mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-10 12:07:09 +02:00
codex/plugin-task-execution
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
d034ba7491 |
fix(interactions): derive question storage from canonical forms (#14946)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents request human input through durable issue interactions. > - A question form has a canonical presentation and a compatibility storage format. > - The creation API required agents to write both formats. > - Tool guidance told agents to split text and choice questions across those formats. > - This pull request accepts one complete canonical form and derives storage fields on the server. > - The benefit is a complete question card with stable answer and retry behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13630 and #14430. PR #13630 addresses the display of historical partial forms. This change fixes creation and keeps the check that rejects conflicting new forms. **What happened?** A question save supplied three compatibility questions and one canonical text question. The API correctly rejected the incomplete canonical form. The Runner's tool description encouraged this split. Sending only a complete canonical form also failed because the API required compatibility questions. **Expected behavior** An agent sends one complete `payload.questionSet` with every text and choice question. Paperclip derives `payload.questions` for storage and answer compatibility. Existing legacy requests remain valid. Explicitly conflicting dual forms remain invalid. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Call `paperclip_request_human_input` with `interactionKind: "questions"`. 2. Send `payload: { version: 1, questionSet: ... }` with a required text question and a required choice question. 3. The old API rejects the missing compatibility questions. With this change, it stores both questions and preserves the canonical form. 4. Retry with the same idempotency key. Confirm that only one interaction exists. 5. Submit both answers. Confirm that the normal resolver and continuation rules apply. **Paperclip version or commit** The branch is based on `cf8ad63c8`. The problem affects the native Runner and the interaction creation API. **Deployment mode** Server deployment with the native Paperclip Runner. Integration tests use the real interaction service and an embedded test database. ## What Changed - Add one shared canonical-to-storage projection. Reuse it for native harness question requests. - Accept canonical-only question creation at the shared validator and server boundary. - Export the input type and update the plugin SDK and its RPC contract. - Advertise a typed, complete question form in the live and scenario tool schemas. - Enforce canonical text and custom-answer constraints before ordinary or native resolution. Preserve harmless display whitespace. - Run regex matching in isolated workers with a deadline and resource limits. Both answer paths await the result before persistence. Saved native delivery uses the validated answer without taking another worker slot. - Update agent guidance and generated Runner contracts. - Test mixed forms, option-ID collisions, retries, answers, legacy requests, and conflicting forms. ## Verification - Interaction service, HTTP route, native bridge, and Runner authority suites: 221 tests passed after correcting an obsolete tool-description assertion. - Shared validator, plugin SDK, CLI, and UI compatibility suites: 67 tests passed. - Runner core tool-contract suite: 20 tests passed. AJV validates live and scenario schemas. - Final review regressions: 172 shared, service, native bridge, and authority tests passed. These cover text length, pattern, numeric limits, whitespace, custom option IDs, and historical pending cards. - Runner session suites: 67 tests passed. Published example tests: 4 tests passed. - Server typecheck and the shared/server builds passed after the compatibility fixes. - Final delivery verification: 35 response-delivery tests passed. The native delivery regression proves saved answers do not enter pattern workers; server typecheck and build passed. - Pattern security and answer-flow verification: 205 tests passed after repairing the child fixture loader. These cover pathological matching, event-loop responsiveness, worker concurrency, slot cleanup, HTTP routes, native delivery, and the full helper in a child process. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the bounded-worker revision. - `pnpm build` passed on the bounded-worker revision. - All 55 GitHub checks passed on `fe457af`; four optional jobs were skipped. An unchanged Cursor adapter test timed out once in CI, passed locally, and passed on one failed-job rerun. - Reviewers can send the canonical-only mixed form above and verify that the saved interaction contains both canonical and compatibility questions. ## Risks - The creation API accepts a new input shape. Stored rows and answer contracts keep the existing shape. - The shared projection must preserve synthetic free-text option IDs. Collision and native round-trip tests cover this behavior. - Historical partial rows remain readable. New conflicting dual forms, including written-answer mismatches, remain rejected. - Existing pending cards retain the written-answer paths offered by their stored options. Canonical text constraints still apply. - Ordinary answers now enforce declared canonical constraints before persistence. Invalid answers leave the card pending. - Regex validation has a one-second deadline and a four-worker capacity limit. A complex pattern or capacity error leaves the card pending with a validation error. - No database migration or change to company authorization is required. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The session exposes the GPT-6 model family; its exact runtime model identifier and context window size are not exposed. Used 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) - [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
