mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-10 03:08:10 +02:00
codex/plugin-task-execution
8
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
94a0aa7726 |
fix(ui): hide workspace isolation controls for managed hosts (#13907)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Workspace isolation keeps task checkouts separate. > - Managed hosts can enable isolation and hide its experimental toggles. > - Project, task, and routine forms still expose choices that override that policy. > - This pull request adds an operator visibility key for those controls. > - Workspace access stays available, and execution keeps its existing policy. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Operator control over workspace isolation settings in the UI. This follows the settings list cleanup in #13905. **Current behavior** Hiding the experimental isolation toggles leaves project policy editors, task selectors, routine and pipeline overrides, recovery actions, and workspace configuration visible. **Proposed behavior** Set `PAPERCLIP_HIDDEN_SETTINGS=workspaces.isolation` to hide these controls. Keep workspace navigation, status, files, and runtime access. Hide experimental toggles separately. Instances that do not set this key keep their controls. **Reason and benefit** Users on managed hosts should use the host's isolation default. A hidden form must not submit a stale draft that overrides it. ## What Changed - Add the UI-only `workspaces.isolation` key to the shared visibility registry. - Hide project workspace policy, task and subtask selectors, routine and pipeline overrides, and isolated re-issue actions. - Hide the workspace Configuration tab and redirect direct links to workspace issues. - Omit hidden new-task and routine overrides. Keep explicit task/subtask workspace launch context, saved policies, and automatic branch values for workspace routine runs. - Wait for the health visibility policy before showing controls. Keep workspace access and all execution APIs available. - Document the key and test visibility, form payloads, deep links, and unchanged workspace access. ## Verification - All 52 CI checks pass on `50cc770d33` (two expected skips). The branch is mergeable. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Targeted UI checks passed: 346 tests across 14 suites, including hidden project/task controls, stale task drafts, routine branch defaults, recovery actions, configuration deep links, and workspace access. - Shared settings-visibility tests passed: 11 tests. - `pnpm test:run` was run and stopped after reproducing five failures in unchanged server tests: two `chat-channels.integration` cases (linked-request provenance and direct external-chat finals) and three `company-skills-service` cases (runtime refresh, concurrent download, and explicit update). The earlier local run for #13905 showed the same failures. The full local suite is not claimed green. Targeted UI/shared checks pass. All PR CI shards, including the affected chat and skills suites, pass. - Reviewed the diff for secrets, private links, and run artifacts. ## Risks This key changes UI visibility only. It does not reject API calls or change feature values. Operators must enable isolation and its default through their existing policy mechanism. Older app versions ignore the new key until upgraded. Removing the key restores the controls. No schema changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, repository tools, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked existing 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 tests locally; targeted checks pass (full-suite limitation documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ef84f363b7 |
fix(ui): remove execution workspace access card (#13406)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - Execution workspace pages show the tools and state for one isolated workspace. > - The workspace access card repeats runtime state that the page already shows. > - The card also adds open and repair actions that are not needed on this page. > - This pull request removes the complete workspace access card from execution workspace detail pages. > - The benefit is a smaller page that keeps attention on workspace controls and work results. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The execution workspace detail page shows a workspace access status card. **Current behavior** The page can show Ready, preparation, degraded, failed, or Workspace is not running states. The card can also show Open workspace and repair actions. **Proposed behavior** The page does not show the workspace access status card or its page-only actions. **Reason and benefit** The card adds status and controls that are not needed on this page. Its removal makes the isolated workspace page simpler. **Breaking changes** The workspace access card and its actions are no longer available from the execution workspace detail page. Workspace runtime controls remain available. ## What Changed - Removed the workspace access status card from execution workspace detail pages. - Removed the page-only login handoff and repair mutations that served the card. - Added a regression test for the removed card and text. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` passes with 8 tests. - `pnpm typecheck` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` found unrelated failures in `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` during the local broad run. The focused changed-area tests pass. - The complete GitHub Actions matrix passes on the latest run, including build, typecheck, server tests, runner verification, and e2e tests. ## Risks - Low risk. The change removes one UI card and the page-only code that supported it. - Users must use the remaining workspace runtime controls instead of this card. > This change is focused UI cleanup. It does not add a roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact context window is not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b58ce27a02 |
fix: isolate execution workspace summaries (#10790)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip gives operators a summary for each workspace. > - An execution workspace detail page used the parent project-workspace summary slot. > - Two execution workspaces under one project workspace could therefore show the same summary. > - This pull request gives each execution workspace its own summary scope. > - It also limits the summary snapshot and generated issue to that execution workspace. > - The benefit is that a new or parallel execution workspace cannot inherit unrelated status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An execution workspace detail page read and refreshed the summary slot for its parent project workspace. Parallel execution workspaces could show the same status and include issues from each other. **Expected behavior** Each execution workspace must have one isolated summary slot. Its generated snapshot must include only issues assigned to that execution workspace. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create two execution workspaces under one project workspace. 2. Add different issues to each execution workspace. 3. Generate the summary in the first execution workspace. 4. Open the second execution workspace. 5. Observe that the old implementation could reuse the first summary. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** The issue affects both local trusted and authenticated deployments. ## What Changed - Added `execution_workspace` to the shared summary-slot scope contract. - Validated execution-workspace ownership and stored generated summary issues on the correct execution workspace. - Limited execution-workspace snapshots to issues with the matching execution workspace ID. - Updated the execution workspace page to use its own summary slot. - Updated Summarizer instructions, routine options, catalog metadata, documentation, and regression tests. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` — 30 focused tests passed; the embedded-Postgres server tests were run outside the process-restricted sandbox. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog validate` — passed with 17 catalog skills. - [Latest-head GitHub Actions](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/31491475405) — all 22 jobs passed on `beea14cbaf`, including typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, e2e, canary, and aggregate verification. One unrelated adapter cleanup test initially hit an `ENOTEMPTY` temp-directory race; its single permitted rerun passed. - Greptile — 5/5 confidence on `beea14cbaf`, 12 files reviewed, zero comments added, and zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The new scope is additive. - Existing project and project-workspace summary slots keep their current keys and behavior. - A summary generated for an execution workspace now excludes sibling workspace issues by design. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The deployment does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window value. It used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub tooling. ## 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> |
||
|
|
1f1f545238 |
feat: add built-in summarizer and summary slots (#9713)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize, govern, and understand AI-agent work > - Operators need concise, current status views across projects and execution workspaces without manually reading every issue and run > - Paperclip already has auditable issues, documents, built-in agents, routines, and live run events, but no first-class summary-slot workflow connecting those systems > - A built-in Summarizer can generate status prose through ordinary governed tasks while summary slots provide stable, revisioned destinations for that output > - The UI needs to show current summaries, generation progress, failures, revisions, and streaming draft status in the places operators already work > - This pull request adds the end-to-end summary-slot data, API, agent, orchestration, and UI surfaces behind an experimental setting > - The benefit is decision-oriented status context that remains company-scoped, auditable, retryable, and inexpensive by default ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. **Problem** Operators currently have to reconstruct project and workspace status by reading many issues, runs, and comments. This makes it hard to identify decisions, review queues, recent work, and the next event worth watching. **Proposed capability** Add an experimental summary system with revisioned summary slots for projects and workspaces, a paused-by-default built-in Summarizer agent, governed generation tasks, live draft status, and reusable UI cards. **Expected behavior** - Summary data remains company-scoped and revisions remain auditable. - Generation runs through normal issue/agent orchestration and deduplicates active requests. - Only the linked built-in Summarizer generation task can author a slot revision. - Operators can generate, retry, inspect revisions, and follow draft progress from project and workspace views. - The feature remains opt-in and background generation remains paused by default. ## What Changed - Added summary-slot schema, idempotent migrations, shared contracts, validators, API paths, and service tests. - Added company-scoped summary-slot routes for reading revisions, requesting generation, and guarded Summarizer writes with activity logging. - Added terminal generation finalization, failure reasons, assignment wakeups, and orchestration integration. - Added the paused-by-default built-in Summarizer bundle, low-cost runtime defaults, status-summarization skill, and stale-summary routine. - Added summary cards, revision selection, retry/configuration states, live draft streaming, transcript chunk handling, and project/workspace integrations. - Updated Claude local parsing for streamed status output and expanded server, adapter, shared, database, catalog, and UI coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/summary-slots-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slot-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.status.test.tsx ui/src/components/useSummaryDraftStream.test.tsx ui/src/lib/summary-draft-stream.test.ts ui/src/lib/run-log-chunks.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.hook.test.tsx` — 113 tests passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI suites passed; one CLI AWS doctor test was affected by inherited `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, and passed when those host credentials were removed - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` with inherited AWS credential variables removed — 8 tests passed - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports nine `#9627` comment references introduced by current `master`; none are in this PR diff ## Risks - Database risk is limited by incrementally ordered, idempotent migrations and migration safety checks. - Summary generation creates normal issues/runs, so misconfiguration can produce failed slots; the UI exposes retryable failure reasons and agent configuration entry points. - Streaming draft parsing depends on the documented `STATUS:` protocol; final persisted revisions remain the source of truth. - The feature is experimental, opt-in, and its built-in routine is paused with no background token spend by default. > 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-5.3 Codex with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Earlier branch commits also record Claude model co-authorship where applicable. ## 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> |
||
|
|
5d42382df4 |
feat(ui): stabilize workspace service controls (#9705)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent work. > - Execution workspaces provide the local service loop where operators start, stop, restart, inspect, and open workspace services. > - The existing header exposed those actions through separate controls whose position and labeling changed across runtime states. > - That movement made the most common development actions harder to scan and easier to misclick, especially with multiple services or long URLs. > - The design therefore uses one fixed-geometry, state-aware control bar and keeps service-specific detail behind a compact disclosure. > - This pull request adds that control surface, maps existing runtime data and every pending mutation into it, and integrates it into the execution-workspace header without changing server contracts. > - The benefit is a calmer, predictable service-control loop across stopped, transitional, running, unhealthy, failed, multi-service, and narrow-width states. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected `ui/ — React + Vite board UI` ### Problem or motivation Execution-workspace service actions move and change shape as runtime state changes, while URLs and multi-service status compete for header space. During bulk actions, operators also need every targeted service to show its transitional state immediately. ### Proposed solution Use one fixed-geometry, state-aware service control bar in the workspace header. Map existing runtime records into a stable status, URL, and actions model, and track each in-flight bulk request independently until it settles. ### Alternatives considered Keeping the separate quick-control buttons was rejected because their geometry changes by state. Showing every service inline was rejected because it makes the header too wide; per-service detail remains in a compact disclosure and the Services tab. ### Roadmap alignment Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`; this focused execution-workspace UI improvement does not duplicate a listed roadmap initiative. ### Additional context The published design and state viewer is available at https://pages.paperclip.ing/pap-14233-workspace-service-controls/. ## What Changed - Added `WorkspaceServiceControlBar`, a fixed-geometry responsive control for single- and multi-service runtime states. - Added 15 Storybook states covering running, stopped, transitions, unhealthy, failed, disabled, long-URL, mobile, and multi-service behavior. - Replaced `WorkspaceRuntimeQuickControls` in the execution-workspace header with adapters that map live services and all pending requests into the new control model. - Added focused unit coverage for service-entry construction, bulk pending overlays, request resolution, clipboard feedback, and header integration. ## Verification - `cd ui && NODE_ENV=development pnpm vitest run src/components/WorkspaceServiceControlBar.test.tsx src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` — 29 tests passed. - `NODE_ENV=development pnpm --dir ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean. - Reviewed the Storybook captures for all primary states. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate UI risk: service controls depend on adapter mapping from existing runtime records; focused tests cover single-service and bulk-action mapping and integration paths. - Multi-service bulk actions intentionally apply to all eligible services, while per-service actions remain in the disclosure. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.3-codex`; runtime-managed context window; coding/reasoning mode with repository, terminal, Git, GitHub CLI, and test execution tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
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> |
||
|
|
eaef47f4c7 |
Information Architecture + project/agent visual refresh (experimental) (#7543)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI is the control surface for issues, projects, agents, goals, workspaces, and operator settings. > - The existing navigation and list surfaces make several high-frequency workflows feel harder to scan than they should, especially around projects and agents. > - The product direction is to improve those surfaces without breaking the existing route model or forcing a new IA on every operator at once. > - This pull request now keeps the dependent IA, project identity, and agent-list visual refresh work together while the Issue-to-Task copy migration is split into #7651. > - The benefit is a clearer left nav, better project identity, denser agent/project list rows, and brand-aligned status treatment while preserving the classic default experience behind a flag. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7645 Refs #7651 Internal planning/work references: PAP-53, PAP-56, PAP-58, PAP-59, PAP-60, PAP-61, PAP-68, PAP-69, PAP-70, PAP-71, PAP-72, PAP-75, PAP-76, PAP-80, PAP-85, PAP-86, PAP-87, PAP-88, PAP-89. ## What Changed - Adds `enableStreamlinedLeftNavigation`, defaulting off, and gates sidebar presentation so classic navigation remains the default. - Adds project icon persistence, validation, portability, picker UI, and `ProjectTile` rendering while defaulting new projects to neutral gray. - Adds projects-list task-count and budget summary data with focused server/shared/UI coverage. - Refreshes agent list rows, row actions, active/recent sidebar behavior, and status capsule/chip styling for the approved brand state system. - Removes the placeholder Conference room and Artifacts nav/routes from the finalized experimental nav direction. - Removes `pnpm-lock.yaml` and the Issue-to-Task copy migration from this PR diff; the copy migration now lives in #7651. ## Verification - Existing branch verification from the authored commits: UI typecheck, targeted unit tests, and light/dark visual checks for `/agents`, agent detail, and design-guide status states. - Maintainer cleanup verification on `75e34e5`: `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed, the `design/` diff is empty, and the PR diff is 61 files, below Greptile's 100-file review limit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx` passed: 1 file, 8 tests. - CI and Greptile should rerun on the latest push. ## Risks - Broad UI surface area: the experimental flag keeps the classic nav default, but changed shared components such as `EntityRow`, `ProjectTile`, and agent status badges could affect multiple pages. - Database migration: `projects.icon` is additive and nullable, but migration ordering and portability import/export must stay aligned. - The Issue-to-Task copy migration is now separated into #7651, so reviewers should evaluate this PR as IA/project/agent presentation work only. - Visual regressions are possible across smaller widths because the PR intentionally changes dense list-row layouts. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 assisted the original feature commits. Paperclip-Paperclip agents assisted some planning/design commits. Codex / GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access performed this PR-readiness cleanup and split. ## 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5071c4c776 |
[codex] Add workspace diff viewer plugin (#6071)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators need to inspect what agents changed inside execution and project workspaces. > - The existing workspace detail views did not provide a first-party rich diff surface for staged, unstaged, head, renamed, binary, oversized, and untracked changes. > - The plugin system is the intended extension point for optional rich UI surfaces. > - This pull request adds a workspace diff plugin plus host services and shared contracts so Changes tabs can render workspace diffs through plugin slots. > - The diff-renderer dependency should stay owned by the plugin package rather than the core UI app. > - The dependency surface must stay aligned with repository PR policy, including intentionally omitting `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the PR. > - The benefit is a more reviewable workspace surface without hard-coding the renderer into every page. ## What Changed - Added `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`, including diff normalization, plugin manifest/worker/UI entrypoints, and focused plugin tests. - Kept `@pierre/diffs` scoped to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`; removed the core UI lab diff-renderer surface and direct UI package dependency. - Added shared workspace diff types and validators, plus plugin SDK surface for workspace diff host services. - Added server workspace diff service support and route coverage for execution/project workspace diff flows. - Wired Execution Workspace and Project Workspace Changes tabs to load the diff plugin, including loading/error fallback behavior. - Added UI tests and fixtures for the Changes tabs and plugin bridge behavior. - Added the new plugin package manifest to the Docker deps stage so PR policy can validate dependency coverage. - Addressed review hardening around empty untracked patches, workspace path exposure, project workspace read capability checks, and default base refs. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff test` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/workspace-diff.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-diff-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/ProjectWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` - Browser screenshot captured from the local worktree dev server: https://files.catbox.moe/ofdpsp.png - Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master`, `.github/workflows/pr.yml` is not included in the PR diff, `ui/package.json` is not included in the PR diff, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium UI integration risk: the Changes tab depends on the plugin slot and host diff service path. - Medium dependency risk: this adds `@pierre/diffs` in the plugin package, but `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally omitted per packaging instructions because repository automation manages lockfile updates. - Current CI blocker: downstream frozen installs fail until the repository policy path for new plugin package dependencies is chosen. - Diff rendering edge cases are covered for common working-tree and head diff states, but very large repositories may still expose performance limits. - No migrations are included. > 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 model, tool-enabled local execution environment. Exact context window was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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> |
