosted PR run and confirm that the seven
Rust lanes log `Restored from cache key ...release-runner-v2...` in
place of `No cache found`.

## Risks

- Low risk. The change touches CI workflows, their tests, and one doc
page. No product code changes.
- If the pin step fails, `rust-cache` reports a miss and the lane
compiles from zero, as it does today. The build does not break.
- Both runner layouts sit four levels under `/home/runner`, so the
relative `../../../` archive entries line up. The existing
`~/.cargo/registry` and `~/.cargo/git` cache paths already rely on this
property. A future runner image with a different `$HOME` depth would
miss the cache but would not fail the job.
- `rm -rf "$pinned"` acts on the symlink itself (no trailing slash),
never on the checkout behind it. It only matters on a reused runner.
- Squash-merge note: the branch carries commits by `Bender (Fable)`. Add
`Co-Authored-By: Bender (Fable) <bender-fable@paperclip.local>` to the
squash body to keep that authorship.

## Model Used

- Anthropic Claude Fable 5.1 (`claude-fable-5-1`), run through Claude
Code inside a Paperclip agent heartbeat. Extended thinking was on. Tool
use: shell, GitHub CLI, and the GitHub REST API for workflow logs, cache
listings, and PR operations.

## 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 and contains no internal
ticket id. The agent execution workspace fixed this branch name, so I
cannot rename it. Squash-merge drops the branch name.
- [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

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

---------

Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Bender (Fable) <bender-fable@paperclip.local>
2026-09-30 16:04:23 -07:00
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>
2026-09-23 19:35:19 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 4cc387f907 fix(ci): remove npm propagation from cloud readiness (#13456)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Cloud needs a verified image and matching database
migrator before it can deploy a merge.
> - New npm package versions can take minutes to become downloadable
after the package build finishes.
> - The direct producer now publishes signed archives and a complete
dependency lockfile for each master commit.
> - This pull request makes readiness verify those artifacts and removes
the duplicate automatic npm migrator run.
> - Deployment still requires all source checks, exact image identity,
migration compatibility, and pinned dependencies.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #13455, #13454, #13192

**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The time from a master merge to the `Cloud deployable v1` signal.

**Current behavior**
Readiness polls npm metadata for the new DB and shared versions. An
automatic dispatcher also starts a separate npm-only migrator workflow.
A measured source built its packages at 06:22:41 UTC on 2026-09-15, but
both npm archives were not downloadable until 06:31:56 UTC.

**Proposed behavior**
Wait for the successful exact-source direct producer, verify its signed
manifest and all pinned downloads, and publish readiness only after the
existing source and image jobs pass. Keep manual npm migrators and
branch previews available.

**Reason and benefit**
Remove new-version npm propagation from merge-to-deployable time. The
gain depends on whether image building or source verification finishes
later; it is not a fixed subtraction from every run.

## What Changed

- Require a successful producer from the canonical repository, exact
commit, master ref, expected workflow, and approved event.
- Verify the manifest's GitHub attestation with the hosted GitHub CLI.
Enforce the exact source SHA, master workflow identity, and hosted
runner.
- Download and validate both archives and the complete dependency
lockfile after publication succeeds. Reject invalid signatures,
inaccessible objects, corrupt bytes, and source mismatches.
- Remove automatic npm-only migrator dispatch. Retain manual release and
branch-preview publication.
- Document the cloud feature-switch prerequisite and coordinated
rollback.

## Verification

- `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs`: 405 pass.
- Focused readiness, routing, preview, and artifact tests: 249 pass.
- Workflow lint and `git diff --check`: pass.
- `pnpm test:release-registry`: 139 pass after installing this
worktree's dependencies.
- All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed. Greptile is 5/5 with no
unresolved comments.
- Application source is unchanged. Common-source local typecheck and
build passed. The full local application suite has the documented macOS
read-only-directory rename limitation from #13454 (13 failures in two
unchanged suites); Linux CI is the final application gate.
- Live readiness verification of master
da77a0c28c passed in 6.52 seconds,
including the real GitHub CLI signature policy and all artifact
downloads.
- Cloud consumer resolution with the certificate encoding fix passed in
5.45 seconds with zero npm metadata requests or npm processes. The
consumer is deployed and enabled in staging and production; their live
resolution APIs passed in 2.34 and 2.38 seconds. Both report the
expected fixed harness commit. A fresh tenant deployment follows this
cutover merge.

## Risks

- `Cloud deployable v1` no longer promises npm preview availability.
Enable the cloud direct-artifact consumer in staging and production
before merging this change.
- Artifact storage and GitHub attestations become required services for
new direct releases. Missing or invalid evidence fails explicitly.
- Restore the old npm dispatcher and readiness gate together before
disabling the consumer switch. Retain artifacts referenced by existing
releases.
- This change does not expand AWS runner access. The producer and
readiness bookkeeping use GitHub-hosted runners. Existing PR allowlists
and source verification gates remain enforced.

## 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 (focused checks; full
application host limitation documented 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>
2026-09-15 01:14:43 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 44dde2dec4 ci: reuse dependency caches without per-PR uploads (#13300)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Cloud releases wait for source verification before deployment.
> - That verification reuses compiled Rust dependencies to finish
sooner.
> - PR jobs save large pnpm stores under separate merge refs and
different lockfile keys.
> - Those copies compete with master build caches for the repository's
10 GB cache limit.
> - This PR makes PR dependency caches restore-only and reuses
master-compatible keys.
> - A separate pin update will activate the reviewed workflow.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**
PR merge refs accumulated roughly 700 MB copies of the same pnpm store.
Master Rust caches disappeared, and Cloud readiness run
[34656098157](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34656098157)
rebuilt dependencies after cache misses. The repository currently has a
10 GB limit. GitHub rejected a request for 50 GB; that setting needs
separate organization/billing access.

**Expected behavior**
PR jobs should reuse downloaded packages without evicting post-merge
compilation caches through duplicate uploads.

**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run several PRs while the checked-in lockfile needs policy
regeneration.
2. Compare the setup-node keys in PR jobs and master jobs.
3. List Actions caches by ref, key, and archive size. The PR keys repeat
across merge refs.

**Paperclip version or commit**
f12b647ae, before this change.

**Deployment mode**
GitHub Actions, with GitHub-hosted and allowlisted AWS PR runners.

Refs #13267 (empty pnpm store prevention). Searched open issues and PRs
for pnpm cache duplication and found no duplicate implementation. This
change leaves the paused capacity documentation PR #13280 alone.

## What Changed

- Replace setup-node cache writes with pinned `actions/cache/restore` in
all seven PR install job definitions.
- Restore against the checked-in lockfile before downloading the
regenerated policy artifact. Keep every install frozen against that
artifact.
- Allow an OS/architecture-specific pnpm fallback and disable automatic
setup-node caching.
- Remove dependency-store caching from the resolution-only policy job.
- Add eight regression tests, update the existing stacked-lockfile cache
assertion, and document cache behavior and storage settings.

## Verification

- Passed 505 workflow, routing, cache, and source-verification tests:
`node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'
scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs
scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs`.
- Passed `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml` and `git diff
--check`.
- The AWS routing gate is unchanged. Author, event sender, and rerun
actor must still be allowlisted.
- This definition PR does not change the active `pr.yml` pin. After
review and merge, authorize its immutable merge SHA additively and
activate it in a separate PR. Verify a populated restore and no cache
uploads in an allowlisted PR.
- All 32 checks passed or were intentionally skipped on
`44b31eca590f61b75cae646de43c491b6c4deae7`, including full native Runner
verification, application build, server/workspace tests, and browser
shards. Current-head Greptile is 5/5 with no findings. No application
code changes in this PR.