|
30ff3d7c58 |
feat(routines): expose activity gate API (#9438)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Scheduled routines provide recurring control-plane work without manual intervention > - The new activity gate can suppress scheduled runs when no external work occurred > - The core scheduler and database support landed without a public create/update contract > - Agents, operators, and managed plugins need validated fields plus discoverable semantics to opt in safely > - This pull request exposes the activity gate through routine APIs, revisions, plugin contracts, tests, and skill documentation > - The benefit is backward-compatible control over idle scheduled work without losing activity-triggered follow-up ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8534 ## What Changed - Added shared activity-gate policy and scope enums with create/PATCH validation. - Persisted activity-gate fields through routine creation, updates, revision snapshots, pipeline snapshots, and revision restores. - Defaulted legacy revision snapshots during restore and added regression coverage for pre-field snapshots. - Extended managed-plugin routine declarations, production reconciliation, and the SDK test harness to preserve non-default gate settings. - Added end-to-end API coverage for create/PATCH/list/detail round-trips, defaults, and invalid enum rejection. - Documented schedule-only semantics, activity windows, own-run/read-action exclusions, scopes, and an hourly quiet-night watcher example. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t 'activity gate|preserves declared activity gate settings|resolves routine agent and project refs'` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - GitHub CI: all final-head checks green; Storybook visual regression skipped by path rules. - Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Low risk: defaults remain `always` and `company`, preserving existing routine behavior and old revision snapshots. - Managed plugin manifests can now declare the same validated gate settings as the public routine API; omitted values retain core defaults. - Revision snapshots now include the new fields so policy changes are not lost or treated as no-ops during restore. > For core feature work, checked `ROADMAP.md`: this extends the existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item and does not duplicate a separate planned capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with repository tool use and code execution; context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## 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
|
4d5322c821 |
[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside this runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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
|
a1835cfa5e |
[codex] Harden plugin runtime invocation scope (#6547)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through a company-scoped control plane. > - Plugins extend that control plane, but plugin workers still call back into host APIs. > - Those worker-to-host calls need the same company boundary guarantees as normal API routes. > - Plugin action handlers also need authenticated actor context from the host instead of trusting caller-supplied params. > - This pull request hardens plugin bridge/action scope and keeps plugin operation issues out of normal issue surfaces. > - The benefit is safer plugin execution with clearer authorization boundaries and better test coverage. ## What Changed - Added host-owned invocation context plumbing for nested plugin worker calls. - Added actor context to plugin `performAction` calls and test harness helpers. - Enforced company invocation scope on worker-to-host calls and filtered company lists to the active invocation scope. - Extended plugin action route tests for board and agent actor context, spoofed company params, and cross-company rejection. - Extended plugin worker manager coverage for invocation-scope propagation. - Filtered typed and legacy plugin operation issue origins from default issue/inbox lists. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/plugins/sdk/tests/host-client-factory.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-routes-authz.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-worker-manager.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` Note: embedded Postgres issue-service tests reported host-level Postgres init skip for 47 tests; the non-embedded targeted tests passed. ## Risks - Medium: plugin host authorization paths are sensitive, and external plugins may rely on previously loose company params. - Mitigation: the change only tightens calls when the host attached a company invocation scope and includes explicit tests for board, agent, and nested worker calls. > 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 GPT-5 Codex via `codex_local`, tool-enabled coding session; exact context window not exposed by this runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |