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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
b315580640 |
feat: add private task creation and sharing controls (#14718)
Add private task creation and sharing controls, effective access explanations, private project management, and locked task references. Constrain the mobile composer plus menu to the viewport and explain named inherited privacy on hover, focus, or tap. Include 125 production-component Storybook stories and thirteen interactive user journeys. Final head passes all CI checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 with no findings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
96bf004a79 |
fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. **What happened?** Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. **Expected behavior** Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open **Design previews / Recovery notice** to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show **Agent needs attention**, a plain-language explanation, **Retry agent**, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## 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> |
||
|
scotttong
|
b1f4910ee5 | feat(ui): refine streamlined workspace surfaces (#12747) | ||
|
Michael NguyenandClaude Fable 5
|
773a9dade6 |
fix: preserve plugin detail-tab deep links and bridge the real JSX runtime (#11826)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Plugins can contribute detail tabs to project pages, and plugin UI
bundles render through a host-provided React bridge
> - A cold load of a plugin-tab deep link redirected to the Issues tab,
because the plugin-slots query is disabled until the project's company
resolves and a disabled query reports `isLoading: false`
> - The redirect made shareable plugin-tab URLs and browser
reload/back/forward unreliable for every detail-tab plugin
> - Separately, the bridge shim rebuilt `jsx`/`jsxs` on top of
`createElement(type, { children })`, which drops React's static-children
marking and floods the dev console with "unique key" warnings from
plugin components
> - This pull request holds the tab decision on a skeleton until
contributions actually load, and exposes the host's real
`react/jsx-runtime` on the plugin bridge with the old shim as fallback
> - The benefit is that plugin detail tabs survive direct open, reload,
back, and forward, and plugin surfaces stop emitting spurious React key
warnings
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
Opening a project URL with `?tab=plugin:<publisher>.<plugin>:<tab>`
directly, or reloading while on such a tab, redirected to the project's
Issues tab even though the plugin contribution was registered and
available. The dev console also showed "each child in a list should have
a unique key" warnings pointing at plugin-rendered components.
**Expected behavior**
Direct open, reload, back, and forward keep the requested plugin tab
when its contribution is available. When the contribution truly does not
exist, the page still falls back safely to the Issues tab. Plugin
components with static multi-child JSX render without React key
warnings.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Install a plugin that contributes a project detail tab.
2. Open the tab, copy the URL, and open it in a new browser tab (or
press reload).
3. Observe the redirect to `/projects/<ref>/issues` before the
plugin-slots query has ever run.
4. With React in development mode, open any plugin tab that renders
sibling elements and observe key warnings in the console.
**Version or commit**
Reproduced on `master` at `733ffbf7c`.
**Deployment mode**
Local development instance (managed runtime).
## What Changed
- `ui/src/pages/ProjectDetail.tsx`: the plugin-tab fallback now waits
until the company is resolved and the plugin-slots query has finished
before it decides. While the decision is pending it renders the detail
`PageSkeleton` instead of navigating away. Loading a project that fails
to load still shows the error state.
- `ui/src/plugins/bridge-init.ts`: the plugin bridge registry now
exposes the host's real `react/jsx-runtime` module as `reactJsxRuntime`.
- `ui/src/plugins/slots.tsx`: the `react/jsx-runtime` shim served to
plugin bundles prefers the bridged runtime's `jsx`/`jsxs`/`Fragment` and
keeps the previous `createElement`-based implementation as a fallback.
- `ui/src/pages/ProjectDetail.test.tsx`: new tests for cold deep links —
pending slots query, disabled query before company resolution,
registered tab render, and fallback when the tab is not contributed.
- `ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts`: new tests that the bridge exposes the
real runtime and that unkeyed static children render through it without
key warnings.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run src/pages/ProjectDetail.test.tsx
src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` in `ui/` — 2 files, 18 tests, all pass.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean.
- Manual: open a project with a plugin detail tab, switch to the tab,
reload the browser, use back/forward, and open the URL in a fresh tab.
The tab persists. Remove the plugin and open the same URL. The page
falls back to the Issues tab.
## Risks
- Low risk. The fallback redirect still happens whenever contributions
finish loading without the requested tab; the change only defers it
until the answer is known, so an unavailable contribution cannot get
stuck on the skeleton.
