PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-10 20:50:08 +02:00

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	2a8a99e4a5	fix(ui): reveal completed thinking caret beside label (#15048 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The task thread shows completed agent work and its reasoning. > - The completed work row places the disclosure caret at the far right. > - The caret stays visible even when the reader does not inspect the row. > - The row needs a quiet control that stays close to the work label. > - This pull request places the caret after that label and shows it on hover or keyboard focus. > - The change keeps the timestamp on the right and does not move content on hover. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The completed agent work row shows a disclosure caret at the far right of the task thread. The caret stays visible when the pointer is elsewhere. Expected behavior The caret stays near the work label. It appears on hover or keyboard focus. The timestamp stays on the right. Steps to reproduce 1. Open a task with a completed agent run. 2. Look at the completed work row without hovering over it. 3. Hover over the row and then use the keyboard to focus its button. Related: #11772 addresses a different caret and composer layout. ## What Changed - Move the completed work caret next to the work label. - Keep its space reserved. Show it on hover or keyboard focus. - Add a test for caret position, visibility classes, and the open state. ## Verification - `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` passes all 100 tests. - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passes all token gates. - `git diff origin/master...HEAD --check` passes. - CI passes on the latest head, including typecheck, build, tests, and verification. The local isolated worktree could not run typecheck because dependency installation failed while applying the existing `codex-acp` patch. ## Risks - Low risk. The same button still opens the work detail. Only the caret position and visibility change. - On a touch device, the caret is not visible without hover. The work row stays a button that users can tap. > This is a focused UI fix. It does not add a planned core feature from `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent. The runner does not expose the exact model ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, shell tools, 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 the details available in this runner - [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 linked public issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket ID - [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have checked documentation impact; no documentation change is needed for this visual fix - [x] I have considered and documented the 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>	2026-10-03 12:41:22 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip OpenAI Codex	0be2afcca6	feat(ui): improve task composer controls and pending input (#14322 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets operators assign tasks to AI agents and review their work. > - The task composer controls the next message and its assigned agent. > - Operators needed a way to choose that agent's model and effort without leaving the composer. > - The old mode selector, upload button, and input cards made the mobile composer crowded and hid normal messaging during a pending decision. > - Harnesses publish different model and effort capabilities, so the picker must follow the selected agent. > - This pull request adds one responsive composer flow, keeps pending cards visible above it, and protects Codex ACP authentication in the local test path. > - Operators can choose run settings, send a message, and answer a pending card as separate actions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Task composer UI, issue thread interactions, Codex ACP credential handling, and Storybook. Problem or motivation The composer did not expose model or effort for the selected agent. Mobile actions wrapped poorly. Pending questions and confirmations replaced the composer. A local Codex ACP test could also reuse host authentication after the managed key was removed. Proposed solution Put assignee search, model search, exact model IDs, effort, and fast mode in one picker. Use a mobile dialog. Replace the direct-upload plus action and separate mode selector with an Add menu and removable Plan or Ask chips. Place pending interaction cards above the usable composer. Keep these cards pending after an ordinary message unless their creator asks for comment superseding. Replace managed ACP auth files atomically and isolate the test key from host credentials. Roadmap alignment ROADMAP.md does not list an overlapping composer milestone. This change improves the existing task and review flows. ## What Changed - Added the combined assignee, model, and effort picker to both task composers. Search matches agent name, role, and harness. The server uses a curated Codex list by default and honors instance-declared models. Manual IDs remain available. - Added an effort slider for known model capabilities, a conditional Codex fast control, and reset. The picker opens in a modal on mobile. - Added the Add menu for files, supported goals, Plan mode, and Ask mode. Plan and Ask are exclusive removable chips. Keyboard mode cycling remains available. - Adjusted mobile spacing, avatars, wrapping, and Send placement. Removed the composer divider. - Moved pending question, confirmation, review, and related cards above the composer. Ordinary comments now leave question and confirmation cards pending by default. The onboarding prompt retains explicit comment superseding. - Updated the Storybook composer group with responsive states and the production picker. Added UI, service, route, and browser regression coverage. - Isolated Codex ACP API-key authentication, skipped subscription auth merge and shared-home copy-back for remote API-key runs, and replaced the managed auth file atomically. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on the final local head. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed on the final local head. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts ui/src/components/task-chat/ComposerRunSettingsPicker.test.tsx` — 31 tests passed, including role and harness search, declared Codex models, and filtering general OpenAI models. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` — 74 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts` — 42 tests passed, including remote API-key copy-back isolation. - `pnpm test:run` — attempted locally; the embedded PostgreSQL test database could not initialize on macOS. The isolated `heartbeat-run-event-sequencing` suite reproduced that environment failure. GitHub CI runs the full test matrix for this head. - `pnpm build` — passed on the final head. `pnpm build-storybook` passed after the last UI change; only server code, tests, and docs changed afterward. - Live local test drive — Codex ACP ran a task with a managed API key. The test agent was restored to its default ACP configuration afterward. - Review the interactive stories under the top-level Composer group with `pnpm storybook`. Check a narrow desktop width and mobile Plan, Ask, picker, and pending-question states. ## Risks - A pending card stays open when an ordinary comment changes the discussion. Its creator can set `supersedeOnUserComment: true` when a new comment should replace it. - Model and effort overrides persist on the task until reset or changed. An unlisted manual model ID may fail when the provider runs it. - Some harness catalogs do not report effort support. The picker hides effort for those models. - No database migration is required. > 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-6 via Codex. This runtime does not expose the exact model ID or context window to the task. The model used code execution and browser 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 - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: OpenAI Codex <codex@openai.com>	2026-09-28 23:02:39 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	2f585ef26a	fix(ui): preserve newer drafts after repeated receipt cleanup (#14332 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task composer keeps unsent text across page reloads. > - A server receipt confirms a submitted message after a reload. > - Replayed cleanup can apply the old text offset to a newer draft twice. > - This pull request reconciles each confirmed attempt once and preserves both tabs’ unsent intent. > - The full newer draft stays available for the next send. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? Reloading the classic composer while a save was pending could truncate a newer draft. Replayed receipt cleanup changed `A newer draft written while delivery was pending.` into `nding.`. The storage helper rejected the duplicate settlement, but the effect still changed the editor and its body reference. Expected behavior A receipt settles its retained submission once. Later cleanup must preserve the newer draft in both the editor and browser storage. Steps to reproduce 1. Send a comment and hold its HTTP response after the server accepts it. 2. Type a newer draft, then reload the page. 3. Restore the matching receipt under React StrictMode. 4. Inspect the newer draft after effect replay and unmount. The deterministic regression reproduces this on current master. The existing browser test exposed the issue during #14329 verification. Related draft persistence code came from #13338. A search found no separate fix for this duplicate settlement. ## What Changed - Reconcile each confirmed attempt once in memory so duplicate effects cannot trim its newer draft again. - Unlock confirmed drafts when storage writes fail. Never acquire another tab’s pending receipt or assume its text is newer. Keep a conflicting local draft and its attachments in tab-scoped session storage while preserving the shared draft unchanged. - Add component regressions for StrictMode replay, exact editor and stored bytes, foreign receipts, attachment-only differences, reload recovery, unavailable storage, and task navigation before autosave. A brief notice explains when this tab has a separate draft. ## Verification - RED: the new test received `nding.` instead of the full newer draft before the fix. - Review RED: three cases reproduced a locked composer after failed storage writes or another tab's settlement. A further negative case preserves a newer retained attempt and its attachments. - Cross-tab review RED: four deterministic cases reproduced lost local text, foreign receipt takeover, attachment loss when text matched, and overwriting newer stored text. - GREEN: 118 tests across `IssueChatThread`, `composer-draft`, and `comment-submit-draft`, including same-mounted A → B → A navigation and a full recovery-storage failure. Two further lifecycle RED tests verify finishing a recovery returns to the shared draft on a later visit while continued typing and attachments retain recovery. - Both existing browser reload cases passed against a fresh server and database on exact head `ceb80aca77fc8cc0f813c328ba87025b3e1a2222` (42.5 seconds), with classic mode enabled and disabled. The browser flow verifies one original comment, a preserved draft, and a successful second send. - UI typecheck, token gates, and the shipped static UI build passed. The initial typecheck required the fresh worktree's plugin SDK build; the retry passed after that dependency built. - The session-only failure mock also preserves localStorage on platforms where both share the Storage prototype; this fixes the Linux workspace test failure. - All 56 checks passed on `4c30dcccc4fe5b90dcd08dd1d90475ea89e4a376`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero open review threads. An unrelated runner baseline scan hit its existing 100 ms deadline once; its isolated test and the single failed CI job passed on retry without source changes. This four-file UI fix does not change server or database code. - Final alternate-staging acceptance passed on deployed source `d884e1ab046cc76004e35e6091e9e6e2c918c9eb`, with exact health checked before and after. Three real browser cases used shipped static UI and real API saves: reload during an accepted-but-unacknowledged save in both composer variants, plus two classic tabs with different drafts. The test deliberately held only its own accepted POST acknowledgement and temporarily withheld its own GET receipt from one tab to reproduce settlement ordering. Both drafts survived independent reloads, the shared draft remained intact after the other tab sent, and finishing recovery returned to the shared draft on a later visit. Exact request IDs/counts and server comment bytes passed; no provider was invoked. Screenshots preserve the live drafts before fixture cleanup. - An ordinary authenticated Chrome/CUA visit independently showed the exact original and newer comments; an additional unsent draft survived reload and was then cleared. All three isolated fixtures are complete, browser contexts are closed, and original user tasks were untouched. ## Risks - Reconciliation uses the exact request ID and draft key. Conflicting drafts stay separate; the tab recovery survives same-tab reload through session storage and does not outlive the browser tab. If recovery storage is unavailable, the editor keeps its in-memory text and explicitly warns the user to copy it before leaving. - Attachment selections remain bounded to 20 per draft; if combining equal-text snapshots would exceed that limit, each original selection stays in its respective draft. - No API, schema, or migration changes. The status notice uses existing design tokens. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment variant or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-28 14:03:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	422287eecd	fix: preserve runner recovery, warm sessions, and task outcomes (#13338 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runner connects task messages, provider execution, and task outcomes. > - First-time user tests exposed gaps in recovery, completion permissions, message delivery, and Stop behavior. > - These gaps left usable output hidden, completed work waiting for bookkeeping, or safe work unable to continue. > - This pull request fixes the shared lifecycle and receipt paths while preserving process ownership and action checks. > - Users can continue work with accurate task state and durable messages. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A stopped local Codex execution could remain blocked even after its processes had stopped and its complete transcript proved that no external action needed replay. Claude under Conservative permissions could fail to call task completion tools. Recovery could reuse an assistant item ID and overwrite prior output. A delivered comment could remain marked uncertain after navigation. Stop could look like Pause or a new recovery incident. Workspace contention could look like cancellation. A direct reply reopening Done could enter a clarification loop. Expected behavior Recover automatically only with verified termination and complete action receipts. Preserve answers and messages. Keep task completion available under Conservative permissions without broad tool access. Show crashes as Blocked, actual human decisions as In Review, and ordinary workspace contention as waiting. Stop the current response and allow a new direction. Steps to reproduce 1. Create ordinary response tasks with local Codex and Claude Code, then send follow-up messages through the task composer. 2. Interrupt a disposable local Codex runner during text-only work. Verify automatic continuation and retained output. 3. Stop a response, send a new request, answer a clarification, and reopen completed work with another message. 4. Navigate or reload while a comment submission is pending. Confirm the exact persisted request receipt settles it without removing newer draft text. 5. Run two tasks in a shared Daytona workspace. Confirm waiting does not appear as failure. Paperclip version or commit Initial acceptance baseline: `c9021c6721f91e2c74bd9fee9d3fd41c999d17b7`. Current integration base: `6cef9743c`. Both operator-interruption and workspace-waiting guards are preserved; native restart and legacy permission rules remain documented. Deployment mode An isolated source-built test-drive instance, with real local Codex and Claude Code providers and disposable Daytona environments. Related work: #13314, #13316, #13327, #13344, #13239, #13254, #13163. This PR addresses additional failures from ordinary task journeys, including controller restart handoff and repeated warm sandbox setup. Historical task status reconciliation is excluded. ## What Changed - Persist runner ownership immediately at spawn and resume an explicitly adopted runner even when the controller crashed before the first driver checkpoint. Detach the controller safely across graceful restarts, including session startup. Prevent an old finalizer from suspending or signaling an adopted runner. Checkpoint idle warm sessions before shutdown. Preserve the same run and queued follow-up messages. - Scope saved legacy queue successor checks to the queue owner while preserving ordinary task locks, operator identity, assignment gates, and exactly-once delivery. - Preserve managed Codex credential files when an old session is detached for restart; normal owned cleanup still copies refreshed auth back and removes the scoped copy. - Reuse the bound warm shared sandbox and fully verify an existing staged provider pack before using it. This avoids repeated uploads when the pack is already valid. - Add a narrow local Codex replacement path with stopped-process proof, a closed transcript inventory, exact completion receipts, and fresh-session lineage. Preserve no-replay holds when evidence is incomplete. Recovery may clear only the same run's recorded Blocked status version; manual re-blocking and dependency changes invalidate that receipt, while queued comments do not. Later blocks stop scheduled, queued, and final dispatch; queued/final checks re-read dependencies even when the task status stays In Progress. - Permit only task delivery and human-input tools through the isolated Claude runner's exact task bridge. - Scope assistant item identity to the provider turn and ignore only authority-free Codex skill-change notifications during startup. - Reconcile composer submissions by client request ID across response loss, navigation, and reload. Retain text typed during delivery. - Keep acknowledged run-only Stop neutral and show workspace contention as waiting. Project exhausted native failures as Blocked. - Restore the guarded task-page retry action for failed legacy runs, including the server-supported explicit new-attempt path for stopped conversation adapters. Preserve native/process recovery holds and avoid promising Retry while a decision or execution gate hides it. - Refresh delivered artifacts and handle direct user replies that reopen completed work without a clarification loop. - Check the embedded PostgreSQL PID, data directory, and actual port before connecting or migrating. - Document accepted behavior and add focused regressions at lifecycle, route, transcript, and UI boundaries. ## Verification - Final head `fece606ac2` passes the complete GitHub CI matrix: 34 green checks, two expected Storybook skips, no failures or pending checks, including `ci / verify`, `ci / e2e`, full runner verification, typecheck, build, every server/workspace shard, and all browser shards. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34727183287). Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. The final two commits only refine test fixtures; both affected suites pass 24/24 locally and in CI, with server typecheck green. - Complete local Vitest coverage uses the canonical groups/shards: all 635 general server suites, all 145 serialized suites, and all workspace packages. The aggregate began on `0a8001c18` while the final queue fix arrived: 23,903 passed, five failed, 87 skipped. The five port/socket/timing failures passed unchanged in follow-ups (60 tests in the exposure/file suites and 412 tests covering the serialized failures and unrun tails). The final queue/operator-identity suites separately passed 52/52. This is aggregate coverage plus explicit reruns, not a pristine single-command final-head run. - After integration with current master, queue/operator-identity/continuation suites passed 162/162 and affected UI suites passed 140/140. ACP Stop/continuation and legacy task/Inbox/message browser suites passed 9/9, including both task recovery Retry and thread Try again, automatic saved-message delivery, exactly one new run, Done, and retained output after reload. The default process Stop/Pause/Resume browser case passed (the native-provider case is opt-in and skipped by default). The complete Board attachment/receipt browser suite passed 11/11 on a disposable instance, covering both composers, exact receipts after lost responses, no replay, bound attachments, and newer drafts after reload. - Blocking-intent regressions cover pre-existing Blocked, a mismatched run/cause, an explicit manual re-block, changed dependencies, a queued comment after failure, and a block arriving between scheduling and provider dispatch. The negative cases reproduced before the fix. All 478 affected executor/recovery/dispatch tests passed; both database suites ran separately after availability-probe skips in the first combined command. The final late-dependency check passed all 143 affected recovery/dispatch tests (zero skips) after two new negative cases reproduced the bug. - Focused runtime regressions cover awaited runner ownership publication, authenticated adoption before the first checkpoint, old-finalizer detachment, idle and busy warm-session shutdown, rejected checkpoint propagation, provider-pack verification, and managed-Codex credential preservation. Four managed credential detachment cases reproduced the bug before the fix; normal owned cleanup still succeeds exactly once. - Live local Claude: SIGKILL 2.6 seconds into startup recovered the same run automatically in 53 seconds, then a normal follow-up completed in 24 seconds. SIGTERM 2.5 seconds into startup preserved the same run (54 seconds) and its queued follow-up (21 seconds). Answers remained visible and the task reached Done. - Live Claude Daytona: a warm follow-up retained its sandbox and fell from 121 seconds to 44 seconds. A separate cold turn took 127 seconds; after controller shutdown and checkpointing, its follow-up completed in 33 seconds with the same sandbox, workspace, native session, and runner. Both answers remained visible and the task was Done. - Other live journeys covered task completion and follow-up with local and Daytona Codex, local Codex crash recovery, Stop then new direction, clarification response, live artifact refresh, and shared-workspace waiting. - Validation limits: the opt-in native composer Stop/Pause→subtree Resume fixture exposes terminal/result ordering and subtree-cancellation attribution bugs that can leave a child task blocked; that new finding is assigned to a separate follow-up and is not claimed fixed here. Default CI skips this optional native-provider fixture. Managed-Codex credential handoff and the queue-agent integration use automated regression evidence. Cold custom provider-pack uploads still add startup latency. ## Risks - Automatic replacement remains deliberately narrow: local Codex, verified stopped identities, unchanged retained state, and a complete text/completion-only turn. Unknown actions, partial history, or changed ownership remain blocked. - Claude completion permission handling changes an upstream package patch. The exact isolated task bridge must remain pinned; unrelated tools keep their existing permissions. - New task failure projection changes user-visible status. No historical status backfill or database migration is included. - This is a broad lifecycle fix across server and UI. Live proof covers graceful local Claude restart during startup and idle Claude Daytona session recovery across controller shutdown. Live abrupt SIGKILL during local Claude startup also recovered the same run. Unknown ownership or missing action evidence still blocks reuse. Cold custom provider-pack uploads still add startup latency; this change avoids unnecessary repeat uploads. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, code execution, browser automation, and tool use. The exact hosted model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. ## 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>	2026-09-12 19:41:15 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	df984cbc2c	fix: dispatch queued legacy messages with operator identity and task permissions (#13315 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations save messages that arrive during an active turn. > - Legacy adapters deliver these messages in a later turn. > - A run can stop before the saved queue is delivered. > - The Interrupt button previously required an active run, so it could not release this queue. > - This pull request lets a board operator send the saved queue after the run stops and retries queues missed during finalization. > - Manual dispatch must use the clicking operator and must not require permission to create agents. > - The task can continue without a duplicate message or a second execution owner. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A legacy task retained a queued message after its run stopped. Interrupt was disabled because the queue had no active target. Finalization and deferred message admission can also leave a queue without a successor. Expected behavior Interrupt sends the saved messages when no runner is active. Messages that arrive during normal completion are delivered automatically. An uncertain previous execution still requires proof that its process or sandbox stopped. Steps to reproduce 1. Queue a user message during a legacy conversation turn. 2. Let the turn stop or simulate a server restart before queue promotion. 3. Open the task with a deferred queue and no active run. 4. Try Interrupt. Before this change, the button is disabled. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against `8f40b4ad4`. Deployment mode Legacy conversation adapter. The same persisted queue state is covered with an isolated PostgreSQL fixture. Related public work: #13275 adds active legacy interruption. #13291 addresses automatic sandbox conversation recovery. This change handles explicit saved-queue delivery and late queue promotion. ## What Changed - Accept a null Interrupt target while retaining queue identity, revision, company, and assignee checks. - Save the operator's request on the existing queue. Reuse normal admission after verified stop, including older messages, different authors, and queues whose original wake came from the system. - Strip interruption authority from caller-supplied wake payloads. Only the board queue route can persist that authority. - Retry durable interruption requests after restart and deferred queues after legacy cleanup. - Let an explicit Interrupt retry cleanup for its stopped run, including old ephemeral leases that recorded success without a provider stop receipt. Preserve retained resources, other lease owners, and the automatic retry limit. - Preserve the server's waiting explanation when normalizing and combining queue entries. - Revalidate the consumed board queue receipt at dispatch so a different message author does not cause setup failure. - Use the Interrupt user's execution identity for the new run. Preserve original message authors. Validate the receipt independently at startup and inherit the resulting identity on retry. - Persist authenticated board authority for ordinary manual wakes too. Adopting someone else's queued messages cannot switch a manual run to that author's permissions. Strip caller-supplied authority markers and retain private conversation ownership checks. - Keep the clicking user when a manual wake is merged into an older deferred receipt. Update its requester and payload in the same transaction. - Use the same current-queue/revision API on task details and pipeline conversations; show Interrupt after a legacy target stops. - Keep manual wakes out of active runs, including unscoped agent wakes. They receive their own execution identity; a matching receipt requester is not sufficient because an exact retry can retain a different originating identity. - Authorize both existing-agent wake endpoints with `agent:wake`, available to active non-viewer company members. Keep `agents:create` for hiring. Validate the stored task and current assignee before an exact task retry. - Reject viewer Interrupt requests before saving intent or stopping execution. Keep external chat retry authorization and per-action agent/user permission checks. - Preserve edits and discards until dispatch. Prevent another queue promotion when the same agent already has a successor. Keep independent reviewer recovery available. - Suppress cancelled/failed run toasts for intentional operator interruption. Keep ordinary runtime error notices. - Add UI, route, admission, restart, successor ownership, and toast regression tests. Document the behavior. - Reuse the existing socket reservation helper for both credential-quorum test cases after CI exposed an ambient-port collision. This changes test preparation only; production credential staging is still called exactly once. ## Verification - Failing regression tests reproduced the message-author identity bug and an operator's `agents:create` rejection before the fixes. - All 316 focused tests pass across eight route, queue, identity, authorization, continuation, and responsible-user suites, including the 44-test rerun of queue admission and actual startup after the final manual-wake restriction. Regressions reproduce cross-user merging both with and without a task, and same-requester receipt ambiguity. The cross-company existence guard also passes both tests. - Startup integration tests reach adapter execution under the clicking operator and retain that identity through follow-up. Coverage includes mixed authors, adopted queues, system-origin queues, restarts, forged or stale receipts, viewers, suspended memberships, changed assignees, private conversations, and caller-supplied authority markers. - The earlier queue/cleanup/UI regression suite passed 402 tests. The final review corrections pass another 180 tests across queue admission/persistence, real heartbeat startup, UI API, conversation rendering, and pipeline suites. Regression tests reproduced both review findings before correction. The final head has a 5/5 review with no unresolved threads. Full CI passes on `c2002979c`, including every general and serialized server shard, all browser shards, Paperclip Runner verification, typecheck, build, canary dry run, and the aggregate gates. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and UI token gates pass after the final application changes. CI identified an outdated task-page API mock after the shared helper extraction; the fixture now exercises the real helper, and all 131 task-page/API tests pass. The final application build passes with the additional manual-wake restriction. - CI exposed a pre-existing port collision in the Codex credential-quorum fixture. It reproduced locally; both listener cases now use the existing bounded reservation helper. All 41 credential tests pass on rerun. One intervening local run hit a separate ambient bind collision in the two-occupied-port case. - The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was stopped after host contention caused focused-suite timeouts. The affected focused tests passed on rerun. An expiring trace fixture and a missing private-conversation state were corrected. The successful full CI run is the complete-suite verification. - Hosted Interrupt previously cleared the original queue and produced exactly one successor with neutral interruption feedback. It exposed the dispatch authorization defect. Retry on that earlier build was rejected for missing `agents:create` before creating another run. - Deployed the final application build (`38257f391`) to the scoped hosted instance and verified readiness. The latest PR commit changes only the credential test fixture; application code matches that deployment. A live Retry by the same operator without `agents:create` created one successor attributed to that operator, passing the former dispatch permission gate. Startup then stopped at `configuration_incomplete` because that operator has not configured their required personal Claude Code OAuth secret; the post-deployment run page confirms the operator identity and no provider work started, and the My secrets UI still shows the token as not set. Provider execution remains unverified pending that credential. No permission grants or credentials were changed. ## Risks Queue admission and finalization can race. The task lock, durable queue receipt, current comment IDs, and successor guard prevent duplicate dispatch. Process and lease stop checks, task pauses, approvals, ownership, and budgets remain in force. The API change only allows null on legacy Interrupt; native steering still requires an active run. No schema migration is required. Active non-viewer board members can now invoke existing agents without agent-creation permission. Agent self-invocation rules, raw provider-trace admin access, task retry scope, external chat authorization, and action-specific user/agent permissions remain enforced. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The session does not expose an exact backend model ID or context-window size. Used reasoning, repository search, code execution, tests, and browser 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 #` 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>	2026-09-12 17:11:30 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4d317274ce	feat(channels): add experimental iMessage Photon (#13299 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Channels connect external conversations to company tasks and agent execution. > - Slack, Discord, and AgentMail already provide durable delivery and access controls. > - People also need to reach an agent from Apple Messages and send photos. > - Photon provides shared Pro DMs, dedicated numbers, and authenticated event recovery. > - This pull request connects Photon to the existing channel services. > - People can message an agent while Paperclip retains task ownership and approval authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: channel services, shared contracts, database constraints, Apps, and agent Channels UI. Problem or motivation Paperclip has no iMessage channel. A person cannot use Apple Messages to start a task, send a photo, or answer an agent's pending question. Proposed solution Add experimental iMessage Photon with Pro-compatible shared DMs or a dedicated Photon Cloud number per agent channel. Reuse channel admission, identity links, task generations, publication, and interaction continuation. Keep groups disabled for shared allocation. Dedicated lines support groups that an operator explicitly enables. Require a fresh linked message and a published agent response before setup completes. Alternatives considered Shared allocation has no owned phone number, so it reserves one project and allows DMs only. Dedicated allocation reserves one stable number. Local Mac access needs a separate deployment model. The upstream Photon Chat SDK adapter does not persist the poll mappings and send receipts required here. This change uses the lower-level SDK without adding another agent runtime. Roadmap alignment This extends Connected Apps and agent communication through the existing channel subsystem. It does not add a parallel tool connection or agent loop. GitHub searches for Photon and iMessage found no matching provider implementation. Additional context This ships behind the existing experimental channel gate. Dedicated-line release qualification remains incomplete. Real Photon Pro DMs passed task/reply, native poll, text answers, confirmation rejection, media, restart, pause, reconnect, revocation, and removal tests. An operator-supplied iPhone camera HEIC also passed the full round trip. Dedicated groups remain unqualified. See [the verification record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) and [the implementation plan](doc/plans/2026-09-11-imessage-photon.md). ## What Changed - Add the provider catalog entry, shared setup contracts, and a forward migration. A global partial index reserves the dedicated number or shared project until its endpoint is archived. - Add Cloud project inspection, vaulted project credentials, selected-line token renewal, and a leased receiver. Persist checkpoint updates under the receiver lease. Shared project replay accepts sparse increasing sequences only after a complete recovery barrier. - Connect DMs and enabled groups to existing task generations, sender authorization, ordered delivery, and publication services. Keep each iMessage conversation on its task after completion; only explicit `/new` or `/close` releases the binding. Publish committed inbound comments live and label their human bubbles “Sent from iMessage” in both task-chat renderers. - Persist immutable text/file send identities, upload receipts, poll IDs, option IDs, per-person drafts, and canonical interaction continuation proofs. - Add source-bound file recovery, bounded HEIC/HEIF conversion, JPEG previews, and related Live Photo companion video retention. - Add the three-step setup flow and channel management surfaces with official branding. Preserve the experimental gate and existing pause/disconnect behavior. - Add interactive production-component Storybooks for setup, access, recovery, and ongoing conversations. Add provider, integration, catalog, and browser regression coverage. Document setup, recovery, supported boundaries, and qualification gaps. ## Verification - Live Photon Pro, SDK 2.1.0: linked iPhone messages create a task and receive native Codex replies in Apple Messages. Unlinked senders cannot start work. - Three real follow-ups each reopened the same completed task. Incoming bubbles appeared on its open page without reload and showed “Sent from iMessage.” The third follow-up ran after restarting the server on `4d7222110`; the agent correctly repeated its previous reply from before the restart. - Native polls after restart, sequential text drafts, required-field correction, explicit submission, approval rejection with a required reason, and native continuation passed against Photon. - PNG, text documents, synthetic HEIC, and a real iPhone camera HEIC passed in both directions. The camera photo produced a 3024×4032 JPEG preview. The native agent described it and returned the received HEIC byte-for-byte. - Pause/resume, reconnect, identity revocation, removal, `/status`, `/new`, `/close`, and stale answers after close passed live. Messages suppressed by pause did not become work on resume. Removal stopped intake and removed credential bindings. - All 304 focused tests passed on `4d7222110`. These cover Photon unit/integration behavior, both task-chat renderers, live comment hydration, completed-task continuity after restart, enabled groups, duplicate delivery, and explicit reset/close. The selected Teams completion-boundary regression also passed. Full workspace typecheck/build and token gates passed for the conversation fix; the final UI changes passed their affected typecheck/build and tests. - All 26 new Photon Storybook Playwright cases passed in light and dark themes, including the complete shared-DM setup journey and 390px mobile follow-ups. UI typecheck and the Storybook build passed. These stories use simulated Photon responses and do not replace the live evidence above. - The full chat-adapters browser suite previously passed all 39 cases. Migration checks passed, and migration 0275 applied to the isolated live instance with the earlier Photon migration already applied. - The local full Vitest run was previously interrupted by the host's embedded-Postgres shared-memory limit; it is not a full-suite pass. All 30 applicable CI checks passed on preceding head `7a5419cac`, with two skipped checks and Greptile 5/5. Head `24f8e1aae` adds an explicit required-story discovery guard to the 26 passing Storybook cases. Greptile rates this final head 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. All 30 applicable CI checks passed, with two optional checks skipped. - A repeated live send key suppressed the duplicate but returned gRPC 6 / SDK `internalError` without an original receipt. Paperclip keeps unknown delivery unresolved. This provider behavior is covered by a regression test. - See [the verification record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) for package versions, redacted live evidence, deterministic coverage, and remaining qualification gaps. ## Risks - Dedicated group qualification remains unrun; groups are disabled for the approved Pro scope. Real iPhone camera HEIC passed transport, preview generation, agent inspection, and return. Keep the channel experimental; the dedicated-line release matrix remains incomplete. - Shared recovery and attachment aliases were verified against the live gateway. Duplicate writes currently return an error without the original receipt; unresolved sends require operator resolution. The implementation fails visibly on invalid replay ordering, a reset cursor, or changed identity. - The HEIF converter passed on macOS arm64 and in Linux CI. Windows HEIF binaries have not been executed in this work. Linux musl has no packaged converter. Unsupported conversion retains the original and reports the missing preview. - The migration adds a global reservation across companies for Photon numbers and shared projects. Paused and revoked endpoints keep that reservation until removal. - Integration touches shared channel services. Existing provider browser coverage passes; broad repository verification is recorded above. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded under repository policy. The repository bot owns lockfile updates. The additional Superagent supply-chain scan is neutral/inconclusive because these new dependencies are not yet in the committed lockfile. Its security scan passed; all required CI checks pass. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, browser testing, and tool use. The exact served model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No sub-agents were used. ## 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>	2026-09-12 15:23:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	52811c6ce6	fix(tasks): require resume before sending to paused tasks (#13232 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task execution controls let board users pause a task or its subtree. > - The composer still accepted messages while a pause hold was active. > - A paused task must require an explicit resume before the user can send another message. > - This pull request replaces the composer with an amber pause card and checks board comment writes on the server. > - The user keeps their draft and resumes through the existing task controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13104. Refs #13119. What existing behavior does this improve? The task composer and existing task/subtree pause controls. Current behavior A paused task can still receive a board message. The pause notice sits outside the composer, which leaves the send action available. Proposed behavior Show an amber takeover in both task chat and the classic composer. Preserve the draft. Require the user to resume the task or the ancestor subtree before sending. Reject board comment writes through either supported write route while the pause hold is active. Breaking changes Board comment writes to a paused task now return HTTP 409. Agent run reports remain supported during a pause. There is no schema migration. ## What Changed - Add a shared amber composer takeover with task, subtree, saved draft, pending, and error states. - Use effective ancestor pause state in both composer interfaces. Refresh it after pause events, task updates, and rejected sends. - Preserve draft text and attachments. Hide editor, send, queued edit, and pending question controls while paused. - Check active pause holds before board comment writes can mutate tasks, store comments, or wake agents. - Connect the approved Storybook examples to the production component and update the design and behavior docs. - Add browser coverage for both composers, draft persistence, resume, inherited holds, and rejected writes. Update ACP continuation coverage for the explicit resume requirement. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - Passed: `pnpm build-storybook`. - Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check`. - Passed: focused UI tests (398 tests) and server route tests (127 tests). - Passed: `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/paused-composer.spec.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` (5 tests). - Passed: manual browser walkthrough in a disposable local instance. Pause with a draft, refresh while paused, resume, send, and reopen. The draft returned, and one message persisted. The amber card and resume dialog were readable with no clipping. - Full local `pnpm test:run` did not pass: the general-server stage recorded 9,072 passing tests, 6 database setup failures from macOS shared-memory exhaustion, and 4 failed tests. This stopped the script before its later groups. Latest-head CI runs those groups independently. - Local follow-up: the Git file-resource load test passed on rerun (4 tests); native finalization migration passed after clearing the abandoned browser-test database allocation. Building the native debug fixtures fixed the missing fake provider. The remaining native-session recovery assertion also reproduces on untouched base commit `87b3e5fc6` (36 pass, 1 fail on both base and PR). It expects a settled-session error but receives a semantic-input-digest error. - The final UI build, UI typecheck, token gates, both thread suites (182 tests), and all five browser tests passed after the queued-action review fix. All 31 latest-head CI checks passed, including all server, workspace, browser, build, release, and security gates. Two optional Storybook jobs were skipped by workflow policy. Greptile reviewed `32d8fb5f5` at 5/5 with no open findings. - Review the Paused Composer and Tasks / Execution Controls stories. Pause a task with a draft, verify the amber card, resume, and verify the draft can be sent once. ## Risks - Clients that used board comments to continue paused work must resume first. The response is an explicit HTTP 409. - Pause state can change while a page is open. Live updates refresh the composer, and the server rejects stale sends before their side effects. - Resume keeps the existing dialog and optional agent wake behavior. Agent reports from interrupted runs remain allowed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with design, implementation, code execution, and browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning and tool calls. ## 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 relevant tests locally and they pass; the full local-suite limits are 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>	2026-09-11 10:28:00 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	889947c238	feat: add experimental native chat connectors (#13038 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools. > - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized source. > - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or expose private data. > - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data contracts. > - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable control plane. > - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery in Paperclip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs. Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite #13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML galleries. ## What Changed - Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its normal setup path. - Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks, runs, permissions, and audit records. - Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts. Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel. - Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials, runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs, credentials, or tool arguments. - Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup credentials in Paperclip secret storage. - Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot launch a provider. - Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order. Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo unrelated access changes. - Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable. - Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout, runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued comments are adopted after Stop. - Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run. Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop, agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a false cancellation receipt. - Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion path. - Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction, simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the accompanying deferred-wake merge. ## Verification Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594) is 5/5, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341) passes all 24 jobs, including Build and both required aggregates. Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no human approval is present. Normal squash auto-merge is enabled as of September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified; no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor. - Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36 agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed attempts remain recorded below. - Latest test-only qualification: 141/141 route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome, test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858) passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail. Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are retained. - Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all 995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes remain frozen. The preceding [CI attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777) passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass. - Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries, stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained; its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it, and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics. - The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed [all 24 CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958) and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review prevented its normal merge before master advanced again. - Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear. - The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820), including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and required this reconciliation. - Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI, server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear. - Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already terminal run. - Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree, retained input, and no error toast. - Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or retries, on a fresh database. - The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11. Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency evidence. - Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests do not prove live provider behavior. - Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification log](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md). The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds. Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion, deadline, or CI gate was weakened. Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh disposable databases. See the [browser runbook](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md) for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps. ## Risks - This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open. - Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient visibility. - Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible. Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and quarantine during future changes. - Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox. - The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented in the [temporary handoff](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are included. ## 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>	2026-09-10 10:06:45 -05:00
scotttong	4d82f5eaea	copy: unify user-facing "company" wording to "organization" (#12243 )	2026-08-27 01:04:55 -07:00
Devin Foley	11f6c754c9	feat: dedicated import pause reason with visible paused-assignee notices (#12140 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company import parks every imported agent as a safety default, and issue assignment wakes are dropped for paused agents > - The pause was recorded as the generic reason "system" and was almost invisible: the chat-style task thread showed nothing, the legacy notice had no action, and the new-task dialog gave no hint > - Users assigned tasks in an imported company, nothing ran, and there was no explanation — the imported company looked broken > - This pull request records a dedicated "import" pause reason and makes the paused state visible and fixable where the user is looking > - The benefit is that a silent no-op becomes an explained state with a one-click resume ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? Working with a company whose agents arrived paused from a company import. Subsystem affected Shared constants (`PAUSE_REASONS`), company import service (`server/src/services/company-portability.ts`), task thread and new-task dialog UI. Current behavior Imported agents get `pauseReason: "system"`, the same value plugin-managed and built-in agent pauses use. Assigning an issue to a paused agent silently drops the wake. The chat-style task thread renders no paused notice; the legacy thread's notice says "It was paused by the system." with no action and only renders when the composer is shown. Proposed behavior Import writes `pauseReason: "import"`. The paused-assignee notice explains the import pause, offers an inline "Resume agent" button (suppressed for budget pauses, which clear on their own), and renders for read-only viewers. The chat-style task thread shows the same notice above the composer. The new-task dialog warns when the selected assignee is paused. Breaking changes None. `PAUSE_REASONS` is widened, not changed; the column already stores free-text values in other paths, and every consumer is an equality check with a manual fallback, so an older client shows the generic fallback copy for the new value. ## What Changed - `packages/shared/src/constants.ts`: `"import"` added to `PAUSE_REASONS`. - `server/src/services/company-portability.ts`: the import pause patch writes `pauseReason: "import"`. - `ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`: `IssueAssigneePausedNotice` gains import copy, a Resume button, test ids, and is exported; it now renders even when the composer is hidden. New `onResumeAssignee` / `resumeAssigneePending` props. - `ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.tsx`: renders the paused-assignee notice above the composer dock (the chat-style thread previously had no paused surface at all). - `ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.tsx`: wires a resume mutation (`agentsApi.resume`) through both thread variants and invalidates the company agent list. - `ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.tsx`: inline note when the chosen assignee is paused, with import-specific copy. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts` — 82 tests pass (pause pin updated to `"import"`). - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx` — 120 tests pass (new: notice copy per reason, resume click, budget suppression, active-agent null render, dialog note). - `pnpm run typecheck` in `packages/shared`, `server`, and `ui` — clean. ## Risks - Low risk. The resume action calls the existing `POST /agents/:id/resume` route with its existing guards. Existing rows keep `"system"` and fall back to the current generic copy; only new imports write `"import"`. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) with extended thinking and tool use, via 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	2026-08-25 13:51:42 -07:00
Devin Foley	adfbe2d4b9	feat(environments): refer to the managed default environment by name, not the sandbox driver key (#11838 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Managed deployments provision a platform-managed default environment for agent runs; the UI shows this environment in selectors, the agent form, run details, and the environments page > - Those surfaces append the raw driver key to the environment name, so users see labels like "Paperclip Computer (sandbox)", "Paperclip Computer · sandbox", and fallback copy such as "Managed sandbox" and "The sandbox has no ready authentication" > - "sandbox" is infrastructure vocabulary, not the product name of the environment; showing it next to the managed environment's name is confusing and off-brand > - This pull request renders platform-managed environments by name alone and rewords the sandbox-phrased copy, while user-created environments keep the driver suffix so mixed lists stay distinguishable > - The benefit is that the default environment reads as one clear product name everywhere, and self-hosted users lose nothing: their own environments still show the driver ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? Display of the platform-managed default environment across the UI. Subsystem affected UI (environment selectors, agent config form, environments page, agents page, run details) and the claude-local/codex-local adapter auth checks. Current behavior The agent form labels the inherited default environment as "Name (sandbox)". Environment selectors and the environments list render "Name · sandbox". The agents page describes the environment as "<provider> sandbox provider". The agent form's fallback label is "Managed sandbox". Adapter auth checks say "The sandbox has no ready authentication for this adapter." Proposed behavior Platform-managed environment rows (`metadata.managedByPaperclip`) render their name alone. The fallback label is "Paperclip Computer". The agents page describes managed environments as "Managed by Paperclip". Run details omit the driver suffix for sandbox-driver environments (the adjacent Provider entry already identifies the mechanism). Adapter auth checks say "This environment has no ready authentication for this adapter." Reason and benefit The managed environment carries a product name. Appending the raw driver key ("sandbox") to it is noise and contradicts the product naming. User-created environments keep the driver suffix, so mixed lists stay distinguishable. Breaking changes None. Message text of the auth check is not read programmatically; the UI keys off `ADAPTER_AUTH_MISSING_CHECK_CODE`. Rows without the managed marker render exactly as before. ## What Changed - New `environmentDisplayLabel` helper in `ui/src/lib/managed-sandbox-environment.ts`: managed rows → name alone; other rows → "Name · driver". - `AgentConfigForm`: inherited-default label uses the helper; fallback copy "Managed sandbox" → "Paperclip Computer"; environment options use the helper. - `ProjectProperties`, `CompanyEnvironments`: environment selector options use the helper; the environments-list row hides the driver suffix on managed rows; the managed detail page's fallback description no longer says "sandbox". - `Agents` page: managed environments are described as "Managed by Paperclip" instead of "<provider> sandbox provider". - `CommentThread` run details: the driver suffix is omitted for sandbox-driver environments. - claude-local and codex-local adapters: auth-missing check message/hint reworded from "sandbox" to "environment" (ACP and environment-test paths); claude-local probe/effort/login hints reworded the same way. - Run status lines: "Syncing workspace to sandbox", "Exporting git changes from sandbox", "Starting adapter in sandbox", and friends now say "environment"; "Finalizing sandbox workspace" → "Finalizing workspace". Templated transfer-progress lines map the `sandbox` transport key to "environment" for display (`runtime-progress.ts`). - Agent form sign-in panel: "Sign in to the sandbox" → "Sign in to the environment"; "Authenticated. The sandbox has credentials now." → "…The environment has credentials now." - Feature catalog + instance settings card: "Managed Sandbox Only" → "Managed Environment Only" (setting key unchanged; the card keeps its alphabetical slot). - Server agents routes: execution-target failure and test-identity copy no longer say "sandbox"; workspace-mode label "Cloud sandbox" → "Cloud environment". - Tests: new `environmentDisplayLabel` unit cases; new `AgentConfigForm` render case asserting the managed default renders without "(sandbox)" or "· sandbox"; status-line assertions updated across adapter-utils, server heartbeat/live-run, and UI chat suites. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` and `--filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` — clean. - `vitest run` for `managed-sandbox-environment.test.ts`, `AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx`, `CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx`, `Agents.test.tsx`, `CommentThread.test.tsx`, `NewAgent.test.tsx` — all green (118 tests across the two runs). ## Risks Low risk. Cosmetic label changes only; no data or API changes. Rows without `metadata.managedByPaperclip` render exactly as before, so self-hosted deployments with their own environments see no change. The only self-hosted-visible wording changes are the adapter auth-check message and the driver suffix omission on sandbox-driver rows in run details. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) — claude-fable-5 (Claude Fable 5), Claude Code CLI, extended thinking, tool use. ## 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 (no docs reference these labels) - [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	2026-08-21 12:51:22 -07:00
