mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-10 12:37:55 +01:00
03ef5469a1f4ba55024f7a408d4a441b980adb21
8
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
5c807d11fa |
fix(github): prevent duplicate review score headings (#18321)
Clarify the shared GitHub review submission contract for new and existing bots. Remove copied score headings while preserving the structured score and saved assessment. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
7703220d38 |
perf(github): narrow response authority reads (#17686)
Read current GitHub response identity and policy fields without transferring saved message bodies, instructions, or automatic policy wrappers. Preserve company predicates, shared locks, publication leases, malformed input handling, and stored content. Verify workspace typecheck, server build, 414 selected GitHub tests, three focused browser cases, all 55 checks, and Apex 5/5. Preserve the original browser cleanup deadlock failure; always restore experiment settings while reporting cancellation errors. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4173059081 |
fix(inbox): keep advisory GitHub review waits quiet (#17318)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Mine shows a person's participation and requests that need their response. > - Automatic GitHub reviews should remain quiet until the assigned work needs human input. > - Review bots used completion requests to keep tasks in review while CI or a PR was still open. > - Those requests correctly entered Mine, despite the automatic-work filter from #16356. > - This pull request gives published reviews an existing provider-event wait in the in-review state and withdraws superseded completion requests. > - Real input requests and separate approval gates keep their current behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16356 Refs #13314 An advisory score below 5/5, pending or failed CI, or an unmerged PR does not by itself require a person's approval in Paperclip. The bot can track those conditions without adding a completion card to Mine. ## What Changed - Explain the quiet review lifecycle in the GitHub review instructions. Use a yielded provider-event wait, or an existing saved monitor, after publication. Report done when the configured completion conditions are met. - Keep a confirmed, published review in `in_review` during that wait. Reuse existing authorization and monitor delivery. Add no schema, timer, or polling loop. - Recognize the committed external wait in review attention and recovery. Shared execution receives a verified publication flag; GitHub receipt lookup stays with the GitHub module. Other chat waits keep their current status. - Withdraw an older system-created completion request only when the same bot has published both reviews and its new report has no attention request. Keep explicit cards, separate approval gates, and requests without the prior review evidence. Finish validation stays read-only; withdrawal commits atomically with the new status after checking current governance, the admitted result, and both low-risk contracts. - Update the product rule, capability maps, and regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit `7c502118eec36028d1b4537bb8797ef893940bf0`: 54 GitHub checks passed, two intentionally skipped, none pending or failed. Greptile is 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Rechecked server typecheck and build after the final authorization guard. - Passed: 195 tests across `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `status-arbiter.test.ts`, `review-instructions.test.ts`, and `issue-liveness.test.ts`. The database suite used an isolated PostgreSQL 18 container through `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL`. - Acceptance coverage: 3/5 stays in review outside Mine; 5/5 with pending completion conditions stays in review; 5/5 with satisfied conditions finishes quietly; a real repository-access request enters Mine until resolved. Also covers obsolete-card withdrawal, transaction rollback, rejected reports, separate approval gates, multiple reviewed heads, saved monitors, and revoked endpoints, repositories, or membership. - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check`. - The initial acceptance run exposed a missing authenticated user in the test fixture. Added the user required by the existing addressee authorization check. All 154 tests in that database suite then passed, including the final rerun. - Review found premature withdrawal during validation, stale repository access, and a missed receipt when a run reviewed multiple heads. The revision fixes all three and includes acceptance regressions. The saved-monitor commit guard now accepts the verified published-review state. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted but could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL failed to allocate semaphores (`semget: No space left on device`); a direct initialization probe confirmed the host resource limit. The isolated database run proves the affected suite, not the full repository suite. - These tests exercise persisted review receipts, finalization, and Mine queries. They do not prove a live model followed the new instructions or submit a live GitHub review. ## Risks - The bot must follow the new lifecycle instructions. A real explicit attention request still enters Mine. - Existing obsolete cards are withdrawn when the same bot publishes a later review and reports no human dependency. This change does not run a bulk cleanup of historical inbox entries. - Review attention now recognizes an external response path. It requires an applied current status decision, a successful bound run, and current conversation, repository, and principal authorization. - No migration or UI change. The full local test suite is unverified because of the host database limit; CI passes on the final commit. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (195 focused tests; full-suite limitation 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