## Risks

- New dependencies present only in a PR may download again on each run
until master saves a cache containing them. Frozen installation remains
the source of dependency resolution.
- Missing or expired stores fall back to normal package downloads.
- Existing PR copies remain until expiry or a separate targeted cleanup.
No cache entries are deleted here.
- The workflow only takes effect after the separate immutable pin
rotation. Storage billing settings are not changed by this PR.

## 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>
2026-09-11 17:31:15 -07:00
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
2083bf6](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34651761811)
failed in the Runner scorer and chaos jobs with
`ERR_PNPM_OUTDATED_LOCKFILE`. The commit added `svix` to server
dependencies. The tracked lockfile still describes the previous
manifest. The other release checks install with `--no-frozen-lockfile`.

**Expected behavior**

Every source check installs and tests the same checked-out commit. A
pending bot lockfile PR must not block cloud readiness.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Check out master commit 250deab, which retains the manifest/lockfile
mismatch.
2. Run `pnpm install --ignore-scripts --frozen-lockfile`. It fails with
the same outdated-lockfile error.
3. Run `pnpm install --ignore-scripts --no-frozen-lockfile
--resolution-only`. It succeeds.
4. Restore the generated lockfile. This PR does not commit it.

## What Changed

- Use `--no-frozen-lockfile` in the release Runner scorer job.
- Use the same option in the reusable Runner chaos workflow.
- Document why cloud source checks allow a job-local lockfile refresh.
- Update the existing Runner scorer workflow assertion to match its
install policy.

## Verification

- All 457 workflow tests pass across `.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs`
and `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`.
- `actionlint` passes for both changed workflows.
- Reproduced the frozen install failure against the real tracked
manifest and lockfile. The refresh command passes in 4.6 seconds.
- `git diff --check` passes. No lockfile changes remain.
- No application source changes. Full local application typecheck,
build, and test commands were not rerun in this dependency-free workflow
worktree. Current-head GitHub CI must pass before merge.
- After merge, verify both affected jobs pass on the exact master source
even if the lockfile bot PR remains pending.

## Risks

pnpm can resolve allowed dependency ranges when a manifest outgrows the
tracked lockfile. This matches the existing release install policy. The
resulting lockfile stays in the job workspace. Verification commands and
runner routing are unchanged. The security reviewer explicitly accepted
this existing dependency-policy tradeoff for both jobs after reviewing
repository policy and the source/authorization checks. A future shared
immutable dependency artifact would improve reproducibility across jobs.

## 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] Local verification passes: all 457 workflow tests, actionlint, and
the stale-lockfile reproduction described 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>
2026-09-11 15:56:21 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 19c76bfc3f fix(ci): avoid empty pnpm caches from lockfile refresh (#13267)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - CI installs dependencies before it verifies and builds cloud
artifacts.
> - Install jobs share a pnpm package-store cache with lockfile refresh.
> - Lockfile refresh resolves versions without downloading packages.
> - That job saved an empty cache before full install jobs could save
theirs.
> - This PR prevents lockfile refresh from publishing that empty entry.
> - Full install jobs can then populate the cache and reuse
dependencies.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #13259 for the related cloud verification cache work. No duplicate
empty-cache fix was found.

**What happened?**

Refresh Lockfile run 34517514932 saved a 216-byte default-branch pnpm
cache at 18:58:08 UTC on September 10. Full install jobs still restore
that empty entry. The cache API reports 216 bytes for master and about
703 MB for populated entries with the same key and cache version in PR
scopes.

**Expected behavior**

A job that installs dependencies should populate the shared
package-store cache.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Run lockfile refresh with a new lockfile cache key.
2. Its resolution-only command leaves the package store empty.
3. The Node action saves the empty archive before a full install
finishes.
4. Later jobs report a cache hit but download packages again.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Observed on master 6728e133f8 and still
present at a23ae894a5.

**Deployment mode**

GitHub Actions cloud verification and release workflows.

