4129 Commits

This Branch

This Branch

All Branches

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Dotta	0453d34d77	Merge commit 'b8e26f101' into validation/runner-paid-matrix-integrity-v5 ... * commit 'b8e26f101': fix(runner): preserve verified runtime for provider descendants	2026-09-02 19:12:47 -05:00
Dotta	b8e26f101e	fix(runner): preserve verified runtime for provider descendants	2026-09-02 19:12:41 -05:00
Dotta	0f70c1cd18	ci(runner): validate sealed CommonJS loader	2026-09-02 19:00:25 -05:00
Dotta	785636e630	Merge commit '325e1e813' into validation/runner-paid-matrix-integrity-v5 ... * commit '325e1e813': fix(runner): load sealed CommonJS entrypoints by descriptor	2026-09-02 19:00:16 -05:00
Dotta	325e1e813d	fix(runner): load sealed CommonJS entrypoints by descriptor	2026-09-02 19:00:11 -05:00
Dotta	efec5f2848	ci(runner): probe sealed descriptor execution	2026-09-02 18:56:22 -05:00
Dotta	5f39ffbdb6	Merge commit '7c85257f6' into validation/runner-paid-matrix-integrity-v5 ... * commit '7c85257f6': fix(runner): track closed ACPX input portably	2026-09-02 18:48:08 -05:00
Dotta	7c85257f66	fix(runner): track closed ACPX input portably	2026-09-02 18:48:04 -05:00
Dotta	8c84fdf8b4	Merge commit '476ca3d87' into validation/runner-paid-matrix-integrity-v5 ... * commit '476ca3d87': fix(runner): close ACPX sidecar stdin cleanly	2026-09-02 18:45:17 -05:00
Dotta	476ca3d877	fix(runner): close ACPX sidecar stdin cleanly	2026-09-02 18:45:12 -05:00
Dotta	9d2c44514b	Merge commit '16e165d95' into validation/runner-paid-matrix-integrity-v5 ... * commit '16e165d95': fix(runner): define descriptor bundle module URL	2026-09-02 18:40:45 -05:00
Dotta	16e165d958	fix(runner): define descriptor bundle module URL	2026-09-02 18:40:38 -05:00
Dotta	d3173fb626	Merge commit 'd41439601' into validation/runner-paid-matrix-integrity-v5 ... * commit 'd41439601': fix(runner): compile descriptor bundles without import meta	2026-09-02 18:37:51 -05:00
Dotta	d414396011	fix(runner): compile descriptor bundles without import meta	2026-09-02 18:37:44 -05:00
Dotta	cb4bd874cf	ci(runner): validate descriptor-safe ACPX bundle	2026-09-02 18:33:21 -05:00
Dotta	49fc698b5c	ci(runner): scope loader diagnosis	2026-09-02 18:33:10 -05:00
Dotta	2b03aa01bb	ci(runner): diagnose sealed ACPX loader	2026-09-02 18:33:10 -05:00
Dotta	f4e99fe027	ci(runner): validate provider and restart repairs	2026-09-02 18:33:10 -05:00
Dotta	62b79deb20	fix(runner): restore verified JS provider startup	2026-09-02 18:32:59 -05:00
Dotta	96fcadeb51	fix(runner): load sealed Node entrypoints as ESM	2026-09-02 18:13:54 -05:00
Dotta	8d36deaa72	fix(runner): scope verified ESM mode to Node	2026-09-02 18:00:27 -05:00
Dotta	03bab72ee8	fix(runner): restore verified native provider startup	2026-09-02 17:23:10 -05:00
Dotta	910de2f2f1	test(runner-e2e): pin Plan terminal response	2026-09-02 17:06:56 -05:00
Dotta	0d1f36d493	ci(runner): qualify hosted Node interpreter	2026-09-02 17:05:44 -05:00
Dotta	4999e47762	test(runner-e2e): bind governed waits to interactions	2026-09-02 16:56:35 -05:00
Dotta	3e18f10060	fix(runner-e2e): honor governed wait boundaries	2026-09-02 16:55:16 -05:00
Dotta	84f1fa89b4	fix(runner): secure bundled provider entrypoints	2026-09-02 16:55:16 -05:00
Dotta	e04611d65d	fix(runner-e2e): align restart control directory	2026-09-02 16:39:56 -05:00
Dotta	dfe7aaf26e	fix(runner): stop after failed lifecycle commands	2026-09-02 16:34:24 -05:00
Dotta	e9a9abf743	fix(runner): repair paid provider startup paths	2026-09-02 16:27:48 -05:00
Dotta	0f94521017	fix(runner): restore local session and task integrity (#12721) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for agents that perform work. > - Paperclip Runner connects durable provider sessions to individual task runs through PRP. > - Provider continuity and per-run authority are different lifetimes. > - The existing implementation mixed those lifetimes and lost event metadata between provider frames, runnerd, persistence, API sanitization, and the task thread. > - That caused failed continuation, missing progress and Plans, duplicate replies, hidden failures, and unsafe recovery. > - This repair gives every heartbeat fresh authority, preserves qualified provider-session continuity, and restores one lossless presentation path without changing direct adapters. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A second native heartbeat could reuse tickets, leases, command receipts, sequence state, and run identity from the first heartbeat. Provider phase and item identity could be lost before the UI read them. Redaction could corrupt protocol discriminators while still missing malformed credential tails. The task thread could fold progress into the final response, hide failures, or show more than one final answer. Native Codex also exposed approval modes that do not yet have a durable approval bridge. **Expected behavior** Each heartbeat uses a new PRP authority epoch. Codex and OpenCode preserve exact qualified provider sessions; ACPX emits an explicit continuity event when its qualified process-replacement policy is used. Every accepted provider event is presented, classified as internal, or surfaced as unsupported. The task page shows chronological progress, reasoning summaries, activity, Plans, interactions, terminal failures, and exactly one final reply. Direct adapters retain their existing path. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the unified experimental Paperclip Runner setting. 2. Create a local native Codex, OpenCode, ACPX Claude, or ACPX Codex agent. 3. Run response, Plan, structured-question/resume, restart, cancellation, and failure scenarios. 4. Reload the task while active, waiting, failed, and settled. 5. On the old implementation, observe stale run authority, missing classifications, incomplete output, or duplicated/folded replies. **Paperclip version or commit** The repair is based directly on `master` at `87d05e194b643810d16d20612115acd01d735d43`. **Deployment mode** Local development with the embedded database. Related work: Refs #12616, #12646, #12666, #12685, and #12700. ## What Changed - Rotates PRP control-plane, outbox, ticket, lease, command, receipt, and sequence authority for each heartbeat while carrying forward only a validated provider-session identity. - Reads `control-plane-state.json`, validates both durable schemas and lifecycle values, resumes coherent current runs, archives qualified settled authority, and quarantines malformed or mismatched scoped state without moving ambiguous live legacy state. - Preserves Codex provider phase and stable item identities so commentary remains progress and only `final_answer` becomes final. - Adds raw OpenCode HTTP/SSE boundary coverage and canonical reasoning lifecycle mapping. - Makes ACPX normalization lossless for visible reasoning, tool lifecycle metadata, stable bounded identities, Plan revisions, structured requests, failures, and qualified process replacement. Only the compatible terminal assistant message is promoted as final. - Applies schema-aware redaction before generic JWT-shaped detection and scans every diagnostic string leaf. Malformed raw/escaped quoted credential tails are redacted in both server and durable Rust state. - Restores snapshot-style chronological task presentation, expandable tool activity, inline Plan cards, visible waiting/resume/cancel/failure states, and exactly one final answer. - Makes `never` the only qualified native Codex permission mode and rejects unsupported persisted native modes with remediation. OpenCode and ACPX policies remain intact. - Keeps the unified experimental Runner setting as the only enablement flag. Onboarding and direct Codex, Claude, and OpenCode stay on their legacy execution/finalization paths. - Adds cross-language goldens, authority/recovery/fault coverage, exact response/count assertions, and native plus legacy acceptance scenarios. ## Verification - Pull-request GitHub Actions run Rust formatting/tests, TypeScript checks, server/UI tests, builds, protocol drift checks, browser E2E, and security scans. - A separate workflow-only validation ref is pinned directly on this PR head and runs the 35-cell paid local matrix: three core scenarios plus structured-question resume and restart/resume for native Codex, native OpenCode, ACPX Claude, ACPX Codex, and direct Codex/Claude/OpenCode. Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/33682434315 - Acceptance requires exact single visible replies, monotonic sequences, matching envelope discriminators, one semantic terminal, one run terminal, no unresolved interaction, no duplicate mutation, no secret leakage, provider continuity, and zero native rows for direct adapters. - Per maintainer direction, tests are running in GitHub Actions rather than on the slower local host. Only formatters and static diff checks were run locally. ## Risks - Recovery from old or partial filesystem state is sensitive. The repair fails closed, preserves active or unverifiable authority, and quarantines only state whose scoped ownership is safe to move. - Provider event formats can change. Closed validators and boundary goldens turn new or malformed events into visible diagnostics instead of silent drops. - Shared task presentation could affect direct adapters. Runtime-fact gating plus the direct-adapter matrix protect the existing path. - Managed and remote providers are not qualified here. Shared code continues to compile and fail safely, but live qualification is deferred. > 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 based on GPT-5. The exact deployed snapshot and context-window size are not exposed to this task. It used agentic reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, Git, parallel subagents, and GitHub Actions. ## 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass (intentionally deferred to GitHub Actions) - [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 risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] The paid local-provider matrix is green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-09-02 16:11:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	87d05e194b	feat(work-products): add rich cards and run artifact inventory (#12717) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Agent outputs must remain visible after a run and easy to inspect from a task. > - The thread and artifact inventory need one consistent rich-card vocabulary. > - Run uploads also need durable artifact registration and producing-run context. > - Reviewers need deterministic examples for each rich-card kind and state. > - This pull request adds the shared presentation, registration, inventory, and Storybook review coverage. > - The benefit is a complete output path that reviewers can inspect without seeded data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change improves work-product presentation in task threads and the task Artifacts tab. **Subsystem affected** The change affects shared work-product contracts, the runner diff path, server attachment and work-product services, GitHub metadata refresh, the React board UI, and Storybook. **Current behavior** The thread used generic cards. Some files uploaded by a run existed only as message attachments. The Artifacts tab showed a flat list without run context or filters. Storybook showed only one resting card per kind. **Proposed behavior** The thread uses rich cards for supported work-product types. Each run-produced file registers one attachment-backed artifact work product. The Artifacts tab groups outputs by run and supports filters. Storybook shows every kind and requested state, PR lifecycle states, stats variants, truncation, mobile layout, and message-tail media. **Reason and benefit** Users can identify outputs quickly. Reviewers can inspect all card permutations without creating task data. **Breaking changes** None. The metadata fields and automatic artifact registration are additive. Existing attachments and work products keep their current behavior. ## What Changed - Added a shared rich work-product card with kind-specific content and a compact inventory variant. - Added pull-request and commit diff metadata plus bounded GitHub state refresh. - Added media strips and typed file chips to message-tail attachments. - Registered each run-produced attachment as an artifact work product in the same server transaction. - Grouped task artifacts by run with agent and timestamp headings. - Added type and run filters, image thumbnails, compact cards, and a company Artifacts link. - Added a Storybook kind-by-state matrix with stats variants for all eight visual kinds. - Added PR open, draft, merged, and closed examples, long-title truncation, an exact 375-pixel viewport, and message-tail overflow coverage. - Closed reconciled runtime work products when the linked runtime stops or disappears, so the card shows `Stopped` instead of `Unhealthy`. ### Screenshots Before: one resting card per kind.  After: the kind and state matrix.  After: message-tail media at 375 pixels.  [Open the Storybook evidence viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-work-product-storybook-20260902/). The earlier artifact inventory comparison remains available in the [artifact inventory viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-artifacts-inventory-proof-20260902/). ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `pnpm build-storybook` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/work-product-runtime-reconciliation.test.ts` passed with 5 tests. - Chromium visual checks passed at desktop and 375-pixel widths. - All 30 latest-head GitHub checks passed. One unrelated annotation test was flaky and passed on its single retry. - Greptile passed at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The Storybook change adds review fixtures only. The runtime fix changes read-time reconciliation without database writes. - The matrix is intentionally large so every permutation stays visible in one review surface. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This work does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 and GPT-5.6-sol across this pull request. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. The context-window size is not exposed. ## 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 public branch name describes the change and contains no internal task id - [x] I have run tests locally and the changed-path tests 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 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> canary/v2026.902.0-canary.8	2026-09-02 15:27:54 -05:00