scotttongandClaude Fable 5	a7e689b3c3	feat(ui): rename "Agent mode" to "Auto mode" and show full work-mode labels (#11866 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The task composer and the New Task dialog show a work-mode chip (how the agent will run a task) > - The default mode was labeled "Agent mode", and the New Task dialog chip abbreviated every mode to one word ("Auto", "Plan", "Ask") > - "Agent mode" is confusing because every mode runs an agent, and the abbreviated chip hid what the label means > - This pull request renames the mode to "Auto mode" and makes every mode chip show the full label > - The benefit is a clearer, consistent mode name in every place the user selects a work mode ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Description follows the enhancement template: What existing behavior does this improve? The work-mode selector chips in the task composer and in the New Task dialog. Subsystem affected UI (`ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.ts`, `ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.tsx`). Current behavior The default work mode is labeled "Agent mode". The New Task dialog chip shows a shortened label ("Auto", "Plan", "Ask") from a separate `shortLabel` field. Proposed behavior The default work mode is labeled "Auto mode". Every chip shows the full label ("Auto mode", "Plan mode", "Ask mode"). The `shortLabel` field is removed so no surface can fall back to the short form. Reason and benefit "Agent mode" does not describe the behavior — all modes use an agent. "Auto mode" states what the mode does. One label field keeps every surface consistent. Breaking changes None. This is a display-string change only. No API, storage, or mode-key changes. ## What Changed - Renamed the `standard` work-mode label from "Agent mode" to "Auto mode" in `ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.ts`, the single source for all mode chips. - Changed the New Task dialog mode chip to render the full `label` instead of `shortLabel`. - Deleted the `shortLabel` field from `WorkModeMeta` so nothing can silently regress to the short form. - Updated unit tests and fixtures to pin the full labels. ## Verification - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui test -- src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx`. All tests pass. The tests assert the labels are exactly "Auto mode", "Plan mode", and "Ask mode". - Manual: start the dev server, open the board, press `c` to open the New Task dialog, and press Cmd+Period to cycle modes. The chip reads "Auto mode", "Plan mode", then "Ask mode". The composer chip on an open task shows the same labels. ## Risks - Low risk. Display strings only. The chip is a few pixels wider in the New Task dialog; no layout overflow was observed in any of the three modes. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, model ID `claude-fable-5`), extended thinking with tool use, run inside a Claude Code agent session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-21 10:28:55 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	6b8e42168e	Add governed secret alias confirmation cards (#11486 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely. > - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name without an internal secret identifier. > - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not create an issue-thread approval path. > - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the binding was created. > - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards. > - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a clear failure without exposing secret material. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prerequisite: #11482. Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database proposal schema, and issue-thread UI. Problem or motivation An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name. The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance without executing the binding. Proposed solution Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card. Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention resolver. Alternatives considered A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry, authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload instead. Roadmap alignment This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved user-secret ownership checks. - Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database migration. - Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned `secretProposal` metadata. - Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees. - Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock before execution. - Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment when no binding was created. - Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection, withdrawal, and expiry in both directions. - Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes. - Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed, rejected, withdrawn, and expired states. - Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical justification, expiry, and safe failure code. - Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the stitched server result. - Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests. - Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API and agent behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142 passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential variables unset. - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses idempotent guards. - The accept route performs a governed write after it records card acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as rejected. - Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct approval against card rejection. - The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints. - The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers. - The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover immediate cache replacement and every terminal state. > This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub duplicate search returned no other open related work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools were enabled. ## 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>	2026-08-18 09:44:24 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	10d0555189	fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. What happened? Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. Expected behavior Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. Steps to reproduce 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. Paperclip version or commit The problem exists on `master` before this change. Deployment mode Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-16 13:46:50 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Fable 5	ded813ad6f	feat(interactions): add governed agent addressees (#10252 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of AI agents. > - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions. > - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another agent for a response. > - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI behavior. > - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering. > - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or audit invariants. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API docs, and UI governance surfaces. ### Problem or motivation Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely. ### Proposed solution Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity, enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback. ### Alternatives considered Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work objects. ### Additional context Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only returned this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and persistence. - Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity, withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior. - Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization, persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill guidance. - Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or is deleted. - Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed resolution paths. - Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention, adapter, CLI, and UI coverage. - Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials and warned instead of passing. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161` completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully. ## Risks - Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent, and migration safety checks pass. - Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries, resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal, expiry, and attention fallback. - Attention routing depends on current agent invokability; reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from retaining visibility or resolution authority. > 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 using `gpt-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane tools. Context-window metadata was not reported 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 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-04 12:51:06 -05:00
Devin Foley	62e367c1b2	fix(ui): rewrite recovery and blocked-notice copy in plain language (#10065 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue-detail UI shows recovery cards and blocked/parked notices when a task loses its next step — a run finished with no disposition, a task is stranded, work is blocked behind other tasks, or an assigned item sits in the backlog > - That copy was written in the scheduler's internal vocabulary — "Corrective wake queued", "Graph Liveness", "lost a live action path", "the responsible" — which describes Paperclip's internals rather than the user's situation > - Users seeing these cards report having no idea what the card means or what they are supposed to do > - This pull request rewrites the user-facing copy in plain language and adds explicit calls to action that match the options in the card's Resolve menu > - The benefit is that a non-expert operator can read a recovery or blocked notice and immediately understand what happened and which action to take next ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this; describing the problem here (bug-report format): - What happened: Recovery action cards and blocked notices render internal jargon, e.g. the headline "Paperclip detected this task lost a live action path. A recovery owner needs to act.", the chip "Corrective wake queued", the kind label "Graph Liveness", and phrases like "Comments still wake the responsible". Status values also appear as raw code literals (`in_progress`, `todo`). - Expected behavior: These notices should tell a normal user, in plain language, what happened and what to do next (retry the task, mark it done, send it for review, or record a blocker). - Impact: Operators stall on tasks that only need a simple disposition because the UI doesn't tell them that's what is being asked. Related prior work: #9417 (merged) made the reopen-suppressed blocked message explicit; this PR extends the same plain-language treatment to the rest of the recovery and blocked-notice copy. ## What Changed - Recovery card headlines for `missing_disposition`, `stranded_assigned_issue`, and `issue_graph_liveness` now say what Paperclip found and name the concrete next steps ("try the task again, mark it done, or send it for review") matching the card's Resolve menu. - The `issue_graph_liveness` kind label "Graph Liveness" is now "Task Needs Next Step", and the "Wake" metadata row is now "Follow-up". - Wake-policy chips describe actual behavior: "An agent will be asked to choose the next step" (was "Corrective wake queued"), "Board will decide", "Manual follow-up needed", "Repair needed before retry", "Check scheduled". - Blocked/waiting/parked notices say "the assignee" instead of "the responsible" / "responsible agent", and "notify" instead of "wake". - The still-needs-a-next-step notice drops raw `in_progress` code literals and keeps a plain-language option list (mark done or cancelled, send for review, record what is blocking it, delegate follow-up). - Parked-backlog notice renders "To do / In progress" as plain labels instead of code literals. - Component tests updated to pin the new copy and the successful-run example options. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx src/components/IssueAssignedBacklogNotice.test.tsx src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` — 4 files, 126 tests, all passing. - Copy-only review: the diff touches display strings, one label map entry, and test assertions; no control flow, props, or identifiers change. ## Risks - Low risk — user-facing strings and test updates only. No behavior, API, or schema changes. The only functional surface is that anything keying off the displayed text (e.g. screenshots, external docs) will show the new wording. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) — Claude Fable 5, model ID `claude-fable-5`, extended thinking enabled, running in Claude Code with agentic tool use. ## 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 (no docs reference this copy) - [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	2026-07-22 20:47:00 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	1f07690184	fix(ui): keep issue threads from jumping to latest comment (#9354 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue and item detail pages use a shared issue chat thread to show comments, runs, activity, and interactions. > - That thread still defaulted to landing on the latest comment when messages first loaded. > - On long issue/item pages, that default can yank the operator away from the top of the page before they choose to inspect the newest message. > - Deep links to comment hashes can create the same kind of initial viewport jump when they are used as generic navigation targets. > - This pull request makes initial latest-comment and initial thread-hash scrolling opt-in instead of default behavior. > - The benefit is stable initial page position across issue-thread surfaces while keeping the explicit Jump to latest control available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found for this bug. Bug description: - What happened: opening a page with a shared issue conversation thread could automatically move the viewport toward the newest comment/thread target. - Expected behavior: ordinary page loads should keep the initial viewport stable unless the user explicitly clicks Jump to latest. - Steps to reproduce: open an issue or item detail page with a long conversation thread and observe whether the page jumps to the newest thread entry on initial load. - Paperclip version/commit: reproduced while working on the current `master` branch lineage. - Deployment mode: local trusted/dev UI. Related public thread/comment UX work: Refs #3916, Refs #7972, Refs #8800. ## What Changed - Changed `IssueChatThread` so initial latest-comment scrolling defaults to off. - Added a separate opt-in for initial thread-hash scrolling, also defaulting to off. - Preserved stale deleted-comment hash cleanup without scrolling the page. - Updated regression coverage so default initial load stays put, comment hashes do not scroll by default, and manual Jump to latest still scrolls. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed on the clean PR branch. - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx -t "loads from the pending state into issue detail without changing hook order"` passed on the clean PR branch. - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` was attempted on the clean PR branch, but the file fails before changed assertions with the existing `TypeError: act is not a function` test-harness issue across 58 tests; 14 tests passed. - Static check: no `autoScrollToLatestOnInitialLoad={true}` or `autoScrollToHashOnInitialLoad={true}` call sites remain in `ui/src`. ## Risks Low risk. This only changes initial scroll defaults in the shared issue thread. The main behavioral shift is that direct comment/thread hashes no longer auto-scroll on first load unless a caller explicitly opts in; the Jump to latest button and post-submit scroll behavior are unchanged. > 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 via Codex coding-agent runtime; exact context window not exposed in this environment; tool-enabled repository inspection, editing, testing, git, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API usage. ## 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-10 11:59:53 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1c75a46c10	feat(ui): add waiting-on-live-work blocked notice (#9298 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators rely on the issue detail thread to understand whether a task is blocked, live, or waiting on another task. > - A blocked issue can have a healthy blocker chain where downstream work is actively running and the parent will resume automatically. > - Showing that case with the same amber blocked notice as a stalled or attention-needed blocker makes the state look more severe than it is. > - The UI already receives blocker-attention state, blocker summaries, and company live-run ids, so this can be clarified without a new API shape. > - This pull request adds a blue "Waiting on live work" notice for covered blocker chains while preserving the existing amber notice for the other blocked states. > - The benefit is that operators can distinguish healthy queued work from blocked work that needs intervention. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #3820 Refs #8271 Related PR: #3877 Supersedes #9295 ## What Changed - Added a blue `IssueBlockedNotice` variant when `blockerAttention.state` is `covered` and the blocker chain has live work. - Rendered blocker-chain progress as done, running, and queued steps, including a "Now running" row for live terminal blockers. - Preserved the existing amber blocked notice for stalled, attention-needed, ordinary blocked, and successful-run handoff states. - Plumbed the existing `liveIssueIds`, `blockedBy`, and `blockerAttention` data from issue detail into the chat-thread blocked notice. - Added regression coverage around the covered live-work state, the no-confirmed-live fallback, numeric step ordering, and amber fallback states. - Hardened a low-trust server route test cleanup helper so CI deletes heartbeat run events before deleting heartbeat runs. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx` - GitHub PR workflow is green on head `52ab6d9076ce233c183bf7133fa666e8597b6765`. - Greptile check is green on head `52ab6d9076ce233c183bf7133fa666e8597b6765` with zero unresolved review threads. ## Risks Low runtime risk: the product change is frontend-only and uses data already returned to the issue detail page. The main risk is visual regression in the blocked notice; the change keeps non-covered states on the existing amber path and adds focused regression coverage. The server-side change is test-only cleanup for an existing CI shard failure. > 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 using GPT-5, tool-use enabled in a repository workspace. The runtime did not expose a more specific model build id or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-09 10:59:18 -05:00
scotttong Claude Fable 5 Dotta Paperclip	c07e650cd7	feat(ui): single-source design tokens, visual regression suite, and theme retune (#9134 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its UI is the operator's daily surface: task lists, boards, budgets, agent status — all built on shadcn components and Tailwind > - Visual values (colors, spacing, type sizes, radii) were hardcoded at ~1,600 call sites: the same "small gray label" was 9/10/11px depending on the file, charts disagreed with chips about status colors, two toggle-switch implementations coexisted in two greens, and there was no visual regression coverage > - This made the UI drift-prone and made any restyle a hundreds-of-files project, which discourages design iteration > - This pull request extracts visual values into a single token layer in `ui/src/index.css`, adds a Storybook visual regression suite backed by external immutable baseline archives, and then applies a deliberate retune reviewed change-by-change on screenshot diffs > - The benefit is that Paperclip's look becomes a config surface: retheming is a token edit reviewed as a snapshot diff, drift is blocked by a token gate, and future UI PRs can prove exactly what changed visually without committing hundreds of PNGs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue covers this work (searched "design tokens", "visual regression", "design system" across issues and PRs). Related in spirit: Refs #8982 (theming a hardcoded panel — a one-off instance of the same problem class this PR addresses systematically). Problem (feature-request form): UI visual values are hardcoded per call site with no source of truth and no regression coverage; consistency depends on reviewer memory, and restyling requires mass file edits. Proposed solution (this PR): a single token layer + enforcement gate + externally stored visual snapshot suite, then an intentional restyle on top of that foundation. ## What Changed - Token extraction (zero visual change, machine-verified during development): committed codemods (`scripts/codemod-.mjs`) moved ~1,600 hardcoded color/type/spacing/radius/shadow/misc values into named tokens in a non-inline `:root` block of `ui/src/index.css`. - Visual regression suite:* `pnpm test:storybook-visual` covers 255 stories × light/dark = 510 Playwright screenshots at `maxDiffPixels: 0`, plus new primitive-coverage stories and deterministic-render fixes. - External visual baselines: committed PNG snapshots were removed. `tests/storybook-visual/baseline-manifest.json` pins an immutable archive URL/hash/size/count, and `scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs` handles `download`, `verify`, `pack`, and trusted maintainer `upload` flows. - Opt-in visual CI artifacts: added a `Storybook Visual` workflow that runs on manual dispatch or PRs labeled `storybook-visual`, downloads/verifies the baseline, runs Playwright, and uploads Playwright report/test-result artifacts for review. Normal PR runs do not mutate baseline objects. - Token gate: `pnpm check:token-gates` — zero hex literals, zero arbitrary bracket values, zero raw font-sizes in `ui/src/components/` and `ui/src/pages/`, with a documented inline allowlist for legitimate opt-outs. - Theme retune (intentional, snapshot-reviewed): new base theme values; radius ladder derived from a single `--radius` knob; micro-type cluster collapsed to a named ladder (`--text-nano/micro/compact` + Tailwind `text-xs`/`text-sm`); letter-spacing collapsed to named steps. - One status-color vocabulary: charts, quota/budget bar fills, RUNNING/live chips, and liveness indicators all use the canonical `--status-` hues. Light-mode legibility fixes for red alert surfaces that used dark-tuned text classes. - One switch:* `ToggleSwitch` restyled to the registry capsule form, second hand-rolled implementation removed, and all call sites unified. - Docs: `DESIGN.md` is the design contract; `doc/design/` holds audit reports, decision logs, and updated guidance for external baseline review/update workflows. - Dead code removed (`agentStatusBadge` duplicate map), byte-identical contrast constants consolidated, semantic renames (`--project-seed`/`--project-none`, `--liveness-blue`). ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN during the design-system run - `pnpm typecheck` && `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — green during the design-system run - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` — pass after external-baseline rework - `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --pretty false --module NodeNext --moduleResolution NodeNext --target ES2022 --types node,@playwright/test tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts` — pass after external-baseline rework - `git diff --check origin/pr/9134..HEAD` — pass after external-baseline rework - `find tests/storybook-visual -type f -name '.png' -print \| wc -l` — `0` - `node scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs verify` — intentionally fails closed until the first trusted maintainer publishes the baseline archive and updates `baseline-manifest.json` ## Risks - Large but shallow:* the PR still touches many UI files due to mechanical token extraction and retune work, but committed PNG snapshot churn has been removed from the branch. - Baseline publication required before the visual suite can pass in clean clones: the manifest currently has placeholder archive metadata. A trusted maintainer must publish the first immutable archive, then update `baseline-manifest.json`. - Rendering platform variance: the external baseline should be captured in the documented Linux/Chromium environment. Future CI runs verify against the pinned archive and fail closed on checksum/count mismatch. - Visual CI is opt-in while stabilizing: add the `storybook-visual` label or dispatch the workflow manually to produce downloadable Playwright report/test-result artifacts. - Scheduled follow-ups, deliberately out of scope: Tailwind palette classes map to semantic tokens in a dedicated pass; card/pill component consolidation; ESLint ratchet. Tracked in `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking, running in Claude Code with tool use; mechanical phases delegated to Claude Sonnet subagents. Follow-up external-baseline rework assisted by OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5` coding agent with repository, terminal, and GitHub tool use). All bulk rewrites executed via deterministic, idempotent scripts committed in `scripts/`; intentional visual changes were human-reviewed on screenshot contact sheets. ## 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 targeted local verification and documented the intentional baseline-publication failure 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending new CI run after this rework) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending review) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) and OpenAI Codex --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 16:22:16 -05:00
Dotta Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	ad961227f5	feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD \| rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml\|\\.github/workflows/\|screenshots/)' \|\| true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > 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-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-05 05:58:20 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	c48feee190	Improve live agent feedback during sandboxed runs (#8915 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A core part of that experience is watching active agent runs without dropping into raw logs first > - Local and sandbox-backed adapters already record useful run output, progress, and tool activity > - But active issue threads could sit visually stale while the agent was syncing workspaces, tailing sandbox output, or emitting incremental tool-call updates > - Operators need timely, human-readable progress while preserving the raw transcript underneath > - This pull request streams sandbox run-log progress into runtime status, keeps visible issue threads refreshed, and folds repeated ACPX tool updates into stable transcript cards > - The benefit is that long-running agent work becomes easier to supervise without changing the task/comment control-plane model ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this exact change. Problem/motivation: - During long-running sandboxed agent work, the issue UI can appear idle even though the agent is actively syncing, running tools, or producing incremental output. - Operators need realtime feedback at the issue-thread layer, not only after opening raw logs or waiting for the final heartbeat result. - Related public context: #1808 previously added live-run status dots to Projects; #4362 touches heartbeat wakeup behavior but is not a duplicate of this runtime/UI feedback change. ## What Changed - Added sandbox run-log streaming support and defaulted sandbox-capable local adapters into the richer live-feedback path. - Surfaced environment/sandbox sync progress through heartbeat runtime status with bounded, redacted snippets. - Added live issue-thread cache patching so visible active runs update as progress events arrive. - Folded repeated ACPX `tool_call` updates into one transcript card instead of stacking duplicate cards. - Updated adapter docs and added focused regression coverage for sandbox log streaming, runtime status, ACPX parsing, live updates, transcript rendering, and issue chat messages. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/heartbeat-run-runtime-status.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-state.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/execution-target-sandbox.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/sandbox-managed-runtime.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat-run-runtime-status.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-live-run-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-state.test.ts packages/adapters/acpx-local/src/ui/parse-stdout.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts ui/src/components/transcript/RunTranscriptView.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` - GitHub PR workflow on head `8397953e7b41ccd42e5d9457ee7e4dfb996e4ec5`: `verify`, build, typecheck/release-registry, e2e, general shards, serialized server shards, and canary dry run passed. - Greptile Review on head `8397953e7b41ccd42e5d9457ee7e4dfb996e4ec5`: Confidence Score 5/5, no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Live issue-thread cache patching could miss an edge case for a route shape not covered by tests. - Surfacing active-run snippets needs continued care around redaction; this PR keeps snippets bounded and adds redaction-focused coverage. - More frequent active-run UI refreshes could expose performance issues on very large issue threads, though updates are scoped to visible run/query caches. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex, operating as a tool-enabled coding agent with shell, git, and repository-editing capabilities. Context window size is not exposed in 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 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>	2026-07-02 22:21:56 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	8d9f9fd240	Add reusable sandbox custom images (#8794 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A growing part of that work runs in sandboxed environments rather than on the operator's local machine. > - Today sandbox providers can start fresh workspaces and run probes, but they do not have a shared contract for capturing and reusing prepared sandbox state. > - Operators need a way to set up tools, credentials, and project dependencies once, then reuse that prepared image for later agent runs. > - This pull request adds reusable sandbox custom images across the provider contract, server runtime, and board UI. > - It also keeps probes and sandbox copy flows aligned with pre-authenticated/custom-image environments. > - The benefit is faster, more reliable sandbox runs without repeatedly rebuilding the same environment setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this change. Inline feature request follows. ### Problem or motivation Sandboxed agents need reusable prepared runtime state so repeated runs do not require manual setup every time. Operators often need system packages, CLIs, SDKs, dependency caches, credentials, and project tooling available before an agent can work productively. ### Proposed solution Add a provider-level custom-image capability, server-side setup/capture lifecycle, Daytona/fake provider support, and board UI controls for creating, testing, selecting, and deleting custom images. ### Alternatives considered Leaving this as provider-specific setup outside Paperclip would keep the control plane blind to image state and would not give agents consistent environment metadata. Re-running setup commands for every lease is simpler, but slower and less reliable for interactive or credentialed setup. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this aligns with the Cloud / Sandbox agents roadmap area and does not duplicate any related public issue or PR found by search. Additional context: - Subsystem affected: cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `packages/plugins`, `server`, `ui`). - Duplicate search: searched GitHub for `sandbox custom image` and `sandbox template environment`; no related public issues or PRs were found. ## What Changed - Added custom-image shared types, validators, constants, API paths, and database schema/migration. - Added server services/routes for custom-image templates and setup sessions, including runtime cleanup and provider metadata handling. - Extended plugin/sandbox provider capabilities for interactive setup, template capture, and template deletion. - Implemented custom-image support in the fake sandbox provider and Daytona provider. - Updated environment runtime/config handling so active custom images flow into leases, probes, and agent execution. - Added board UI controls and API client support for custom-image setup, capture, selection, status, and error states. - Hardened sandbox copy/probe behavior for insecure clipboard contexts and pre-authenticated sandbox images. - Added targeted coverage across shared validators, DB schema, server routes/services, provider plugins, adapter probes, and UI flows. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.probe.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `pnpm vitest run packages/db/src/environment-custom-images-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.test.tsx` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `rm -rf packages/db/dist && pnpm test:run` - Public-safety scan of the final diff found no internal Paperclip issue links, private instance URLs, or real secret patterns. ## Risks - Adds a database migration and new environment runtime tables, so migration ordering and rollback need care. - Provider implementations may differ in how reliably they can capture/delete images; unsupported providers surface capability-gated UI states. - Custom-image state can contain operator-prepared tooling and credentials inside the provider image, so providers must enforce their own access controls and cleanup semantics. - Broad surface area across shared contracts, server runtime, plugins, adapters, and UI means CI and Greptile review should be watched closely. > 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 (`gpt-5`) via Codex CLI with tool use and code execution. Assisted with branch cleanup, conflict resolution, local verification, and PR preparation. Earlier branch implementation work was assisted by Paperclip-managed Claude/Codex agents. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-30 09:57:49 -07:00