## What Changed

- Disable package-manager caching in Refresh Lockfile.
- Document how to remove the existing empty default-branch entry and
verify a populated replacement.
- Add regression coverage for explicit and automatic package-manager
cache selection in a resolution-only job.

## Verification

- actionlint and git diff checks pass.
- All 175 existing workflow-script tests pass. Both new regression cases
pass and fail against the original workflow, covering the explicit pnpm
cache and automatic npm cache paths. This change adds no application
behavior.
- [The cache creator
job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34517514932/job/103006542158)
logs a 216-byte upload under the same key still used by cloud
verification.
- The batch-wide local full typecheck and build passed. The local full
test run reported 10,600 passed, 65 skipped, and 13 permission failures
in unchanged runtime-skill suites. These checks were not repeated in
this dependency-free worktree. Current-head Linux CI passes. The
unchanged chat and browser suites passed on their single retry; all
final checks are green. Greptile is 5/5 with all threads resolved.
- After merge, delete only the existing empty master cache entry. Verify
that a master install saves a populated archive and subsequent jobs
reuse packages. Measure the net install-time change before claiming a
latency gain.

## Risks

- Lockfile resolution can require fresh registry metadata. It does not
need a cached package store.
- The existing empty cache must be removed once; this change prevents
its recreation by this workflow.
- Cache benefits vary with download speed and archive extraction time.

## 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 — focused workflow checks
pass; the batch-wide local test limitation is 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>
2026-09-11 14:35:28 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip bc68312327 ci: use reserved AWS capacity for post-merge cloud verification (#13257)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Cloud deployments consume a verified image and exact-source
migrator.
> - An image alone is not deployable until source checks and artifact
checks pass.
> - GitHub-hosted queues delayed those checks and the final readiness
signal.
> - This PR gives trusted master work a separate concurrency allowance
on existing AWS runners.
> - Community PRs and arbitrary source inputs keep the GitHub-hosted
fallback.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #13243.

**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Time from a master merge to the Cloud deployable v1 signal.

**Current behavior**
For merge d0b7ba4, the image was available after 7m 42s, but readiness
took 16m 05s. Typecheck queued for 6m 40s and the final readiness job
queued for 1m 46s.

**Proposed behavior**
Allow up to 36 concurrent post-merge verification and migrator jobs on
the existing four-vCPU, 16-GiB AWS runners. Workers launch on demand and
terminate after their job; no always-on worker pool or AWS Reserved
Instance purchase is introduced. Keep the combined runner ceiling
unchanged. A separate operator switch enables this route only after the
restricted runner group and Fleet exist.

**Reason and benefit**
Remove GitHub-hosted queue delays from the cloud deployment path. The
gain depends on queue pressure and which remaining job finishes last;
the observed queues are not additive savings.

**Breaking changes**
None to source verification or readiness contracts. Paid routing is
limited to canonical master push/manual events, with exact source checks
on reusable and migrator jobs.

## What Changed

- Route source verification, artifact waiting, dispatch, and readiness
jobs to the separate post-merge Fleet when enabled.
- Require source inputs to match the event's master SHA. Preview inputs
and raced older migrator dispatches stay GitHub-hosted.
- Keep npm publication on GitHub-hosted runners for trusted publishing.
- Bound AWS job timeouts below the 45-minute instance lifetime.
- Document activation, capacity reservation, and rollback.
- Exercise each actual runner selector against allowed and rejected
event/source combinations.

## Verification

- 268 routing and timeout cases pass, including unapproved PR, fork,
branch/tag, arbitrary ref, and disabled-switch cases.
- All 461 focused workflow, preview, and readiness tests pass. The 284
routing/preview cases also pass after the review fixes.
- actionlint passes for changed workflows with the existing
SC2012/SC2016/SC2129 warnings excluded.
- Full local typecheck and build pass (167s and 206s). `pnpm test:run`
completed: 10,600 passed, 65 skipped, and 13 failed in the unchanged
company-skills-service/runtime-skill-cache suites with local filesystem
permission errors. Linux CI is the required test gate; this is not a
claim of a fully passing local suite. Current-head Linux CI is green,
Greptile is 5/5, and all findings are resolved. The final Build retry
passed on a verified 60 GiB AWS runner after correcting the earlier
disk-capacity failure.
- After activation, verify a master run selects the separate group and
all readiness prerequisites pass.