- The jsx-runtime shim keeps the old `createElement` path as a fallback
when the bridged runtime is absent, so older bridge registries keep
working.
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-fable-5`, extended thinking enabled,
agentic tool use (file edits, shell, test execution) 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 similar PRs and linked
related PRs above where they exist
- [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
— *the branch predates this rule; squash-merge keeps the branch name off
`master`*
- [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
(code-level docs; no user-facing docs affected)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green — *pending first CI run on this
PR*
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups —
*pending first review*
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
|
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> |
||
|
|
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
|
9aea3e3d35 |
[codex] Add resource membership controls (#6677)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped issues, projects, agents, and board-visible workflows. > - The board sidebar and project list are the daily navigation surface for that control plane. > - Users need to keep all projects and agents accessible while hiding resources they have intentionally left from their own sidebar. > - That requires user-scoped resource membership state backed by company-scoped API and database contracts. > - The branch also needed to preserve HTTP worktree login sessions and keep the project list easier to scan after membership grouping. > - This pull request adds resource membership controls, sidebar leave actions, grouped/sortable project listings, and focused tests. > - The benefit is a cleaner personal workspace view without weakening company-scoped access to the underlying project or agent detail pages. ## What Changed - Added `project_memberships` and `agent_memberships` tables with API/shared/server contracts for current-user join/leave state. - Renumbered the membership migration to `0090_resource_memberships` after rebasing onto current `master`, and made it idempotent for anyone who had applied the old branch-local `0087` migration. - Added project and agent sidebar leave actions, plus list filtering that waits for membership state before hiding resources. - Added grouped project listing, project sorting controls, and reserved row subtitle height for cleaner scanning. - Fixed HTTP auth cookie security handling so HTTP worktree sessions can persist. - Updated focused server and UI tests for the new membership, sidebar, project list, and auth behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts server/src/__tests__/resource-memberships-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx ui/src/components/MembershipAction.test.tsx ui/src/components/EntityRow.test.tsx` - Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Migration safety: low to medium. The migration now uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / guarded constraints and is numbered after current master migrations, but it should still get CI coverage against fresh databases. - UI behavior: low. Left resources are hidden from sidebar only after membership state loads; direct detail access remains available. - Auth behavior: low. Cookie security is relaxed only for HTTP/private local-style origins where secure cookies would prevent login persistence. > 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, tool-enabled shell/git workflow, context window not exposed by 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 Screenshot note: no browser screenshots were captured in this heartbeat; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3c73ed26b5 |
Expand plugin host surface (#5205)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The plugin system is the extension boundary for optional product capabilities > - Rich plugins need more than a worker entrypoint: they need scoped database storage, local project folders, managed agents/routines, host navigation, and reusable UI components > - The LLM Wiki work exposed those missing host surfaces while keeping plugin code outside the core control plane > - This pull request expands the core plugin host, SDK, server APIs, and UI bridge so plugins can declare and use those surfaces > - The benefit is that future plugins can integrate with Paperclip through documented, validated contracts instead of bespoke server or UI imports ## What Changed - Added plugin-managed database namespaces and migration tracking, including Drizzle schema/migration files and SQL validation for namespace isolation. - Added server support for plugin local folders, managed agents, managed routines, scoped plugin APIs, and plugin operation visibility. - Expanded shared plugin manifest/types/validators and SDK host/testing/UI exports for richer plugin surfaces. - Added reusable UI pieces for file trees, managed routines, resizable sidebars, route sidebars, and plugin bridge initialization. - Updated plugin docs and example plugins to use the expanded host and SDK surface. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts ui/src/api/plugins.test.ts ui/src/components/FileTree.test.tsx ui/src/components/ResizableSidebarPane.test.tsx ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` passed: 11 files, 67 tests. - Confirmed this PR changes 89 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. ## Risks - Medium: this expands plugin host contracts across db/shared/server/ui and includes a new core migration (`0076_useful_elektra.sql`). - The plugin database namespace validator is intentionally restrictive; plugin authors may need follow-up affordances for SQL patterns that remain blocked. - Merge this before the LLM Wiki plugin PR so the plugin can resolve the new SDK and host APIs. > 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 shell/git/GitHub workflow. Context window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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> |