Aron Prins	4a2447da3c	[codex] Fix markdown contrast on accent bubbles (#8689 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue/task chat subsystem renders board and agent comments as markdown inside chat bubbles. > - Human board comments use a saturated blue bubble so the message can be distinguished from agent output. > - The shared `.paperclip-markdown` rule forced `var(--foreground)` for body text and related markdown elements. > - On the blue bubble, that foreground color is too dark, so paragraphs, lists, links, and emphasis lose contrast. > - This pull request adds an explicit on-accent markdown treatment for blue/current-user message bubbles. > - The benefit is readable markdown without changing neutral markdown surfaces elsewhere in the app. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #8688 ## What Changed - Added a `paperclip-markdown-on-accent` class for markdown rendered on accent-colored message bubbles. - Updated current-user issue chat messages to use the accent-safe markdown class. - Added CSS overrides for body text, list markers, headings, emphasis, links, blockquotes, and inline code on accent backgrounds. - Added a regression test proving current-user blue-bubble markdown receives the accent-safe class. ## Before Screenshot: <img width="816" height="618" alt="Screenshot 2026-06-27 at 14 22 59" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2a982326-9ff3-40ce-9955-ceb081d8a2e0" /> ## After Screenshot: <img width="821" height="624" alt="Screenshot 2026-06-27 at 15 05 17" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4722a0db-9f6a-4775-a7eb-47328c2f71e0" /> ## Verification - `CI=true corepack pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` - `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - GitHub Actions PR workflow passed on latest head `f645cca3fc9675071c201471c0df938880c0c351`, including Build, Typecheck + Release Registry, e2e, general test shards, serialized server shards, Canary Dry Run, and aggregate verify. - Greptile Review passed with Confidence Score 5/5 on latest head `f645cca3fc9675071c201471c0df938880c0c351`. ## Risks Low risk. The new color treatment is opt-in and only applied to current-user issue chat markdown on accent bubbles. Neutral comment, document, artifact, and skill markdown surfaces keep the existing `.paperclip-markdown` colors. > 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 in Codex desktop, with repository tool use and local command 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	2026-06-29 13:24:33 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	43b005b704	Add pipeline workflow primitives and operator UI (#7903 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift notices, and linked work. > - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface, not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments. > - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes, CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the primitive reviewable end to end. > - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline workflow primitive stack. > - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator experience and server contract together against `master`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature request is described inline. ### Problem or motivation Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation, and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues, routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate. ### Proposed solution Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes, aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail, review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over fields, and retry/recovery flows. ### Alternatives considered - Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated workflow patterns. - Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch because the operator experience is the main way to validate the primitive. - Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same primitives are useful across future company processes. ## What Changed - Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts, server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke support. - Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment, blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and permission recovery behavior. - Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets, automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets, liveness banners, and source automation metadata. - Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared `DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent with the pipeline document surfaces. - Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current pipeline branch. ## Verification Current branch refresh: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19 passed - `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed - `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed - Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`: sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle. - GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket, Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review - Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — Confidence Score 5/5 - GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads Previously recorded during branch development: - Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests - Shared validator tests - UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests - Pipeline tutorial smoke path ## Risks - High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database, shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI. - Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master` syncs. - GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status checks are green. - Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references. > 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 tool use, shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-26 12:02:44 -05:00
Devin Foley Paperclip CTO Paperclip CTO	800dab1c64	Render sandbox runtime status in issue threads (#8594 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread is where operators watch active agent work and decide whether a run is healthy. > - Backend runtime-progress plumbing can expose a concise current status, but users only benefit if the issue UI renders it in context. > - The UI should show that current status as part of the active run surface without turning it into durable transcript content. > - This pull request adds the issue-thread rendering and message formatting needed for sandbox runtime status. > - The benefit is that active sandbox setup phases are visible from the normal issue detail view. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #248 No exact public GitHub issue was found for this UI rendering work. The underlying problem is that active sandboxed runs can have backend progress state without any concise issue-thread display, leaving users to infer whether setup is still moving. This PR adds the UI layer on top of the runtime-status API branch. GitHub search performed for related or duplicate work: `sandbox runtime status`, `sandbox restore index`, and `runtime progress`. No direct duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Included current runtime status in the heartbeat API client shape. - Rendered active run status text in the issue chat thread when available. - Updated issue-chat message formatting helpers for runtime status display. - Added focused component and formatting tests for the new active-run status behavior. ## Verification - Local PII scan before push: high-confidence secret patterns, internal issue links, local user paths, and private URL patterns checked across all three split diffs; no real secrets or internal links found. - `git diff --check feat/sandbox-runtime-status..feat/sandbox-status-ui` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` — 2 files, 91 tests passed. - `pnpm run typecheck` passed on `feat/sandbox-status-ui`. - `pnpm run build` passed on `feat/sandbox-status-ui`; Vite reported existing CSS `::highlight` and chunk-size warnings. - Visual evidence (desktop + mobile) is attached to the tracking issue rather than committed to the repo. ## Risks - This PR is stacked on the runtime-status API branch and depends on that response/event shape. - The status line is intentionally concise; long or sensitive status content should continue to be bounded/redacted by the backend. - The visual change is limited to active issue-thread runs with current runtime status data. > 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 via Codex coding agent, with shell/tool execution in a local worktree. Exact context-window metadata is 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 CTO <cto@paperclip.local> Co-authored-by: Paperclip CTO <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-24 23:17:55 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	e68188c438	fix: upstream deployed document-comment, routine-annotation, workspace & board-polling fixes (#8536 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - This change touches several already-shipped subsystems — document-comment annotations, the selected-agent Conference Room chat surface, routine description annotations, workspace-operation tracking, and the board polling/inbox UI > - A batch of incremental fixes and two small backend additions had accumulated on a local mainline and were deployed to a live instance, but never landed upstream — so each `origin/master` sync kept re-diverging > - Leaving them un-upstreamed means the same delta has to be re-merged on every sync and risks being lost or silently reverted > - This pull request rebases that delta cleanly on top of current `origin/master` (preserving recent upstream work such as reusable sandbox leases and the relation-list collapse controls) and brings it up for review > - The benefit is that mainline and the deployed instance converge, and these fixes/additions get normal review + CI + Greptile coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No single GitHub issue tracks this; it is a bundle of bug fixes and two small feature additions. Following the issue-template fields: Bug fixes (what was wrong → what this does): - Document comments rendered out of document order, didn't live-update across clients, swallowed save failures, and lost the markdown text selection on re-render. Now: doc-order sort, live updates, surfaced save-failure state, stable selection across re-renders. - The board polling hot path returned oversized payloads on every poll. Now: an opt-in `summary` projection trims the heartbeat-run list payload. - Assorted UI fixes: sidebar nav peek/streamlining edge cases, markdown file-viewer re-mount/line-height issues on iOS Safari, inbox badge/skill deep-link tab selection, and `⌘.` work-mode cycling on iOS. Feature additions: - `workspace_operations.issue_id` — associate a workspace operation with the issue that triggered it (new migration `0106`, schema, service, shared type). - Routine description annotations — comment threads on a routine's description document, mirroring issue document annotations (new migration `0107`, `routine_documents` schema, routes/service, editable-sections UI). - Selected-agent Conference Room chat surface wiring and live issue-thread updates. Related PR: #8229 (`feat(control-plane): add annotation and workspace controls`, draft) covers overlapping annotation/workspace-control territory — flagging it so a reviewer can reconcile the two rather than double-merging. ## What Changed - `feat(workspace)`: `workspace_operations.issue_id` migration + schema/service/type; issue workspace property controls reconciled with upstream's evolved "Service" row. - `feat(routines)`: routine description annotations — `routine_documents` schema, migration `0107`, routes/service, `editable-sections` UI. - `fix(document-comments)`: doc-order sort, live updates, save-failure surfacing, stable markdown selection (+ storybook story, rerender test). - `feat(chat)`: selected-agent Conference Room chat surface and live issue-thread updates (`LiveUpdatesProvider`, `issue-chat-messages`, interactions service). - `perf(board)`: opt-in `summary` projection for the board polling/heartbeat-run list payload, plus assorted sidebar / file-viewer / inbox / IssueProperties UI fixes. Organized into 5 logical commits. Migrations are numbered incrementally after upstream's latest (`0105`) — `0106` then `0107`, no journal collision. ## Verification - Built by 3-way merging the deployed delta onto current `origin/master`; the only merge conflict (`IssueProperties.test.tsx`, two adjacent test blocks) was resolved in favor of upstream's evolved "green service link above the workspace row" layout, which matches the merged component's rendered output. - Confirmed recent upstream work is preserved post-merge: reusable sandbox lease teardown (`#8513`), the IssueProperties relation-list collapse controls, and the sidebar streamlined-nav default. - Confirmed the net diff vs `origin/master` is exactly the intended feature delta (65 files) and that overlapping server files (`issues.ts`, `agents.ts`, `heartbeat.ts`) only add feature code without disturbing upstream logic. - This delta is already running on a live deployed instance. - Full typecheck/test suite + Greptile to run in CI (see checklist). ## Risks - Two new migrations (`0106`, `0107`). Both are additive (new table / new nullable column) and ordered after upstream's `0105`; no data backfill, low risk. If another migration-bearing PR merges first, renumber before merge. - Largest blast radius is in the merged overlapping UI/service files; covered by the existing test suites for those files plus CI. - Overlaps thematically with draft PR #8229 — reviewers should reconcile rather than merge both blindly. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use (git, shell). Agentic coding workflow. ## 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) - [ ] 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-23 09:00:14 -05:00
Dotta	1ca3331c33	[codex] Fix mobile issue chat spacing (#8493 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue page is one of the main surfaces where operators read agent updates and manage task relationships. > - On narrow mobile viewports, agent chat bubbles kept the desktop `max-w-[85%]` cap, leaving the right side overly indented. > - The same issue sidebar can also become noisy when many blockers or sub-tasks are attached to a task. > - This pull request adjusts the mobile chat bubble width while preserving the existing desktop cap. > - It also limits long issue-relation previews until the operator expands them, then allows collapsing them again. > - The benefit is a denser, more readable mobile issue page without changing the underlying issue data model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this internal report. Bug report: - On mobile issue pages, agent chat bubbles are unnecessarily narrow because the desktop max-width applies at all breakpoints. - Long blocked-by and sub-task relation lists can dominate the issue properties area before the operator needs the full list. - Related prior work: #4861 improved issue-thread scale and markdown polish, but did not address this mobile bubble width regression. ## What Changed - Added a responsive agent-comment bubble width class so mobile bubbles use `max-w-[calc(100%-0.5rem)]` and desktop keeps `sm:max-w-[85%]`. - Added test coverage for the responsive agent bubble classes. - Added a five-item preview limit for blocked-by and sub-task relation pills in issue properties. - Added an inline `and N more...` / `show less` toggle for long blocked-by and sub-task relation lists. - Reset relation preview expansion when the `IssueProperties` panel receives a different `issue.id`. - Added component test coverage for collapsed, expanded, re-collapsed, and issue-switch reset states. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` (`27 passed`). - Attempted: `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx`. - Result: failed before reaching the changed assertion because the existing suite imports `act` from `react`, which resolves to a non-function in this local Vitest environment. - Scope: 50 render tests fail with `TypeError: act is not a function`; 8 non-render tests pass. - Attempted: `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` with the same `act is not a function` result. - Passed: Greptile rerun reported Confidence Score 5/5 on commit `e0f9c40b7faedcfb877d4f4b0e9f2c77a6593c16`. - Passed: all latest-head PR checks/statuses are green, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, security review, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile. ## Risks Low risk: - The chat change only alters max-width classes on agent comment bubbles and preserves the desktop cap. - The relation-list change is presentational; hidden blockers and sub-tasks remain in memory and can expand/collapse in place. - Expansion state now resets when navigating between issues in a reused panel instance. - Main residual risk is visual polish on real mobile devices because local browser screenshot verification was not run in this heartbeat; screenshots were not added because the source task explicitly requested not adding screenshots/images unless specifically part of the work. > 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 tool use, shell execution, GitHub connector access, local Vitest verification, Greptile follow-up, and PR check monitoring. ## 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) - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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	2026-06-22 15:57:03 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7069053a1f	[codex] Add ask issue work mode (#8334 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation composer frames the operator's intent. > - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without immediately implying execution or plan drafting. > - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like normal task execution. > - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI. > - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning flows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request follows the repository feature request template. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`. ### Problem or motivation Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather than an answer. ### Proposed solution Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling, and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly instead of executing or drafting a plan. ### Alternatives considered - Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI. - Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question. - Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be reliable. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate planned core work was found. ### Additional context Related public searches performed before opening this PR: - GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` No duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation coverage. - Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can see standard, planning, and ask state. - Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI. - Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and affected UI work-mode flows. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests. Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states: https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8 It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment metadata. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared, server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work modes may need to handle `ask`. > 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 coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context window and exact hosted model snapshot are not exposed in 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`, `feat/...`) 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] 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>	2026-06-19 13:06:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	aeea5f9195	fix(ui): stabilize routine schedule editor and interrupted run labels (#8333 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work. > - This change touches the board UI surfaces for issue run timelines and routine schedule editing. > - Operators need cancelled runs to distinguish ordinary cancellation from human interruption, otherwise the run history reads as more severe than it is. > - Routine schedule editing also needs to preserve user-entered cron values while rendering common schedules in a stable, understandable editor. > - This pull request keeps the editor state tied to explicit schedule values, adds coverage for routine editable sections, and makes interrupted run copy more precise. > - The benefit is less surprising routine editing and clearer issue run history for operators. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue is filed for this exact branch. Related public PRs: - Refs #3581, which addresses a narrower schedule reset case. - Refs #1803, which is another open schedule editor UI improvement. Problem description: Routine trigger schedules can be edited through the board UI, but the previous schedule editor path could normalize or reset cron state in ways that made unsaved edits fragile. Issue run history also labeled operator-interrupted cancelled runs like ordinary cancellations. Reviewers should treat this PR as a combined UI stabilization pass for those two visible operator workflows. ## What Changed - Added a more stable routine schedule editor flow that preserves explicit cron values and handles custom/common schedule transitions. - Wired routine editable-section state so schedule drafts do not get overwritten by unrelated section refreshes. - Added tests for schedule editor behavior, routine editable sections, and routine service schedule preservation. - Updated issue run timeline copy so operator-interrupted cancelled runs display as interrupted, while ordinary cancelled runs remain cancelled. - Kept the classic issue thread run label behavior aligned with the current issue thread surface. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=development pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && NODE_ENV=development pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/ScheduleEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/routine-sections/editable-sections.test.tsx` — 103 tests passed. Note: direct `pnpm exec vitest ...` without `NODE_ENV=development` loaded a React build where `React.act` is undefined in this workspace. The same targeted tests pass under the development React build. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The changes are UI-focused but touch routine schedule editing, which is a high-frequency operator workflow. The main risk is that an uncommon cron expression could render as custom when a user expected a preset; the added tests cover preservation and explicit custom handling. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent. Exact hosted runtime model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. Tool use and local command execution were used for inspection, verification, GitHub PR creation, and Paperclip issue updates. ## 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] 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-19 13:01:17 -05:00
joegalbert-ai FMAI Agents Paperclip	6756ae8289	fix(ui): restore issue copy buttons on HTTP (#8212 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to run AI-agent companies, so board actions like copying task state need to work reliably on the live board UI. > - The affected surface is the issue detail and issue chat UI, where operators copy task descriptions and comment text during triage and handoff. > - On self-hosted HTTP deployments, the async Clipboard API can exist but fail, which breaks these copy buttons silently. > - The internal FMAI reproduction pointed specifically at task description copy and task comment copy in the issue view. > - There is already an overlapping upstream PR, [#6353](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/6353), but it is currently `CONFLICTING` and does not provide a mergeable path. > - This pull request adds a shared clipboard helper with a fallback path, wires the task-detail and task-thread copy actions through it, and locks the behavior in with targeted tests. > - The benefit is that copy buttons keep working on HTTP self-hosted boards without changing behavior for secure deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Fixes #3529 - Refs #6353 ## What Changed - Added `ui/src/lib/clipboard.ts` with a shared `copyTextToClipboard()` helper that tries the async Clipboard API first and falls back to `document.execCommand("copy")` when that path is blocked. - Updated `IssueDetail.tsx` so the task-level "Copy task as markdown" action uses the shared helper. - Updated both `IssueChatThread.tsx` and `IssueChatThreadClassic.tsx` so task comment copy actions, code-block copy actions, and system-notice copy actions use the shared helper. - Added focused regression coverage in `IssueDetail.test.tsx` and `IssueChatThread.test.tsx` for insecure-context fallback behavior. ## Verification - `corepack pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` - `corepack pnpm exec tsc -p ui/tsconfig.json --noEmit` - Manual reviewer check: - Run Paperclip over HTTP. - Open an issue detail page. - Use `Copy task as markdown` and a comment `Copy message` action. - Confirm both copy successfully instead of silently failing. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is scoped to clipboard helpers and the specific issue-detail / issue-thread copy actions. - The fallback relies on `document.execCommand("copy")`, which is legacy browser behavior, but it is only used when the modern clipboard path is unavailable or blocked. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Codex local adapter, tool-enabled coding workflow with terminal, git, and file-editing support. ## 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 - [ ] 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: FMAI Agents <joegalbert-ai@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-18 23:43:57 -07:00
scotttong Paperclip Claude Opus 4.8	6f9801a46b	feat(ui): NUX rework behind enableConferenceRoomChat experimental flag — capsule onboarding, conference-room chat, unified composer (#8000 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The first-run experience (onboarding wizard) and the chat surfaces (conference-room/board chat, task threads, composers) are the product's front door — they decide whether a new operator understands "hire agents, give them work, review results" in the first five minutes > - Today those surfaces feel ticket-y and form-like: the wizard is a static multi-step form that ends in an anticlimactic "Launch" screen, the task composer and board chat behave differently from each other, and agent-feed issue quicklooks misbehave (multiple flyouts open at once, cards jump on hover) > - We wanted to iterate toward a conversational, team-centric NUX — but without risking the workflows of everyone already running Paperclip > - This PR reworks the NUX behind a new default-OFF `enableConferenceRoomChat` experimental flag: a capsule-motif onboarding wizard that builds your team as you answer, a conference-room chat surface, one shared ChatComposer across surfaces, brand-accurate status chips, and feed-quicklook fixes — with the pre-existing UI fork-and-frozen as `Classic` components that flag-OFF users keep > - The benefit is a complete, testable modern NUX that anyone can opt into from Settings → Experimental, with zero default behavior change and a clean path to either graduate or drop the experiment ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No pre-existing GitHub issue — feature description per `feature_request.yml`: - Problem / motivation:* Paperclip's onboarding wizard and chat surfaces grew up as separate ticket-centric forms. New users get a form-filling experience rather than the feeling of standing up a team; the board chat and task threads use different composers with different affordances; the agent feed's issue quicklook can stack multiple popovers and shifts cards on hover. - Proposed solution: A coherent NUX experiment behind one experimental flag (`enableConferenceRoomChat`, Settings → Experimental, default OFF): capsule onboarding wizard with an evolving team capsule, conference-room chat, unified `ChatComposer`, team-centric copy, brand status chips, quicklook single-flight fix. Flag-OFF users get the exact pre-experiment UI via frozen `Classic` forks, verified by an on/off parity test matrix. - Alternatives considered:* (a) incremental unflagged restyling — rejected: the changes interlock across surfaces and would drip risk into every release; (b) a separate app shell / route for the new NUX — rejected: too much divergence, the flag + classic-fork pattern keeps the diff reviewable and reversible. - Roadmap alignment: `ROADMAP.md` lists CEO Chat ("a lighter-weight way to talk to leadership agents... should still resolve to real work objects"). This experiment is groundwork in that direction (conference-room chat resolves to issues/tasks via the same composer used in task threads) and does not change the core task-and-comments model. Related PRs found in the dedup search (same area, none duplicate this work — they target the classic wizard, which this PR intentionally leaves intact and mergeable): - #5385 — Coach-driven onboarding: conversational entry + agent-companies package import - #5378 — Onboarding wizard: reusable adapter picker + probe card - #6636 — ui(onboarding): friendly error surface + retry for the wizard - #7005 — fix(onboarding): explicitly await first-task wake - #2616 — fix: restore workspace directory config in onboarding wizard ## What Changed - Experimental flag plumbing — `enableConferenceRoomChat` in shared types/validators, server instance-settings service + API, Settings → Experimental card with explicit enable/disable copy - Onboarding wizard — classic wizard forked and frozen (`OnboardingWizardClassic`); flag-ON variant is a 5-step capsule wizard with a persistent evolving `AgentCapsule` (gradient/glow motif), team-centric reframed copy, and a typing-dots intro (hardened with fake-timer tests) - Conference-room chat — flag-ON board-chat surface with agent bubble name/icon headers and copy/vote/timestamp action rows (`AgentBubbleActionRow`) - Unified composer — shared `ChatComposer` adopted across surfaces; translucent surface + scroll-mask removal; "Agent mode"/"Plan mode" relabels; no-assignee confirmation `AlertDialog` (new `ui/alert-dialog.tsx` primitive); `@task` reference picker + linkification in mentions - Agent feed — single-flight issue-quicklook store (one popover at a time), flyouts open to the left, removed hover translate-y jitter - Status chips — brand-accurate task status chips behind the flag (light/dark, 1px borders per paperclip.ing/brand) - Tests — flag on/off parity matrix across IssueDetail, NewIssueDialog, Sidebar, wizard, gate components; component tests for all new pieces - Merge with `master` — one conflict in `ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`, resolved by keeping master's new `AssigneeChip`/`HandoffWakeRow`/`RunStatusBadge` components inside the flag-gated metadata-row chrome (details in commit `21a5642a`); post-merge fixes: vitest 4 mock typing in `MarkdownEditor.test.tsx`, flag hook made safe for provider-less mounts (master's new isolated component tests) - Branch hygiene — internal design wireframes/mockups stripped before the PR (they live in the Paperclip issue threads) - No user-facing documentation changes required: the flag is intentionally experimental and self-described in the Settings card; no existing docs reference the affected surfaces ## Verification - `pnpm run typecheck` — green across the workspace (ui, server, shared, plugins) - Full UI suite (`vitest run` in `ui/`, clean worktree at this HEAD): 1593/1595 passing, 223/224 files — the 2 remaining failures are in `src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx` and fail identically on pristine `origin/master` (pre-existing upstream, unrelated to this branch) - Full server suite (`vitest run` in `server/`, same clean worktree): results in PR checks; flag plumbing covered by instance-settings tests - Targeted post-merge resolution check: `IssueChatThread`, `IssueChatThreadSystemNotice`, `IssueDetail`, `Sidebar`, `ConferenceRoomChatGate`, `OnboardingWizardVariant`, `NewIssueDialog`, `InstanceExperimentalSettings`, `MarkdownEditor` — 172/172 passing - Manual walkthrough: flag OFF (default) → onboarding wizard, task thread, board chat, composer all render the classic UI; flag ON via Settings → Experimental → capsule wizard, conference-room chat, unified composer, status chips active - Screenshots: see below Flag on/off screenshots (committed on this branch under `screenshots/PR-8000-`): \| Surface \| Flag OFF (classic, default) \| Flag ON (experimental) \| \| --- \| --- \| --- \| \| Settings → Experimental \| ![settings off](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/9b4f02708383031d3124b68ca3ed9ab437ea3501/screenshots/PR-8000-settings-experimental-flag-off.png) \| ![settings on](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/9b4f02708383031d3124b68ca3ed9ab437ea3501/screenshots/PR-8000-settings-experimental-flag-on.png) \| \| Task thread \| ![thread off](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/9b4f02708383031d3124b68ca3ed9ab437ea3501/screenshots/PR-8000-task-thread-flag-off.png) \| ![thread on](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/9b4f02708383031d3124b68ca3ed9ab437ea3501/screenshots/PR-8000-task-thread-flag-on.png) \| \| Home / nav \| ![home off](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/9b4f02708383031d3124b68ca3ed9ab437ea3501/screenshots/PR-8000-home-flag-off.png) \| ![home on](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/9b4f02708383031d3124b68ca3ed9ab437ea3501/screenshots/PR-8000-home-flag-on.png) \| \| Conference Room (flag-ON only surface) \| — \| ![conference room](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/9b4f02708383031d3124b68ca3ed9ab437ea3501/screenshots/PR-8000-conference-room-flag-on.png) \| Capsule onboarding wizard walkthrough screenshots (flag ON) are attached to the Paperclip design/implementation threads; the wizard requires a fresh instance so it is captured via the e2e harness (`tests/e2e/nux-phase4-screenshots.spec.ts`). ## Risks - Large surface, but gated:* all new behavior sits behind `enableConferenceRoomChat`, default OFF; flag-OFF rendering is locked by frozen `Classic` forks plus an on/off parity test suite - Classic forks are frozen at the fork point (`e3aada1d`):* master features added to the live thread component after that point (assignee handoff chips, run status badge, composer mention coach) render in the flag-ON path; the flag-OFF task thread keeps the fork-point behavior until the experiment graduates (forks deleted) or is dropped (forks restored as canonical). Called out for reviewer attention. - Merge-conflict resolution in `IssueChatThread.tsx` (commit `21a5642a`) deserves reviewer eyes: master's new handoff/run-status components were kept; the base toast-style no-assignee flow remains replaced by the AlertDialog flow introduced on this branch - Schema/server changes are additive (one optional boolean instance setting); no migrations of existing data ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) via Claude Code running in the Paperclip agent harness (agent: ClaudeCoder) - Branch implemented across multiple agent sessions on Claude Opus-class models with extended thinking + tool use (file edits, shell, Playwright screenshots); merge/PR session model ID as reported by the harness: `claude-fable-5` (Claude Code CLI) - All code was agent-authored and board-reviewed through Paperclip issue threads (plans, wireframes, confirmations) before merging ## 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 - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (none required — experimental flag, self-documenting Settings card; noted above) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (run 3 on `8af3041a`: all 16 gates SUCCESS, incl. e2e and all 4 serialized-suite shards) - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (re-review verdict: Confidence 5/5, “Safe to merge”; all 4 round-1 findings fixed + confirmed resolved; both summary notes addressed in `8af3041a`) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-06-11 16:32:55 -05:00
Dotta scotttong Claude Opus 4.8 Paperclip	2e74d32871	PAP-10430: split Issue-to-Task copy migration (#7651 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI is the operator surface where users create, assign, monitor, and review work items. > - The product language is moving toward "tasks" for user-facing work items while the internal API and database still use "issues". > - PR #7543 bundled this copy migration with broader information-architecture work, which made the branch too large for Greptile review. > - This pull request peels the Issue-to-Task copy migration into a smaller, independently reviewable change. > - The benefit is clearer user-facing terminology, less agent confusion via the Paperclip skill note, and a smaller PR that Greptile can review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7645 Refs #7543 Refs PAP-10430 This PR was split out of #7543 so the Issue-to-Task copy migration can be reviewed separately and the remaining IA PR can fall under Greptile's file limit. ## What Changed - Preserves Scott Tong's original `PAP-57` copy-only commit, with author and co-author credit intact, to rename user-facing "Issues" copy to "Tasks" across the UI while keeping routes/API/internal symbols as `issue`. - Updates onboarding and release-smoke browser selectors from `Create & Open Issue` to `Create & Open Task`. - Adds a terminology note to `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md` clarifying that task and issue refer to the same Paperclip work item. - Resolves the only cherry-pick conflict by keeping current search artifacts support and changing visible search copy to "tasks". ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` passed: 4 files, 66 tests. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - Diff is 80 files, below Greptile's 100-file limit. - Before/after UI copy examples: "Issues" -> "Tasks", "New Issue" -> "New Task", "Create & Open Issue" -> "Create & Open Task". ## Risks - Medium copy-risk: this intentionally changes user-facing terminology broadly while keeping internal issue identifiers and routes unchanged. - Some docs and APIs still say `issue`; the skill note clarifies this so agents do not treat task and issue as separate entities. - Browser-level visual validation is expected from CI because this local container is missing usable browser dependencies. > 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 Scott Tong authored the original `PAP-57` copy migration, assisted by Claude Opus 4.8 and Paperclip agents per the preserved commit metadata. Codex / GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access performed the PR split, conflict resolution, skill note, and verification. ## 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 - [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] 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: scotttong <scott.tong@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-06 10:10:01 -05:00
Dotta	3657854e5e	Merge pull request #7554 from paperclipai/codex/pap-10343-comment-redaction [codex] Redact deleted issue comments	2026-06-05 05:32:08 -10:00
DottaandPaperclip	1afa337841	Address Greptile deleted-comment feedback Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-05 03:43:12 +00:00
Dotta	4afe5ab7cb	Add other answers to issue questions	2026-06-05 03:28:07 +00:00
Dotta	d87b14ff4f	test comment deletion cleanup regressions	2026-06-05 03:20:46 +00:00
Dotta	17fa6fe0fe	Add deleted comment regression coverage	2026-06-05 03:20:46 +00:00
Dotta	7f70759e61	Redact deleted issue comments	2026-06-05 03:20:46 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	012a738729	Add ordered sub-issue navigation (#5938 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped issues, comments, and execution context. > - The issue detail page is the board surface where operators and agents inspect a task in its parent/child workflow. > - Ordered sub-issues need a low-friction way to move through work without returning to the parent list after every issue. > - Existing issue detail navigation only covered sibling transitions and did not continue into a parent issue's first ordered child. > - This pull request adds ordered previous/next navigation for issue detail views and extends it to continue from a parent or last sibling into the first direct child. > - The benefit is a smoother review/execution path through hierarchical work while preserving hidden issue filtering and dependency-aware ordering. ## What Changed - Added `IssueSiblingNavigation` and route-state handling so issue detail footers can link to previous/next ordered issues. - Extended sub-issue ordering helpers to build navigation from siblings plus direct children, including root-parent and last-sibling-to-first-child cases. - Added page, component, and library tests for ordered sibling navigation, child fallback navigation, hidden issues, and link rendering. - Fixed the quicklook blur/click race Greptile found by deferring close until after portaled link clicks can complete, with a regression test. - Polished the navigation landmark label so it remains accurate when the next target is a direct child rather than a sibling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueLinkQuicklook.test.tsx src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts src/components/IssueSiblingNavigation.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx --config vitest.config.ts` from `ui/` - 31 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `git diff --check` - passed. - GitHub PR checks on latest head `34046be2` - passed: Greptile Review, verify, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and serialized server shards. - Screenshots: not captured in this heartbeat; this PR is a draft and the changed states are covered by focused component/page tests. ## Risks - Low risk; this is a UI navigation addition with no database or API contract changes. - The main behavioral risk is navigation ordering drift if `workflowSort` expectations change later. - The IssueDetail navigation now waits for child issue loading, which avoids stale child fallback links but can delay footer navigation briefly while data loads. > 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 coding agent with repository tool use and shell 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 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-13 15:43:51 -05:00