|
4b05795712 |
fix(github): reuse review instructions across native turns (#16971)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub events continue an ordinary task and can reuse its provider conversation. > - Each automatic event appended the full review policy and PR description. > - Native GitHub follow-ups also repeated task history because only Slack used the compact path. > - This pull request separates admitted review configuration from commit updates. > - A verified resume sends the current messages and changed configuration. A fresh session gets full context. > - This reduces repeated input while retaining review rules and current tool checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13959, #16645, #16901. **What happened?** Opening a PR and pushing twice stored three full review prompts. A later native turn repeated all three in a retained provider conversation. **Expected behavior** A new event supplies its commit and event data. The harness delivers stable review instructions once per retained conversation and configuration. Fresh sessions receive full instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable automatic GitHub reviews for a repository. 2. Open a PR, let the review finish, and push two new commits. 3. Inspect task messages and the native submitted envelopes. Before this fix, the policy and old requests repeat. ## What Changed - Store compact automatic event messages. Fetch the PR description through the existing metadata tool when needed. - Load review instructions from processed deliveries bound to the company, task, agent, and source comments. Preserve each admitted policy snapshot. - Use the existing verified native continuation path for complete GitHub text batches. Deliver configuration changes using a key over endpoint, PR conversation, revision, and instructions. - Keep full bootstrap input for fresh sessions and failed resume, including board follow-ups with no new GitHub event. Retain existing framing for incomplete batches, attachments, interactions, and recovery. - Keep the same configuration identity across automatic review, discussion, and automatic review. Coalesced requests use the last accepted request's admitted policy. - Add regression and database coverage. Update the execution contract and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red: the new event-size regression failed because policy and PR body repeated. The GitHub continuation regression failed because it returned no compact prompt. - Green: focused policy, continuation, native input, and adapter prompt tests passed (231 tests). Native resume/fresh-bootstrap cases passed (9 tests). - The signed-webhook/database case passed at `6296168253`. It checks configuration edits, queued older snapshots, coalesced policy selection, discussion continuity, board follow-ups, and company/task/agent/comment boundaries. The private PostgreSQL template used 12 connections because the host reached its semaphore limit with the default settings. - The earlier broad channel/session integration run passed 1,432 tests. Later review fixes invalidated that run. The latest focused database case passed after those fixes. - Reviewer regressions failed against the previous lookup, then passed with the fix: a mixed-revision batch delivered multiple policies, and a discussion lost the configuration identity. The board wake-to-rendered-prompt regression also failed before repair. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed on the final source. - Full local `pnpm test:run` exposed follow-up/fixture failures during development. Those cases are fixed and pass separately. The stale run was stopped after source edits. Full-suite validation for the final commit passed in CI. - All required CI checks passed for `6296168253`, including tests, typechecks, build, and clean public npm install checks. The two unrelated Storybook checks were skipped. - A live two-turn Codex smoke could not start: the local macOS sandbox helper rejected execution of the installed Codex 0.153.4 binary. No live GitHub/provider acceptance or deployment is claimed. ## Risks Skipping instructions is safe only after a verified checkpoint resume with the correct previous run. The full bootstrap remains available if resume fails. Changed or previously unknown configuration is sent again. Tests cover these cases. Tool authorization and publication checks still run under the current server policy. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact deployment model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. No delegated 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3b8324a233 |
fix(github): keep one main PR review comment and reconcile stopped work (#16901)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub connections send review requests to an assigned agent. > - A PR needs one main comment that shows its current review state. > - The response ledger used one comment per incoming request. Pushes and follow-up messages created more placeholders. > - Thread subscriptions also accepted requests addressed to external bots. Recovery could leave an acknowledged request without a final notice. > - This pull request shares the main PR comment, filters other recipients, and reconciles stopped work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16874 showed the repeated placeholders. #15416 introduced the per-request response path. The prior summary path used one PR-level marker. **What happened?** Repeated pushes created new main PR comments. A subscribed `@greptile review` message also woke the Paperclip bot. If execution stopped before staging a milestone, its comment could keep claiming that work was active. **Expected behavior** One bot keeps one main comment per PR. Progress and review results update it. A message addressed to another recipient does not wake the bot unless it also explicitly mentions this bot. Stopped work gets an accurate notice. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept two review requests in one PR conversation. 2. Add `@greptile review` to that subscribed conversation. 3. Fail the assigned run before it stages a milestone. Run channel maintenance. ## What Changed - Add a durable main PR response target. Keep per-request receipts and the existing publication lease. - Recover the target from App-owned provider markers. Adopt older placeholders and point verified duplicates to the current review. - Use a queued notice before a PR run starts. Preserve version ordering and final responses. - Filter leading mentions addressed to another recipient. Explicit mentions of this bot take precedence. Incidental mentions keep normal thread behavior. - Reconcile acknowledged requests after terminal execution. Show paused state for saved requests on a blocked task. Preserve newer work and confirmed or uncertain tool delivery. - Keep a request open when its stale acknowledgement is suppressed. Close placeholders after replies published elsewhere. Retire old coalesced placeholders before replacing their receipts. Resolve native request identity when legacy wake fields are absent. - Update guidance, connection documentation, and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: all three behavioral regressions failed on the original code. A second review created a second comment; an external-bot request was processed; stopped execution retained its working placeholder. - Green: the same three cases passed after the fixes. - Review regressions also failed before their repairs: a delayed acknowledgement closed a new request; normal and stored formal-review receipts left a live placeholder; coalesced completion lost a duplicate receipt; native terminal work without legacy wake fields stayed queued. All 13 combined regression and safety cases passed after repair. - The same legacy receipt-loss bug was also reproduced in the superseded-acknowledgement branch. Its four affected cases passed after adding retirement before that receipt replacement. - A further review regression reproduced paused requests rejecting resumed progress and skipping stopped-run cleanup. Four cases failed before repair; all eight resume and neighboring safety cases passed afterward. Both paused-notice branches keep the request open. - Repeated paused maintenance reproduced two needless GitHub edits. The writer now skips an identical complete comment body. Nine affected cases passed, covering repeated maintenance, resumption, stopped work, final assessment preservation, and main-comment reuse. - Safety cases cover lost receipts, legacy adoption, newer progress, published assessments, provider-verified mention aliases, and old replies that must not complete new requests. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, map validation, and module boundaries passed. The server TypeScript check passed after the final repair. The broader local GitHub workflow and policy run passed 188 tests. Full CI passed on the final commit (`554979d79285b68bcbf90cd639e3d2d053f4ea4b`), including all three chat shards, server/workspace/Runner suites, typecheck, build, and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 with no open review findings. One serialized job received a runner shutdown signal mid-test; its single retry passed. - Preserved failure evidence: the first CI run exposed an overbroad recipient filter and an old queued-text assertion. The next commit passed all three CI chat shards. Greptile then found the receipt transitions covered by the new regressions above. Local full-suite runs were stopped when those defects required source changes; no clean full local pass is claimed. - Tests use real PostgreSQL and controlled provider responses. They do not establish a live GitHub App rollout. The original instance needs the fixed server before its comments change. ## Risks - Leading mentions now select a recipient even when that account has no Paperclip connection. A leading human mention also selects that person. Mid-message incidental mentions retain normal subscription behavior. - Existing comment adoption edits only comments proven by this endpoint's request ledger or prior summary marker and App identity. Deleted and replaced comments remain protected. - Failure cleanup uses current authority and does not replace newer progress or unresolved provider writes. It does not restart failed execution. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## 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
|
a8b652b085 |
fix(github): preserve review delivery through reconnect (#16259)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots turn authorized repository events into agent tasks and publish the result on the pull request. > - Cloud Apps send callbacks through a relay, but the direct callback recovery worker reported that URL as broken. > - Reconnecting the same App then prevented a new authorized publication from updating its existing working comment. > - Report-only runs could also produce an action-required check when no complete assessment was available. > - This pull request preserves comment identity across reconnects, verifies fresh signed delivery after repair, and keeps report-only results neutral. > - Users can receive the review without changing repository access or making an advisory bot block their pull request. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A review could be saved in Paperclip while GitHub kept showing “Working on this…”. A same-App reconnect changed the runtime generation and the existing response receipt then failed with “GitHub response binding changed”. Cloud callback recovery also compared the relay URL with a direct tenant URL. An incomplete or failed report-only run could produce an action-required check. **Expected behavior** A fresh authorized attempt updates the same App-owned comment after reconnect. Stale attempts and revoked people remain denied. Cloud relay delivery does not produce a direct-callback mismatch. Report-only checks remain neutral and explain incomplete work honestly. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept a GitHub request and publish its working comment. 2. Reconnect the same App before the agent publishes its result. 3. Submit the result and inspect the working comment and check. 4. Separately, let a report-only run end without an assessment and inspect its check conclusion. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization errors as provider credential failures. This change fixes the response binding and report-only paths themselves. ## What Changed - Bind durable response comments to the App and agent. Keep per-attempt runtime generation checks and provider comment ownership checks, including legacy receipts. - Exclude Cloud-managed Apps from the direct webhook recovery scan and its stale callback-mismatch warning. The Cloud inbox owns relay retries. - Let a fresh authenticated event from the bound installation verify webhook delivery after repair. Keep signature, runtime epoch, installation, and credential lease checks. - Keep report-only assessment and terminal-run checks neutral. Preserve incomplete/error text and gated-review behavior. - Add integration regressions for reconnect races, legacy comments, failed runs, Cloud recovery, and foreign or forged webhook traffic. Update connector documentation. - Correct the assigned-tool search guidance to name the actual input fields (`offset` and `schemaOffset`) and show valid arguments. The failed automatic review had an input-schema rejection before tool execution; this clarifies recovery without expanding tool access. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - GitHub policy and integration suite: 291 tests passed (`vitest run server/src/services/chat-github-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub|github'`). - The report-only policy regression failed before the fix and passed after it. - `pnpm build` passed. - Assigned tool discovery: 24 tests passed. Its guidance now maps returned pagination offsets to the correct input fields and tells the model to omit unused optional fields. - Full `pnpm test:run` is running. It encountered a 15-second timeout in the unrelated authenticated Workspace calendar-write test. That test passed on one isolated rerun. - After the review-requested module extraction, server typecheck and both direct/Cloud recovery activity integration checks passed. - All 55 non-skipped CI checks passed for `32e690279d847e44a6946b6c7cfb110fb11aff79`. Greptile scored that commit 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Live staging publication verification follows deployment. ## Risks - A durable response can now survive a same-App reconnect. Fresh authorization, runtime generation checks for each publication attempt, App ownership, and the publication lease still fence writes. - Report-only failures intentionally become neutral. The check still reports the failure; it does not claim a complete assessment. - Cloud-managed callbacks rely on their existing durable relay inbox. The direct callback recovery worker remains unchanged for direct installations. - No schema migration or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [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
|
ed2c22ea8c |
feat(connections): simplify dedicated GitHub App setup (#15416)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and the tools each agent can use. > - GitHub bots need their own App identity and restricted repository access. > - Manual App configuration and repeated setup gates make that connection hard to finish. > - GitHub can create an App from a manifest, but people must approve creation and repository access. > - Each Paperclip stack should own configuration, credentials, signature verification, and task admission. > - This change uses Cloud as an encrypted callback and event gateway, then completes setup in the stack. > - GitHub review bots have their own experimental setting. Chat connector opt-in does not control them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Dedicated GitHub App setup, bot settings, and task-scoped GitHub replies. **Current behavior** Users must configure an App, copy credentials, repeat repository selection, and complete manual verification gates. Review settings are hard to scan. Mentions in descriptions can be missed, and automatic completion text can produce an extra GitHub comment. **Proposed behavior** Choose an agent and connect GitHub under a personal account or organization. GitHub asks for creation and installation consent. Paperclip resumes the same draft, stores secrets locally, imports access, verifies delivery, and opens Settings. Each accepted request has one editable App-owned comment for progress and results. Review assessments produce deterministic checks for the reviewed commit. **Breaking changes** GitHub bots require their own default-off experimental opt-in. The setup-method and delegated-agent screens are removed. Per-person automatic-run flags remain readable but are replaced by author filters. Existing connections, direct webhooks, saved restrictions, and manual existing-App recovery remain supported. Companion gateway: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/pull/688 (merged). The roadmap and related PRs were checked; no duplicate dedicated-App wizard was found. ## What Changed - Add an independent **GitHub review bots** setting across the catalog, routes, identity admission, and task controls. Existing bots continue running when the UI setting is off. - Replace setup with Choose agent and Connect GitHub. Support personal and organization owners, inline low-trust conversion, saved drafts, known organization suggestions, automatic completion, and same-App recovery. - Keep manifests, OAuth PKCE, credential exchange, vault storage, installation verification, and original webhook-signature validation in the stack. Use the Cloud sealed gateway for public callbacks and outbound local delivery. - Add resumable owner metadata in migration 0323. Retry a failed registration renewal through the same durable replacement rather than creating another App route. - Support authorized mentions in issue and PR bodies, comments, inline comments, and review summaries. Preserve attachments, edited-source identity, duplicate protection, and lifecycle invalidation. Filter requests explicitly addressed to another connected bot. - Give agents task-scoped review, comment, and update tools. Update one working comment through progress and final output. Close coalesced requests and recover delayed acknowledgements, including deleted earlier working comments. Preserve automatic replies for legacy connections without saved review configuration. Preserve partial publication evidence and quarantine uncertain automatic fallbacks without blocking Board messages or questions. - Reorganize Settings and Access with rich slash-skill instructions, numeric passing scores, clear automation controls, formal-review tooltips, member and contributor sections, and verified App branding links. Preserve invalid score drafts and automation choices across tabs. - Paginate repositories in 20-row batches with search and a true connection-wide toggle. Batch verification at GitHub's 500-ID token limit. Keep saved repository overrides while hiding their editor. - Give each review a detail URL that remains usable beyond the newest 100 records. Synchronize the manager OpenAPI contracts and add recovery, authorization, UI, and browser regressions. - Reconcile the current master branch and retain its agent avatar, feature catalog, and extracted heartbeat preparation code. Preserve a saved test-drive port and recover from an occupied high port. ## Verification - Focused UI, independent experimental-setting, and CLI tests: 199 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. The broad local Vitest attempt was interrupted after resource timeouts and stale expectations; the affected regressions passed focused reruns. The latest-head full CI matrix passed, including all browser shards, server/chat suites, builds, typechecking, canary packaging, and Docker context integrity. A Docker Hub 429 required a CI retry; it passed without changing the code. - Final review repairs: 127 attachment/event tests and server typecheck passed. All 13 final integration regressions passed under the normal CI timeout, covering legacy reply compatibility, deleted coalesced comments, inline-only review completion, progress edits, and native final recovery. Restart-safe description/review attachments passed the attachment suite. - Final regressions: four reply/lifecycle tests, both native GitHub wait tests, 171 feature-gate/reply-contract tests, the routed review preview, and five