TonioandClaude Fable 5	141c5b1340	feat(onboarding): Figma pass over the tenant arc (#12726) ... Takes the four tenant onboarding steps to the design, and makes the model choice explicit. **Nothing is preselected on the connect step.** It arrived with a source already chosen, which made the row read as a confirmation rather than a question and let a customer pass the step having touched none of it. The step now opens unanswered and cannot advance until a source is selected in the visible row. Two defects fell out of that, both found by Greptile in review: - A saved draft can name an adapter the row does not show — one the registry dropped, or one in the advanced list. The gate asked `sourcePicked`, which only means "a draft named something", so Next stayed live on a step that had visibly asked nothing and would hire against the hidden name. It now asks `sourceSelected`, read off the visible row, and the snap that replaces an unofferable adapter clears the pick rather than presenting its replacement as chosen. - Cmd+Enter bypassed that gate entirely, because the condition was written out twice and drifted. Both paths now ask one predicate. Also: selection is a fill rather than a border; the input canvas opens only for a chosen source; the close control is gone from every step (nothing downstream of the connect step works until a model is connected); the arc draws to the design's 424px column with a filled 44px name field; the CTA reads "Next" through the arc and "Get started" at the end; the login spinner reads "Preparing..."; the OAuth panels number their fields and show the URL above the code. Storybook: the arc stories waited for a button named "Connect" and had been silently rendering the wrong step since the CTA was renamed. They now wait on the destination heading. Three e2e specs had the same fault and now select a source before advancing. One test was removed rather than replaced — `hydrates again when the same company comes back through onboarding` drove the close control, and three substitutes each passed against a wizard with the behaviour deleted. The reason is recorded where it stood. Known and not fixed here: SidebarCompanyMenu opens the wizard at step 1 for "create a new organization", and with no exit an existing user who changes their mind is trapped. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> canary/v2026.902.0-canary.7	2026-09-02 12:19:15 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	8c3b8c432a	Simplify app connections and enable managed Google access (#12728) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Apps subsystem gives humans and agents governed access to external tools. > - The current connection flow hides Apps behind an experimental gate and repeats setup text. > - Google sharing choices and generic MCP permissions do not use one consistent opening model. > - Self-hosted installs also need a safe default origin for managed OAuth without a manual config file. > - This pull request makes Apps available, simplifies connection setup, and applies one governed permissions model. > - The benefit is a shorter connection flow that works on a clean self-hosted install. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the Apps connection setup flow, managed Google connection flow, generic MCP connection flow, navigation, and runtime origin discovery. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This changes `ui/`, `server/`, `packages/shared/`, connector documentation, and browser tests. **Current behavior** Apps require an experimental switch. Setup pages repeat titles and explanatory copy. Connection names require manual input. Google credential sharing does not always offer both personal and organization access. Generic MCP providers do not start with the same permission choices. Managed OAuth needs a public URL setting even when the request already has a safe HTTPS origin. **Proposed behavior** Apps are available by default. Setup asks only for required permissions and sharing choices. Paperclip creates conflict-free connection names. Google apps and generic MCP providers use the same human and agent access model. Managed OAuth derives a validated same-origin HTTPS URL when no explicit public URL is set. **Reason and benefit** A clean self-hosted install can connect a managed Google app without hidden setup. Humans can share a service account with their organization. The shorter flow reduces duplicated choices and setup errors. **Breaking changes** The Apps experimental switch is removed. Existing connection APIs remain compatible. New connections can receive a numeric suffix when a name already exists. No duplicate or related public issue was found. ## What Changed - Removed the Apps experimental gate and the breadcrumb that leaves the Apps section. - Simplified all connection setup pages and moved optional provider requirements into one small link. - Added consistent human and agent access choices for Google apps, Zapier, and generic MCP connections. - Added organization sharing to Google Workspace credentials while keeping personal access available. - Generated connection names automatically and resolved name conflicts with numeric suffixes. - Derived a validated public HTTPS origin from the request for config-free managed OAuth. - Updated connector contracts, tests, browser coverage, and authoring documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/generic-mcp-connection.test.ts` (273 passed) - Targeted UI/service regression suite (308 passed) - Six targeted Playwright connection journeys on a fresh onboarding instance (6 passed) - Fresh-install browser proof through Tailscale HTTPS: enrolled with Paperclip Cloud, connected managed Google Drive, and completed a real read operation. - [Exact-head CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/33669760711): all 23 matrix jobs passed, including build, typecheck, server, serialized, canary, and all browser shards. - Greptile 5/5 on `0ae2a859f269984ee950d0af231a5b09a06f3dfd`, with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks Apps are now visible to all operators. The removed experimental flag no longer hides unfinished app definitions. Managed Google availability still depends on the Cloud profile rollout and active instance enrollment. Automatic conflict handling changes only the display name of a newly conflicting connection. > I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). MCP Tool Gateway and Apps are shipped. Connected Apps is planned, and this change improves the existing shipped connection flow. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with reasoning, browser control, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> canary/v2026.902.0-canary.6	2026-09-02 14:05:53 -05:00
Dotta	5716fe907e	test(runner): add full-stack acceptance and eval gates (#12700) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner subsystem executes agent work across local and managed provider backends. > - The lower pull requests restore the task runtime, provider backends, and managed-provider control plane. > - The restored system needs repeatable full-stack checks before it can ship safely. > - Paid live checks also need clear access, cost, and secret controls. > - This pull request adds acceptance, live evaluation, chaos, and release gates for the restored runner stack. > - The benefit is measurable runner parity with safer release decisions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This change covers runner tests, release workflows, server contracts, and evaluation tools. **Problem or motivation** The runner stack did not have one complete acceptance surface for native Codex, ACPX, Claude Managed, and AWS AgentCore. Release checks could miss provider drift, task-view regressions, cost-policy errors, and destructive cleanup errors. **Proposed solution** Add a 57-cell full-stack catalog, a Daytona image, and opt-in paid workflows. Add live evaluation, chaos, cost-limit, redaction, and release contract checks. Add AWS AgentCore infrastructure and guarded provisioning tools. Keep the native runner experimental flag off by default. **Alternatives considered** We considered manual smoke tests only. They do not give repeatable evidence and they do not protect release branches. We also considered one large pull request. The stacked pull requests keep each review below the Greptile file limit. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the shipped Cloud / Sandbox agents milestone and the shipped Agent evals & feedback milestone in `ROADMAP.md`. Related stack: - #12699 adds managed provider backends and lifecycle support. - #12691 adds qualified OpenCode and ACPX provider backends. - #12685 restores task runtime rendering and steering. ## What Changed - Add the runner full-stack harness with 57 catalog cells and 60 unit tests. - Add a Daytona runner image with digest-pinned base images and base-aware image-content checks. - Add guarded live evaluation and chaos workflows with a fixed 40-execution matrix; live and full-stack paid schedules now run only on Sundays or by manual dispatch. - Add in-flight reported-usage cost stops, post-turn cost caps, exact-threshold failure classification, secret redaction, retry classification, and actor authorization. - Reattach stream and hard-budget listeners before restart-recovery continuations so restored paid sessions cannot bypass in-flight interruption. - Preserve OpenCode usage and cost across tool-loop messages and turns while exposing an explicit current-run delta to durable accounting. - Keep PNG/WebM evidence in access-controlled artifacts only, reject SVG, and publish only pruned inert structured per-attempt evidence. - Add AWS AgentCore infrastructure, provisioning checks, and smoke tools; reject unsafe model identifiers, require exact stack ownership markers, and make failed-stack replacement explicit. - Add evaluation-session contracts and capability reports. - Add release workflow checks for immutable action pins, frozen dependency installs, exact weekly cron shape, paid-run guards, provider-secret isolation, and chaos test paths. - Reauthorize the original and triggering numeric actor IDs as the first step of every provider-secret job, including partial reruns, before checkout or provider access. - Give each full-stack matrix cell only its matching provider credential, expose Daytona only to Daytona cells, and disable shared dependency caches anywhere paid credentials or OIDC write access are present. - Protect the legacy manual E2E workflow with the same default-branch, allowlist, environment, and per-job authorization boundary. - Rotate live-eval candidates by week and retain 120 days of compatible history so the seven-week trend window remains viable. - Restore the root runner-acceptance commands and reconcile reported snapshots, raw receipts, and terminal usage without double counting or losing late usage. - Mark ACPX token deltas exact only when every budget field is present, keep cumulative cost/request authority separate, reject non-USD cost labeling, and include thought tokens in output-token budgets. - Keep `enableNativeRunner` off by default. The acceptance harness enables it only in its isolated test instance. ## Verification Passed locally: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck` - `pnpm test:runner-acceptance:typecheck` - `pnpm test:runner-acceptance` (19 tests) - focused OpenCode proxy, driver, runnerd transport, live-session, and turn-stream tests (106 tests) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner exec vitest run src/live/clean-room-server.test.ts` (22 tests) - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` (62 tests) - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test:runner-workflow-evals` (22 tests) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `node --test packages/paperclip-runner/scripts/aws-agentcore-provisioning.test.mjs` (6 tests) - `git diff --check` - `cargo test --manifest-path packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml -p paperclip-runner-core --lib --locked` (161 tests) - focused ACPX provider-event tests (10 tests) - The rebased PR changes 92 files. `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. I did not run paid live provider jobs or provision AWS resources. Those checks need credentials and can create cost. ## Risks The paid workflows can create provider cost. They require an allowlisted original and triggering actor, the protected `runner-e2e-paid` environment, explicit opt-in variables, and cost limits. The four provider credentials exist only in that master-only environment, which requires allowlisted reviewer approval and disables administrator bypass; repository and organization Actions scopes contain no copies. Provider usage arrives after a billable request, so the live guard cannot prevent one request from crossing a threshold. It interrupts immediately on the first reported threshold hit and permits no continuation. Visual evidence can contain secrets rendered as pixels. PNG/WebM remain only in access-controlled workflow artifacts; SVG and per-attempt XML are excluded, and S3/Pages receive a pruned structured dashboard. The AWS scripts can create cloud resources. They use explicit commands, least-privilege roles, KMS encryption, saved nonsecret metadata, and explicit teardown. This pull request does not enable the experimental native runner for existing instances. > 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 model used extended reasoning, tool use, code execution, and parallel subagents. ## 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 canary/v2026.902.0-canary.5	2026-09-02 08:55:08 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	109d81db4f	Add task workspace picker to properties pane (#12693) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task properties pane lets an operator change the settings for one task. > - The pane did not let an operator select the execution workspace for the next run. > - The existing workspace card had selection rules that another control could copy by mistake. > - This pull request adds one shared selection module and one compact property picker. > - The picker keeps the current workspace active until the next run. > - The benefit is a clear workspace choice in the task properties pane without an API change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** ui/ — React + Vite board UI **Problem or motivation** An operator cannot set the execution workspace from the new task properties pane. The existing task workspace card also owns selection rules that a second control could copy and change over time. **Proposed solution** Add a compact workspace property picker. Put the shared selection and update rules in one UI module. Show the picker only when isolated workspaces and the project workspace policy are enabled. **Alternatives considered** The existing workspace card could remain the only control. This would leave the new task interface incomplete. The picker could also copy the card logic, but that would create two sources of truth. **Roadmap alignment** This is a small UI improvement for existing workspace controls. It does not duplicate a planned item in `ROADMAP.md`. Related workspace work: Refs #12682. That pull request changes runner recovery and other workspace controls. It does not add this task property picker. ## What Changed - Added shared helpers for the current workspace selection and its issue update payload. - Updated the existing workspace card to use the shared helpers without changing its project-default behavior. - Added a gated workspace property picker with mode and workspace search steps. - Added unit and component tests for visibility, selection payloads, search, and workspace reuse. - Rebased onto the upstream native-run teardown fix so CI drains background heartbeat writes before PostgreSQL cleanup. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-workspace-selection.test.ts src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx` — 74 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/native-runtime/native-question-bridge.test.ts` — 8 tests passed on the rebased head. The upstream teardown drain prevents the prior PostgreSQL cleanup deadlock. ## Risks - Low risk. This is a gated UI-only change. - A wrong selection payload could change the next workspace mode. Exact payload tests cover every mode. - The old card must keep its existing project-default payload. A shared-helper test covers that payload. > 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 exact serving revision and context window are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-02 08:19:09 -05:00
Devin Foley	8eaa5caa05	docs(release): add v2026.831.1 stable notes to master (#12710) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The release pipeline keeps a canonical stable note at `releases/vX.md` on master for every published stable. > - Stable `2026.831.1` was a hotfix cut from a branch off `v2026.831.0`, with its notes committed into the source tree. > - In that path the workflow resolves notes in `source_tree` mode and skips `canonicalize_stable_notes`, which is the job that normally copies the note to master. > - As a result `releases/v2026.831.1.md` exists on the tag but never landed on master, so the stable-notes history has a gap. > - This pull request adds the canonical copy of that note to master. > - The benefit is a complete, consistent stable-notes history for readers and for the release tooling. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No separate issue. Describing the gap in-PR with the docs template fields: **Issue type** Documentation gap in the release-notes history on master. **Where is the issue?** `releases/` on the master branch — the file `releases/v2026.831.1.md` is missing, although the stable `2026.831.1` release has already published. **What's wrong?** The `2026.831.1` patch was published from a hotfix branch whose notes lived in the source tree (`source_tree` notes mode). That mode skips `canonicalize_stable_notes`, the job that copies a stable's note onto master. So every other stable has a `releases/vX.md` on master, but `2026.831.1` does not. **Suggested fix** Add the canonical `releases/v2026.831.1.md` to master, identical to the copy published with the tag. ## What Changed - Add `releases/v2026.831.1.md` to master, copied verbatim from the published `v2026.831.1` tag. ## Verification - `diff` of the added file against `git show v2026.831.1:releases/v2026.831.1.md` is empty (identical to the shipped note). - Docs-only change: no code, tests, or build outputs are affected. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds one Markdown file and touches no code, schema, or configuration. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), used with tool use, shell commands, and file editing. nightly/v2026.902.0-nightly.0 canary/v2026.902.0-canary.4	2026-09-01 22:53:44 -07:00
Dotta	fdf8c8464d	feat(runner): add managed provider backends (#12699) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Paperclip Runner provides durable, provider-neutral agent execution. > - The current stack supports qualified local providers but omits the managed provider paths from the integration branch. > - Claude Managed Agents and AWS AgentCore need explicit profile qualification, durable recovery, usage accounting, and cleanup controls. > - This pull request adds those managed backends as the third part of the Runner parity stack. > - The benefit is managed execution without weakening the default-off Runner rollout gate. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: Runner, server orchestration, database profiles, CLI, and adapter configuration UI. **Problem or motivation** The current Runner stack cannot select or execute the managed Claude Agents API or AWS Bedrock AgentCore Harness backends. It also lacks qualified profile storage and recovery checks for those remote resources. **Proposed solution** Add qualified managed and remote profiles, API and CLI management, exact provider selection, durable lifecycle handling, cumulative usage accounting, bounded cleanup, and retention acknowledgement. Keep `enableNativeRunner` default-off. **Alternatives considered** A direct copy of the old integration branch was rejected because its provider contracts, model values, credential flow, and migration history no longer match the current base. A single large parity pull request was also rejected because stacked review keeps each subsystem bounded. **Roadmap alignment** This continues the existing Runner architecture and rollout work. It does not introduce a separate execution system. **Additional context** This pull request is based on the merged #12691 and #12685 stack. It also closes the delayed security-review findings reported on #12691 by binding qualified ACPX and OpenCode launch artifacts to the bytes actually executed. A GitHub search for managed agent, AgentCore, and Claude managed work found no duplicate public issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Add Claude Managed Agents and AWS AgentCore provider executors to runnerd. - Add qualified managed and remote profile storage, routes, OpenAPI contracts, CLI commands, and migration 0237. - Validate profile ownership, enabled state, exact qualified revision, model, agent version, and secret binding before persistence and recovery. - Persist durable provider session and owned skill state for restart-safe cleanup. - Reconcile uncertain create responses and delete remote sessions before owned skills. - Track cumulative provider usage and enforce positive session spend caps. - Recover interrupted AgentCore usage at the next turn boundary by charging the prior invocation ceiling exactly once; keep the session gated until an explicit monotonic budget raise. - Isolate AgentCore AWS configuration from host profiles and credential-process/SSO configuration while preserving workload identity. - Require OpenCode 1.18.17 and fixed build-owned provider-pack artifact paths; remove the ambient executable override. - Snapshot and content-verify ACPX and OpenCode commands, scripts, and provider executables before launch. Linux executes sealed inherited descriptors; macOS uses authenticated private snapshots with retry-safe rematerialization at the spawn boundary. - Persist canonical ACPX and OpenCode launch-profile digests, reject drift across fresh recovery, and make recovery failures sticky. - Close and journal unsafe ACPX active-turn recovery before any provider bootstrap or reconnect. - Add managed provider fields to the Runner configuration UI and permission projection. - Preserve the default-off `enableNativeRunner` experimental flag. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Focused managed server, database, CLI, Runner TypeScript, Rust, Claude, AgentCore, ACPX, OpenCode, process-supervisor, and durable-recovery tests passed. - `cargo test -p paperclip-runner-core --lib --locked` (160 tests) - `cargo check --workspace --all-targets --locked` - Native Codex integration tests passed (60 tests); native provider tests passed (7 tests); server native-runtime tests passed (87 tests). - Verified-launch replacement, nested-spawn retry, exact-version, profile-drift, sticky-failure, and no-bootstrap active-recovery tests passed. - `git diff --check` - The PR changes 91 files. `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. The Rust workspace lockfile adds the approved `rustix` dependency used for safe descriptor handling while `#![forbid(unsafe_code)]` remains enabled. ## Risks - The provider APIs can change while they are in beta. Exact qualification and fail-closed recovery checks limit drift. - Remote cleanup can fail after a partial create. Durable ownership inventories and retry-safe deletion preserve recovery state. - Migration 0237 adds profile tables. The generated migration and snapshot pass the repository migration checks. - Managed execution can incur provider cost. Positive default spend caps and explicit retention acknowledgement limit accidental use. - An interrupted AgentCore invocation without final metadata is conservatively charged to its active session ceiling. This can overstate cost, but cannot undercount it; later work requires an explicit budget increase. - Linux qualified launches use sealed memory descriptors. macOS lacks executable-descriptor APIs, so the runner uses owner-only private snapshots and minimizes linked-path lifetime; hostile same-UID processes remain outside the documented local-host trust boundary. - The global Runner feature remains default-off. > 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, with tool use, code execution, and subagent review. ## 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	2026-09-02 00:48:30 -05:00
Dotta	84bedd4ca1	feat(runner): activate qualified OpenCode and ACPX providers (#12691) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner is the experimental native runtime for governed agent work. > - The runtime contracts already describe Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX providers. > - The merged control plane still rejected OpenCode and ACPX for new runner agents. > - Runnerd also selected only the Codex provider implementation. > - This pull request activates the qualified OpenCode and ACPX paths from the form to runnerd. > - The benefit is one durable runner path with provider-specific permissions and recovery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12685 **Subsystem affected** This change affects the runner package, server orchestration, adapter configuration, and UI configuration. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip Runner stores provider contracts for OpenCode and ACPX. New agents cannot select those providers. Runnerd cannot execute those stored provider descriptors. The UI also shows only Codex. **Proposed solution** Accept the qualified OpenCode 1.18.17 profile and the fixed ACPX Claude and Codex profiles. Route them through runnerd. Keep provider selection, model selection, permissions, credentials, events, and recovery inside closed provider-specific boundaries. **Alternatives considered** One option was to keep the contracts dormant. That option leaves stored configuration and runtime behavior out of sync. Another option was to enable every ACPX agent. That option is not safe because Pi does not yet have the same verified launch path. **Roadmap alignment** This change supports the completed cloud and sandbox agent milestone. It also supports self-healing runs and governed agent execution. It does not add a new roadmap surface. ## What Changed - Add one server profile resolver for Codex, OpenCode, and qualified ACPX descriptors. - Keep `adapterConfig` as the provider and permission authority for fresh runs. - Add Paperclip Runner provider, ACPX agent, and provider-specific permission controls to the UI. - Reset the model to a compatible qualified value when the provider changes. - Route Codex, OpenCode, and ACPX through the durable runnerd provider selector. - Add a durable ACPX executor with bounded state, recovery, events, tool receipts, and identity checks. - Remove Codex labels from OpenCode events, results, evidence, and recovery diagnostics. - Pass only provider-specific credential names to child processes. - Keep ACPX Pi unavailable and reject it before process launch. - Keep the existing Paperclip Runner experimental flag unchanged. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/paperclip-runner/src/backends/native-backend-factory.test.ts packages/paperclip-runner/src/live/runnerd-codex-transport.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/ui/build-config.test.ts ui/src/adapters/codex-local/config-fields.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/adapter-registry.test.ts server/src/__tests__/adapter-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-adapter-validation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-portability.test.ts server/src/services/native-runtime/runtime-mode.test.ts server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat-runner-provider-config.test.ts` - The focused TypeScript, server, and UI suites passed 274 tests. - `cargo test -p paperclip-runner-core --test native_provider_backend` - The executable native provider integration suite passed 4 tests. - `cargo test -p paperclip-runner-core --lib` - The Rust unit suite passed 91 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check codex/runner-parity-task-runtime...HEAD` ## Risks - This changes provider process selection and durable recovery. The experimental flag still gates every fresh Paperclip Runner run. - OpenCode requires a model in `provider/model` form and stays pinned to version 1.18.17. - ACPX accepts only exact Claude and Codex profile versions and models. Pi stays unavailable. - ACPX steering stays unavailable and reports that limit through the driver capabilities. - Child processes receive explicit environment allowlists. They do not inherit the full server environment. - This pull request has no database migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use, code execution, and subagent review. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge canary/v2026.902.0-canary.3	2026-09-01 21:54:30 -05:00
Dotta	72b9f92d76	fix(runner): restore task runtime parity (#12685) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task view shows a running agent and lets an operator guide that agent. > - The merged runner stack lost parts of the accepted task experience. > - Native event errors could hide current reasoning from the operator. > - Queued message steering had no server route on `master`. > - This pull request restores the task-runtime behavior and keeps the runner experimental gate. > - The benefit is a visible and steerable native run with durable fallback behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The task view could stop showing current runner reasoning. The steering action also failed because the server route was absent. Runner instruction files were not declared as supported. **Expected behavior** The task view must show current provider activity. It must use the live log when durable native events are empty or unavailable. The operator must be able to steer a queued message into the active native turn. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the Paperclip Runner experimental setting. 2. Start a native runner task. 3. Open the task view while the run emits reasoning. 4. Queue a message and select the steering action. **Paperclip version or commit** The regression reproduces on `24a674f8858060e77ea1beb50689d26473e91431`. **Additional context** Related closed work: Refs #12592. ## What Changed - Restored the queued-comment steering route for active native sessions. - Added durable and queue-bound steering acknowledgements for safe retries. - Restored runner instruction bundle support. - Added live-log fallback when native events are empty or unavailable. - Restored the compact live reasoning ticker in the task view. - Added a visible temporary-unavailable state when both activity sources fail. - Kept the unified Paperclip Runner experimental gate unchanged. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build` - Seven focused test files passed with 140 tests. - The final steering regression file passed with 12 tests. - The broad local test run reached unrelated workspace, port, and shared database failures. The changed-area tests remained green. ## Risks - The steering route changes queue and run records in one transaction. Tests cover stale targets, unavailable sessions, lost responses, and wrong-queue acknowledgements. - Native events remain the primary transcript source. The live log is used only when event data is absent or its poll fails. - The experimental gate still hides and rejects the runner when the setting is off. > 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, with tool use, code execution, and subagent review. ## 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 - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — no documentation change is required for this regression repair - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge canary/v2026.902.0-canary.2	2026-09-01 21:17:54 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	b4f302d040	feat(grok-local): copy a refreshed sandbox credential back to the host (#12696) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip runs agents through provider-specific adapters in local and remote environments > - A remote Grok run can refresh its credential inside its sandbox > - The host copy can become stale when teardown discards that refreshed credential > - This pull request copies the refreshed credential back through a locked, fail-closed teardown path > - The benefit is that later Grok runs can use the refreshed host credential without another login ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #12618 **Agent or provider** Grok local adapter. **Why this adapter is useful** A remote Grok run can refresh its access token during a run. Copying the refreshed credential back to the host keeps later runs ready to use. **How the agent is invoked** Paperclip invokes the Grok local adapter through its remote subscription run path. The adapter stages the company Grok home as a sandbox asset. The change adds a copy-out step on the teardown path. ## What Changed - `grok-auth-merge-decision.cjs` adds a host predicate in its own process. It compares the whole `<issuer>::<uuid>` identity key of the two files. It reads `expires_at` as an ISO-8601 string, an epoch-seconds number, or an epoch-milliseconds number. It exits 10 to use the source, 20 to keep the destination, 21 when the expiry shape is unreadable, and 22 when the source expiry sits more than 400 days after the host clock. It fails closed in every unclear case: an unusable side, a different identity, an absent expiry, a tie, an unreadable expiry, and an implausible expiry all keep the destination. - `grok-auth-merge-decision.ts` adds a wrapper that runs the predicate and maps the exit code to a typed result. - `grok-auth-copyback.ts` adds `copyBackGrokAuth({ hostHomeDir, readSandboxAuth, log, env })`. It locks on `hostHomeDir` with `withDirectoryMergeLock`, stages the sandbox bytes into a private `0600` temporary file, runs the predicate, and installs the file with an atomic rename in the same directory. It keeps no backup of the displaced credential. It leaves no temporary file on the success path, the keep path, or an error path. On an error it logs the `errno` code only, then re-throws. - `execute.ts` adds a `restore` callback to the Grok `home` asset. The callback takes the destination from `resolveManagedGrokHomeDir(process.env, agent.companyId)`, never from `env.GROK_HOME`. A copy-out failure does not fail the run. - `package.json` updates the `build` script to copy `grok-auth-merge-decision.cjs` into `dist/server/`, because `tsc` does not copy a `.cjs` file. **The credential shape this predicate reads** A redacted sample of a real vendor credential answered four structural questions. The answers hold no credential bytes, no account identifier, no file path, and no timestamp value. 1. `expires_at` is present. 2. `expires_at` sits inside the value object, under the `<issuer>::<uuid>` key. It is not a top-level field. 3. `expires_at` is an ISO-8601 string. It carries UTC time with a trailing `Z` and six fractional-second digits. 4. A normal run rewrites `auth.json`. The value object carries a `refresh_token` next to `expires_at`, so the client refreshes the access token and rewrites the file. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/grok-local` — 114 tests in 12 files pass. - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-grok-local typecheck` — clean. - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-grok-local build` — succeeds, and `dist/server/grok-auth-merge-decision.cjs` exists after the build. - [x] Continuous integration is green on every check. ## Risks The predicate keeps the host credential when identity, expiry, file access, or freshness data is unclear. The copy-out path can log an error and leave the run successful when it cannot install the refreshed credential. The atomic rename and directory lock protect the host file from partial writes and concurrent copy-out actions. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5, current deployment. The exact runtime version and context window are not exposed to this agent. The model used tool calls and code 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> canary/v2026.902.0-canary.1	2026-09-01 18:27:00 -07:00