## Risks

- A missing or incorrectly restricted runner group can leave eligible
jobs queued. Enable the switch only after Fleet and group verification.
- PR bursts have 64 slots after reserving 36 for post-merge work. The
image Fleet retains eight, for the same 108-runner total.
- A migrator dispatch racing a newer merge uses GitHub-hosted runners.
This preserves source trust but can retain some queue delay.
- Roll back placement by disabling AWS_POST_MERGE_CI_ENABLED and
rerunning the whole 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 — focused change tests
pass; full-suite local permission failures 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>
2026-09-11 14:13:01 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip a23ae894a5 ci: cache Rust dependencies used by post-merge typecheck (#13259)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Cloud images become deployable only after source verification
passes.
> - The typecheck job builds the native Runner binary through the server
package.
> - Fresh runners repeatedly compile Rust dependencies for that binary.
> - This PR caches those dependencies for exact-source master
verification.
> - Workspace code and every typecheck still rebuild or run as before.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #13243 and #13257.

**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The typecheck portion of post-merge cloud source verification.

**Current behavior**
The typecheck job has no Rust dependency cache. An observed release
build in this job took 4m 13s, including dependency compilation.

**Proposed behavior**
Restore dependency build outputs for canonical master pushes with the
exact source SHA. Use a separate cache key from the Runner verification
job, which builds other profiles.

**Reason and benefit**
A warm cache should remove roughly 2–3 minutes of dependency compilation
from this job. Overall deployment gains depend on the remaining critical
path. The first cache population still compiles from scratch.

**Breaking changes**
None. All checks remain enabled. Non-master callers compile without
restoring or saving this cache.

## What Changed

- Select the pinned Rust toolchain before the typecheck cache lookup.
- Reuse the existing pinned Rust cache action with a typecheck-specific
key.
- Exclude workspace crates and installed cargo executables.
- Test restore/save trust boundaries and document cache behavior.

## Verification

- All workflow script tests pass locally, including nine new cache
trust/contract cases.
- actionlint passes for release-verify.yml.
- Full local typecheck and build pass on the same source base (167s and
206s); `pnpm test:run` is still running and is recorded with #13257.
This PR changes only the workflow, cache guard tests, and documentation.
- All 32 current-head checks are successful or intentionally skipped,
including the complete Linux test matrix, build, and Greptile 5/5 with
no unresolved findings. Verify cache population and subsequent restore
on actual master runs.

## Risks

- The first run and any toolchain/dependency invalidation compile from
scratch.
- Cache restore/save overhead reduces the benefit for small dependency
graphs.
- Disable the cache step to roll back; the existing uncached build
remains valid.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code
execution. 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 — focused change tests
pass; full-suite local permission failures 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>
2026-09-11 13:15:06 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip d0b7ba4194 ci: route approved master cloud builds to AWS (#13243)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Cloud deploys images built from master commits.
> - Cloud image builds share GitHub-hosted capacity with other
workflows.
> - The organization already operates AWS runners through RunsOn Fleet.
> - This pull request allows approved master builds to use a dedicated
cloud Fleet.
> - The benefit is separate build capacity with a quick operator
rollback.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #13189, #13192.

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

Placement of the Docker cloud build after a master merge.

**Current behavior**

Every Docker cloud build uses a GitHub-hosted runner. Busy periods delay
the job.

**Proposed behavior**

An operator variable enables the approved cloud Fleet for canonical
master pushes and manual master builds. Other events, refs, and
repositories use GitHub-hosted runners.