scheduler/reply regressions passed. The final fixture repair also passed all six setup-continuation cases and all three complete chat-test shards in CI, covering terminal receipts and retries under the normal CI timeout. One loaded-host receipt run exceeded its local timeout; the exact case passed in an isolated rerun and the complete CI shard. - GitHub integration tests cover personal and organization setup, retry recovery, edited mentions, attachment provenance, coalesced requests, delayed acknowledgements, partial review writes, old review URLs, and company boundaries. - Browser qualification: both GitHub journeys, all five provider setup/management journeys, and the GitHub uncertain-send recovery journey passed. GitHub setup, reconnect, and task replies run with chat disabled; chat enabled alone cannot expose GitHub bots. The disposable qualification database was removed after testing. - Earlier live qualification verified App-owned issue replies, native slash-skill invocation, progress comment edits, and a 5/5 PR review with a passing current-head check in the dedicated permissions-smoke repository. These live checks did not use personal credentials as bot execution authority. ## Risks - Deploy the merged Cloud gateway protocol before the stack update. Each callback and encrypted event must retain the original instance and tenant binding. - Migration 0323 uses idempotent column additions for test installations that already applied the earlier draft migration number. - A verified connection does not prove runtime isolation or a completed review. Runtime checks remain separate. - Required merge checks must be configured in GitHub. A passing numeric score does not formally approve a PR; approval and request-changes tools remain opt-in. - Existing-App credentials cannot silently renew an uncertain manifest exchange. Recovery preserves the existing App, draft, connection, and agent. - Repository changes save immediately. Global toggles affect all currently available repositories, including unloaded rows, without granting new installation access. - A failed or uncertain tool write suppresses automatic fallback text; the governed outbox retains its evidence. Deleted or replaced response comments are not recreated through a personal credential fallback. - GitHub logo upload remains an optional human action in GitHub App settings. Runtime provisioning, delegated setup, screenshot publication, and production push delivery remain deferred. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact runtime model identifier and context size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub references) - [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 (focused suites; complete test matrix is checked in CI) - [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
|
8813a50105 |
feat: run GitHub review bots through Paperclip agents (#13717)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work as tasks and runs. > - GitHub chat brings repository conversations into those tasks. > - A review bot needs the assigned agent, its authority, and governed provider tools. > - The existing channel connection did not supply that review workflow or a complete setup journey. > - This pull request adds GitHub App setup, account access, event prompts, task-bound review tools, and exact-commit checks. > - Operators can inspect each review through the same task, run, and activity systems. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** GitHub chat, governed connection tools, task execution, shared/database contracts, and connector setup UI. **Problem or motivation** Operators need a GitHub review bot that runs their assigned Paperclip agent. Mentions and PR events must preserve task ownership and requester authority. Provider publication must use the bot App identity and enforce the configured permissions. **Proposed solution** Extend the existing GitHub chat connector with resumable App onboarding, linked-member and sponsored-guest access, editable event prompts, and governed review operations. Validate structured assessments on the server and compute a stable Paperclip Review check for the exact head commit. **Alternatives considered** A separate review scheduler would duplicate Paperclip execution and permissions. Reusing personal GitHub credentials would change the bot identity and credential boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Connected Apps and governed-tool infrastructure. The project owner requested and approved this design. Related PR #8645 imports external Codex review feedback; this change runs an assigned Paperclip agent and publishes its results through the existing chat connector. ## What Changed - Include the current Paperclip instance origin in the copied setup prompt. Storybook uses its configured Paperclip origin; callback parameters and URL credentials are excluded. - Add a Claude/Codex copy button in the real setup and Storybook opening step. Its detailed prompt asks four setup questions and guides embedded-browser setup, verification, and optional required checks. Clipboard failure exposes selectable instructions. - Add a tutorial that explains why App installation, review scheduling, and required checks are separate choices. - Add manifest registration, an existing-App path, separate installation and repository selection, repository