Devin Foley	0e1a582831	Revert "Add experimental newest-first issue thread" (#5460 ) This is actually bad. Glad it was under experiments.	2026-05-07 16:50:31 -07:00
Devin Foley	a904effb96	Add experimental newest-first issue thread (#5455 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so issue threads are a core operator surface for reviewing work. > - The issue detail page is the place where humans read agent messages, user comments, and execution context together. > - That thread originally rendered oldest-first, which made recent activity harder to see during active review. > - Reversing the thread order changes navigation expectations, timestamp placement, and the "Jump to latest" affordance, so the UI behavior needed to move as a coherent set. > - Because this is a visible core-product behavior shift, it also needed a safe rollout path instead of becoming the default immediately. > - This pull request adds the newest-first issue thread behavior behind an Experimental setting, updates the thread UI to match that mode, and keeps the legacy oldest-first experience unchanged by default. > - The benefit is that reviewers can opt into a more recent-first issue workflow without forcing a global behavior change on every Paperclip instance. ## What Changed - Reversed issue thread rendering so the newest comments and messages appear first when the experiment is enabled. - Moved the plain comment timestamp into the card header in newest-first mode and kept the legacy timestamp placement for oldest-first mode. - Moved the `Jump to latest` control to the bottom of the thread in newest-first mode while leaving the existing top placement for the legacy mode. - Added the `Enable Newest-First Issue Thread` experimental instance setting and wired issue detail to read that toggle. - Added regression coverage for thread order, timestamp placement, jump-button placement, and the issue-detail experiment toggle behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Focused checks that also passed during issue review: - `pnpm vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` in `ui/` - `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` in `server/` - Manual review path: - Enable `Instance Settings > Experimental > Enable Newest-First Issue Thread` - Open an issue with comments/messages and confirm newest activity renders first, timestamps move into the header, and `Jump to latest` sits below the thread - Disable the experiment and confirm the legacy oldest-first behavior returns ## Risks - Low risk: the behavioral change is gated behind an instance-level experimental toggle and defaults off. - The main regression risk is thread navigation drift between the two modes, especially around anchor scrolling and the `Jump to latest` affordance. - There is some UI coupling between issue-detail query state and experimental settings fetches, so future changes in that area should keep both modes covered. - Screenshots are not attached in this PR body; verification is described with automated coverage and manual steps instead. > I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This is a scoped issue-thread UX improvement and rollout gate, not a duplicate of a roadmap-level planned core feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via the local `codex_local` Paperclip adapter, GPT-5-based coding agent with terminal tool use and local code execution in this repository worktree. ## 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 - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] 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	2026-05-07 16:45:12 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	a1b30c9f35	Add planning mode for issue work (#5353 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail: ![Desktop planning detail](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/desktop-planning-detail.png) Desktop planning row: ![Desktop planning row](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/desktop-planning-row.png) Desktop staged standard toggle: ![Desktop staged standard toggle](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/desktop-standard-toggle.png) Mobile planning detail: ![Mobile planning detail](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/mobile-planning-detail.png) Mobile planning row: ![Mobile planning row](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/mobile-planning-row.png) ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle behavior. > 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 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 07:01:28 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	454edfe81e	Add recovery handoff system notices (#5289 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Agent runs can end productively while the source issue still lacks a durable final disposition. > - That leaves the control plane unsure whether to resume, escalate, or close the work. > - Issue comments also need a presentation contract so system-authored recovery notices can render as first-class thread messages without overloading normal comments. > - This pull request adds successful-run handoff recovery, comment presentation metadata, and system notice rendering. > - The benefit is stricter task liveness with clearer operator-facing recovery state. ## What Changed - Added successful-run handoff decisions, wake payloads, escalation behavior, and recovery tests. - Added issue comment presentation metadata with migration `0078_white_darwin.sql` and shared/server/company portability support. - Rendered recovery/system notices in issue chat with dedicated UI components, fixtures, tests, and storybook/lab coverage. - Included the current recovery model-profile hint patch so automatic recovery follow-ups use the cheap profile. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts ui/src/components/SystemNotice.test.tsx ui/src/lib/system-notice-comment.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` ## Risks - Migration-bearing PR: merge this before any other branch that might later add a migration. - The branch touches both recovery services and issue-thread rendering, so review should pay attention to recovery wake idempotency and comment metadata compatibility. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 06:05:58 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	fe401b7fa9	[codex] Polish inbox nested issue UI (#4959 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue lists and issue-thread interactions > - The inbox must preserve nested issue visibility and keyboard navigation as work decomposes into deeper sub-issues > - Some UI polish issues made nested rows harder to scan and pending question cancellation less covered > - The issue list also had a small test indentation regression around load-more behavior > - This pull request tightens nested inbox rendering and related issue-thread/list polish > - The benefit is a more reliable operator inbox for multi-level work trees ## What Changed - Included nested grandchild issues in inbox keyboard navigation and recursive row rendering. - Sort parent rows by descendant activity so active subtrees remain visible. - Removed extra inbox card background styling in favor of the page surface. - Added regression coverage for pending question cancellation. - Cleaned up the issue-list load-more test indentation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx` - Screenshots were not captured in this PR split; the visible flow is covered by focused component/helper tests and should get browser QA in the follow-up issue. ## Risks - Medium risk: nested inbox rendering and keyboard navigation are user-visible. The changes are localized to inbox grouping/rendering helpers and covered by targeted tests. > 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 coding agent, tool use and local command execution. Exact context window was not exposed in 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 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] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-01 11:58:53 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	87f19cd9a6	Improve issue thread scale and markdown polish (#4861 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip's board UI is the operator surface for supervising AI-agent companies. > - Issue threads are where operators read progress, respond to agents, inspect markdown, and jump through long histories. > - Large threads and rich markdown had become difficult to navigate and expensive to render. > - The previous rollup mixed these UI scale fixes with unrelated backend recovery, costs, backups, and settings changes. > - This pull request isolates the issue-thread scale and markdown polish work. > - The benefit is a reviewable UI slice that can merge independently of the backend reliability, database backup, workflow, and board QoL PRs. ## What Changed - Virtualized long issue chat threads and stabilized anchor/jump-to-latest behavior for large histories. - Added incremental issue-list row loading and tests for scroll-triggered pagination behavior. - Hardened markdown body rendering and markdown editor behavior around HTML tags, image drops, code-copy UI, and escaped newline handling. - Added a long-thread measurement harness at `scripts/measure-issue-chat-long-thread.mjs` plus `perf:issue-chat-long-thread`. - Added focused UI/lib regression coverage for thread rendering, markdown, optimistic comments, and message building. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/lib/optimistic-issue-comments.test.ts` - Result: 6 test files passed, 170 tests passed. - UI screenshots not included because this PR is covered by targeted component tests and does not introduce a new page layout. ## Risks - Virtualization changes can affect scroll anchoring in edge cases on very long threads. - Markdown/editor hardening changes are intentionally defensive, but malformed content may render differently than before. > 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-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium reasoning effort. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-30 13:18:01 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	6b7f6ce4b8	[codex] Split PR #4692 UI/QoL updates (#4701 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a company-scoped control plane. > - The affected surface is the board UI for issue threads, issue lists, routines, dialogs, navigation, and issue review indicators. > - Closed PR #4692 bundled backend, schema, docs, workflow, and UI/QoL work into one oversized change set. > - Greptile could not keep reviewing that broad PR because it exceeded the 100-file review limit and mixed unrelated concerns. > - This pull request extracts the UI/QoL slice into a fresh branch under the review limit while leaving workflow and lockfile churn out. > - The benefit is a focused review path for the board UI performance and workflow improvements without reopening the oversized PR. ## What Changed - Added long issue-thread virtualization, scroll-container binding, anchor preservation, latest-comment jump targeting, and related regression/perf fixtures. - Improved issue list scalability with scroll-based loading, server offset parameters, and pagination-focused UI tests. - Reduced new issue dialog typing churn and split dialog action subscriptions so broad layout/nav surfaces avoid unnecessary renders. - Added routine variables help and routine description mention options for users, agents, and projects. - Added productivity review badge/link UI and fixed the badge to use Paperclip's company-prefixed router link. - Kept the split PR below Greptile's review limit and excluded `.github/workflows/pr.yml` and `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --no-frozen-lockfile` in the clean worktree to install `@tanstack/react-virtual` locally without committing lockfile churn. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx src/pages/Routines.test.tsx src/pages/Issues.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 83 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed. - Split-scope checks: 53 changed files; no `.github/workflows/pr.yml`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Screenshots were not captured in this heartbeat; the changes are primarily virtualization, routing, pagination, and editor behavior covered by focused regression tests. ## Risks - Moderate UI risk because issue-thread virtualization changes scroll behavior on long conversations; regression tests cover anchor jumps, latest-comment targeting, row metadata, and short-thread fallback. - Moderate integration risk because the issue-list offset parameter and productivity review field depend on matching API behavior. - Dependency risk: the UI package adds `@tanstack/react-virtual` while repository policy keeps `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of PRs, so CI must resolve dependency changes through the repo's normal lockfile policy. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled local repository and GitHub workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness. ## 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-28 17:18:58 -05:00
Dotta	5a0c1979cf	[codex] Add runtime lifecycle recovery and live issue visibility (#4419 )	2026-04-24 15:50:32 -05:00
Dotta Claude Opus 4.7 Paperclip	77a72e28c2	[codex] Polish issue composer and long document display (#4420 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Issue comments and documents are the main working surface where operators and agents collaborate > - File drops, markdown editing, and long issue descriptions need to feel predictable because they sit directly in the task execution loop > - The composer had edge cases around drag targets, attachment feedback, image drops, and long markdown content crowding the page > - This pull request polishes the issue composer, hardens markdown editor regressions, and adds a fold curtain for long issue descriptions/documents > - The benefit is a calmer issue detail surface that handles uploads and long work products without hiding state or breaking layout ## What Changed - Scoped issue-composer drag/drop behavior so the composer owns file drops without turning the whole thread into a competing drop target. - Added clearer attachment upload feedback for non-image files and image-drop stability coverage. - Hardened markdown editor and markdown body handling around HTML-like tag regressions. - Added `FoldCurtain` and wired it into issue descriptions and issue documents so long markdown previews can expand/collapse. - Added Storybook coverage for the fold curtain state. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx --config ui/vitest.config.ts` passed: 3 files, 75 tests. - `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-editor-composer-polish -- . ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed. - Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: this changes user-facing composer/drop behavior and long markdown display. - The fold curtain uses DOM measurement and `ResizeObserver`; reviewers should check browser behavior for very long descriptions and documents. - No database migrations. > 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 shell, git, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI tool use in the local Paperclip workspace. ## 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 Note: screenshots were not newly captured during branch splitting; the UI states are covered by component tests and a Storybook story. --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-24 14:12:41 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7ad225a198	[codex] Improve issue thread review flow (#4381 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and follow-up work with active runs > - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent work > - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and navigation clunkier than necessary > - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice > - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the broader task model ## What Changed - restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue thread - folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit thread scrolling behavior - surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee notices on the issue detail view - tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList` - added loose review-request handoffs through the issue execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes\|wakes the return assignee with execution_changes_requested"` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` ## Visual Evidence - UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should use the running preview for final visual confirmation. ## Risks - Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff behavior > 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-based coding agent with tool use and code execution in the Codex CLI 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 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 or documented the visual verification path - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-24 08:02:45 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f98c348e2b	[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping descendant execution and wake behavior coherent. > - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts, server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc. > - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments` migration. > - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto `paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind. > - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to `0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single PR. > - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration conflicts. ## What Changed - Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree pause, cancel, and restore operations. - Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue detail subtree controls. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to `0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream `0065_environments`. - Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200 OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201 Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts` - `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` ## Risks - This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases. - The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream `0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final `0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that lands. - The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could have assumed. > 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 in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not exposed inside 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 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00

1 2