## What Changed

- Add a guarded AWS runner selector to the Docker cloud job.
- Keep the existing image cache, verification, and publication steps.
- Test the selector against master, branch, tag, PR, fork, and disabled
contexts.
- Document provisioning requirements, placement checks, and rollback.

## Verification

- 29 focused Node tests pass for routing, readiness, and disk handling.
- The full workflow-script Node suite passes.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passes locally.
- The pinned PR routing regression suite passes. The first live PR run
assigned 21 jobs to the approved AWS PR group. AWS then reclaimed 16
Spot instances. The failed run is being repeated on GitHub-hosted
runners while the Fleet moves to On-Demand.
- Actionlint passes with existing shellcheck findings excluded (SC2012,
SC2016, SC2129).
- `git diff --check` passes.
- Greptile reports 5/5 on commit
`764d505a41dd2023751c3f361906fa9ea35bf0c6`, with no review threads.
- All 30 current-head CI checks pass, including typecheck, build, all
server/workspace test shards, Runner verification, and browser tests.
Two Storybook checks are intentionally skipped for this change. Run:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34630550799
- The broader local test/build sequence is still running. This Mac has
reported failures in unchanged application suites; their complete Linux
CI shards pass. Local targeted workflow tests and typecheck pass.
- Both On-Demand Fleets are deployed and healthy. Live master
cloud-build verification follows the merge.

## Risks

- Missing Fleet capacity or runner-group authorization can leave an AWS
job queued. Disable `AWS_CLOUD_BUILDS_ENABLED` and rerun the workflow to
use GitHub-hosted capacity.
- The runner group must restrict access to this repository and the
master version of `docker-cloud.yml`.
- Docker needs more disk space than the PR Fleet. Provision 120 GiB
disks and retain the free-space check.
- This changes image build placement only. Source verification and
migrator publication remain separate prerequisites.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code
execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size
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>
2026-09-11 11:15:55 -07:00
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>
2026-09-11 09:26:26 -07:00
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>
2026-09-11 07:22:03 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 932c8bec56 fix(ci): bake the managed runtime identity into cloud images (#13210)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Managed deployments start from the image built by the Cloud
workflow.
> - The managed runtime requests user and group 1001.
> - The image currently builds the node user as 1000.
> - Startup must remap that user, which can walk a large mounted home
directory.
> - This pull request uses the existing Docker build arguments to bake
user and group 1001 into Cloud images.
> - Matching the runtime identity removes that startup work and helps
avoid health-check retries.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #13208, #1923, and #7861. Searched open and closed PRs for the
Cloud UID change. The older #7861 addresses build context and volume
ownership repair. This change uses the existing identity arguments in
the Cloud workflow and preserves ownership repair.

**What happened?**

A measured rollout had a container log `Updating node UID to 1001` after
startup. The container stayed at this step for at least 2 minutes 55
seconds before rollback stopped it. The baked node identity was 1000,
while the managed runtime requested 1001. A health check timed out and
the target required a second deployment attempt.

**Expected behavior**

Cloud images should already have the managed runtime identity. A
matching image should skip user and group remapping. Fresh or mismatched
volumes must still receive ownership repair.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Build the current Cloud image with its default build arguments.
2. Start it with `USER_UID=1001`, `USER_GID=1001`, and a populated home
volume.
3. Observe the startup user remap before the application starts.

**Paperclip version or commit**

`fc06f7f05f42c675be71ff0927b6334405d520ed`

**Deployment mode**

Docker on managed hosts.

## What Changed

- Pass `USER_UID=1001` and `USER_GID=1001` to the Cloud image build.
- Check the pushed digest's baked identity before the entrypoint can
repair it. Then check the normal entrypoint's effective identity and
writable home before publishing the verified full-SHA tag.
- Add a workflow regression and two entrypoint cases for a matching
Cloud identity, including a mismatched volume.
- Document the runtime identity and the first-build cache cost.