refresh, and explicit account confirmation. - Add low-trust agent guidance, effective capability verification, member selection, and explicit restricted guests with a sponsor. - Add configurable PR events, prompts, repository overrides, rating thresholds, and separate formal-review permissions. - Give the assigned agent governed App tools to read PRs, comment, begin an assessment, submit findings, and optionally submit a formal review. - Bind review history, root PR events, and inline replies to ordinary tasks. Deduplicate deliveries/findings and reject stale publication. - Link check Details to the underlying task on the current trusted hostname, or to Reviews before task creation. - Add schema migration 0283, API contracts, production UI, and 49 interactive Storybook states. - Repair local lease recovery. Keep the Cloud Dockerfile identical to master; no provider-pack layer or runtime-default environment variable is added. - Retry only rolled-back wake-admission transactions after transient endpoint-lock contention. A deterministic held-lock regression proves one accepted wake. ## Verification - Current head: `7ba761fe007bb798400d3e62346fa964f607f0f8`, rebased on master `d9b3a5653e41f2ee5a1345b97c86a238f7a5c8e9`. Dockerfile has zero diff against master. Final workspace typecheck and build passed. The new PostgreSQL migration regression passed and preserves existing relation and constraint identities after replay. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. There are zero unresolved review threads and no merge conflicts. - All current-head checks are green: 54 passed and two conditional Storybook jobs skipped. This includes complete server/workspace test suites, build, typechecks, policy checks, Runner suites, browser suites, and security status. One timing-sensitive callback-ordering test passed in isolation and its CI shard passed one retry. The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after CI completed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - Before the final Slack rebase and migration renumbering, 186 focused GitHub tests, 14 native bootstrap cases, token gates, and Storybook build passed. The final rebase retained the new Slack communication guidance. - The embedded-browser setup test copied the full detailed prompt, including the configured Paperclip instance URL. Desktop and narrow layouts were checked. Component tests cover successful copying and clipboard failure with selectable text and retry. - Live local and hosted GitHub acceptance evidence refers to application revision `cb703ac959876a07ebf3d7a295847f9f351eb6fc`. Real agent tasks exercised issue mentions, automatic PR reviews, inline findings, repeated mentions, task continuation, and failing-to-passing checks after a push. The Storybook agent generated, built, and browser-rendered pages; missing acceptance text failed, matching text passed, and broken JSX produced an incomplete result. - Live cases also covered independently disabled push events, prompt injection, duplicate signed deliveries, rapid pushes, stale-result rejection, finding deduplication, and restart recovery. Formal reviews were denied while disabled and published only after explicit enablement. Check Details links pointed to the underlying task on the trusted hostname. - Those hosted native Claude runs used the provider-pack layer now removed from this PR. They do not prove native Claude works on the standard Cloud image. A replacement hosted native Codex run is not yet verified: the disposable QA tenant has only an Anthropic AI connection. No new staging or production deployment was made for the packaging removal. - Required-check merge enforcement could not be tested because the private disposable repository's GitHub plan rejected the rules configuration. Published success/failure/incomplete check states were verified directly. ## Risks - Latest master allocated migration 0282 to Slack. The GitHub migration is regenerated as 0283 with replay-safe table/index/constraint creation; a PostgreSQL regression verifies existing relations and constraints are preserved. Existing preview tenants remain subject to the fleet migration-history compatibility preflight; no bypass is introduced. - Migration 0283 adds company-scoped configuration, registration, review, and publication records. Existing connections retain their behavior until reviews/tools are enabled. - Signed webhooks and expiring registration state remain required. Hosted installations also need the companion narrow Cloud gateway exemptions. - Agent assessments can be incomplete or wrong. The server enforces coverage/result structure, current-head publication, rating policy, and separate formal-review permission; it does not replace code-review judgment. - No Cloud image packaging changes are included. Remote native ACPX/Claude and OpenCode retain their existing operator-supplied provider-pack prerequisite. Native Codex and Codex with managed MCP tools do not require that pack. Earlier staging deployment evidence refers to its stated revision, not this packaging-removal head. Production rollout and merging remain outside this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository, code execution, API, and embedded-browser tools. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed by the 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> |