## Verification

- Focused workflow and artifact tests: 27 passed.
- Entrypoint tests: 11 passed. Actionlint passed. Full local `pnpm -r
typecheck` passed. Full local `pnpm build` passed. The manual [Cloud
image
build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34575473213)
passed on the exact PR head. It checked Sentry, baked and effective
identity, writable home, orphan reaping, and full-SHA publication. The
new identity check took one second. All 30 PR checks passed; the
Storybook workflow was intentionally skipped. Greptile reviewed commit
`114d408f637a0b53e2e2b1339c263779b1e4ae54` at 5/5 with no findings or
open threads.
- The full local suite for the same application source was already run
in #13205. Its macOS general-server phase had 10,471 passes and 70
failures in seven unchanged files. Those failures included missing
Runner fixtures, filesystem errors, timeouts, a port conflict, and a
load-count mismatch. After configuring Cargo and rebuilding fixtures, 37
of 38 native tests passed; one unchanged native-resume assertion still
failed. Linux PR CI passed. This change adds entrypoint tests and does
not change application code.

## Risks

- The first build must rebuild layers that depend on the base image
identity. Later builds can reuse them.
- A future managed runtime identity change must update these build
arguments and checks together.
- The Dockerfile's self-hosted defaults remain 1000. Runtime overrides
and mounted-volume ownership repair remain supported.
- The observed startup delay supports this change, but fleet timing also
includes provider startup, image pull, canary order, and retries. No
fixed end-to-end gain is claimed before a live rollout.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and tool
use. The exact serving 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 (focused workflow tests;
full-suite limitations are listed 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>
2026-09-11 00:58:27 -07:00
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>
2026-09-10 23:59:44 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip 398d304e15 docs: measure cloud deployment through target health (#13205)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Hosted deployments need a verified image and migrator for the same
source commit.
> - The cloud readiness workflow certifies those inputs before a
deployment consumer acts.
> - Its completion time does not show when a tenant runs the new commit.
> - This pull request documents each milestone from merge through target
health and fleet completion.
> - Operators can use the evidence to find the slow stage and measure a
complete deployment.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #13192, #13188, and #13189. Searched related issues and PRs; no
duplicate timing documentation change was found.

**Issue type**

Missing documentation.

**Where is the issue?**

`doc/cloud-build-readiness.md`, Timing and rollout.

**What's wrong?**

The timing instructions stop at the readiness job. That omits consumer
queues, artifact resolution, and target deployment. An image can be
ready while the tenant still runs an older commit.

**Suggested fix**

Record separate merge, image, readiness, canary health, and fleet
completion timestamps for the same full source SHA. Keep
preparation-only runs out of deployment results.

## What Changed

- Define the evidence needed for each merge-to-deployment milestone.
- Explain how consumer queues can hide upstream build gains.
- Require target source identity as well as health, and report
exclusions, retries, cache state, and queue conditions.

## Verification

- `git diff --check` passed.
- `node --test scripts/preview-artifacts.test.mjs
scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passed: 25 tests.
- Cross-checked the readiness identity and artifact prerequisites
against the current workflows and consumer contract.
- Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passed using the session's installed
Rust toolchain. The full local test suite and subsequent build are still
running.
- All CI checks pass and Greptile is 5/5 on the exact head, with no
unresolved findings. This changes one documentation file and adds no
runtime behavior.

## Risks

- Low risk: documentation only. Timing must still use trusted run
evidence and the actual target commit. A single measured run is not a
latency guarantee.

## 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 (25 focused
workflow/artifact tests; full checks pending)
- [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>
2026-09-10 23:21:17 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip d56be3f3fc fix(ci): verify deployable cloud artifacts independently (#13192)
Verify source, build the cloud image, and wait for exact-source migrator packages concurrently. Emit Cloud deployable v1 only when every prerequisite succeeds for the merged full SHA.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-09-10 21:08:29 -07:00