Devin Foley	0b00029672	docs(release): canonicalize stable notes for v2026.831.0 (#12708) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release process drafts stable notes under a beta-keyed path during the soak and renames them to the versioned path after the stable ships > - Stable v2026.831.0 published, but its release run failed at the tag push (workflows-permission error), so the automated canonicalize job never ran > - The canonical layout requires the notes at `releases/v2026.831.0.md` > - This pull request performs the rename the skipped job would have pushed > - The benefit is that the repository returns to the canonical release-notes layout ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing content **Where is the issue?** `releases/` — the stable notes for v2026.831.0 still live at the beta-keyed path `releases/beta/v2026.828.0-beta.0.md`. **What's wrong?** The stable release run failed at the tag push, so the `canonicalize_stable_notes` job was skipped and the rename branch was never pushed. The published GitHub Release points at content that should live at `releases/v2026.831.0.md`. **Suggested fix** `git mv releases/beta/v2026.828.0-beta.0.md releases/v2026.831.0.md`, exactly as the workflow's canonicalize job does. ## What Changed - Renamed `releases/beta/v2026.828.0-beta.0.md` to `releases/v2026.831.0.md` (pure rename, no content changes) ## Verification - `git show --stat` reports a 100% rename with no content delta - The file matches the published GitHub Release body for v2026.831.0 ## Risks - Low risk: a pure file rename restoring the canonical layout. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking enabled, tool use via Claude Code ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-09-01 18:13:02 -07:00
TonioandClaude Fable 5	889f5853f9	Onboarding: count the whole walk on a cloud tenant (#12706) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A cloud customer meets it as one walk that crosses two applications: Cloud names the organization, then hands off to the tenant for the agent, the model and the review > - The tenant's progress strip counted only its own three steps, so the count restarted at the crossing — four dots on the naming screen, then three beginning again at one > - The strip that spans the whole walk already existed and simply was not chosen on that path, which made the walk read as two products rather than one > - This pull request picks the four-step strip when the run came from Cloud, so the count runs 1, 2, 3, 4 straight through > - The benefit is that the hand-off stops announcing itself ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The onboarding progress strip on a cloud tenant. It restarted its count at the hand-off from Cloud, so a customer went from "1 of 4" to "1 of 3" mid-walk. **Subsystem affected** Tenant onboarding wizard — `ui/src/components/OnboardingWizard.tsx`. **Current behavior** `showsAgentArcStepper` is `isAgentArcStep && entryStep >= 3`. Every run entering on the agent step gets the three-step strip, including a cloud tenant whose organization was named one screen earlier in Cloud. **Proposed behavior** A cloud tenant gets the four-step strip, positioned 2, 3 and 4. A self-hosted run entering on the same step keeps three. **Reason and benefit** The count describes the walk the customer is on rather than the half of it this application happens to render. **Breaking changes** None. No API or schema change; the self-hosted path is unchanged. ## What Changed - Adds `enteredFromCloud`, read from `enableManagedSandboxOnly` — the cloud-tenant shape the connect step already resolves its login environment through. - Excludes that case from `showsAgentArcStepper`, so it falls to the existing four-step strip. `ONBOARDING_STEP_LABELS` and `onboardingStepPositionFor` already produce 2, 3 and 4; neither needed changing. - Widens the experimental-settings query from step 4 to steps 3–5, so the strip can read it on every step of the arc. - Adds tests for both strip lengths. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run src/components src/adapters storybook` in `ui/` — 2309 tests pass. - `pnpm typecheck` in `ui/` — clean. - Storybook, `Onboarding/Agent arc`: its fixture is cloud-shaped, so the three steps now announce "Step 2 of 4", "Step 3 of 4" and "Step 4 of 4" with four dots. - The two new tests fail without the change — the cloud case reports `expected 'Step 1 of 3' to be 'Step 2 of 4'`. ## Risks - **The two runs entering on the agent step are genuinely different, and only one signal separates them.** A cloud tenant walked a naming screen in Cloud; a self-hosted company with no agents walked nothing before this. Getting it backwards would either restart the count or credit a step nobody walked. Both directions are now tested, which they were not before — the suite covered `agentArcStepFor` but nothing asserted which strip renders. - `enableManagedSandboxOnly` is being read as a proxy for "came from Cloud". It is the same signal the connect step already trusts for its environment, so this does not introduce a new dependency, but it is inference rather than a fact passed at the hand-off. If the step count ever needs to vary, Cloud should seed the position explicitly instead. - The widened query means the value can be unresolved on first paint, and the strip briefly renders three dots before settling to four. The query key is shared and usually already cached, so this is rare rather than routine — worth watching on staging, and the fix if it shows is to hold the strip until the value resolves. - Cosmetic only. Nothing here changes which steps run, what they collect, or where the walk goes. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), via Claude Code with extended thinking, tool use, and browser-driven verification of the rendered strip. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] 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> canary/v2026.902.0-canary.0	2026-09-01 18:06:38 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	8f9f850c20	fix: limit plan-to-auto transition to plan confirmation (#12695) ... <!-- This pull request uses ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread controls plan review and agent work modes. > - A user can accept a full plan or confirm a smaller checkbox action. > - Only full plan acceptance must start automatic agent work. > - The current transition did not check the interaction kind. > - This pull request limits the transition to an accepted plan confirmation. > - The benefit is a safe and clear start of agent work after plan approval. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An accepted confirmation that targeted a plan could change an issue from planning mode to standard mode. This included a checkbox confirmation. A checkbox action is not approval of the full plan. **Expected behavior** Only acceptance of a current full-plan confirmation starts automatic agent work. Other interaction kinds and rejected confirmations keep the current work mode. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put an issue in planning mode. 2. Create a checkbox confirmation that targets the current plan revision. 3. Accept the checkbox confirmation. 4. Observe that the issue enters standard mode before this fix. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem was present on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** The problem is in the core server logic and is not deployment-specific. ## What Changed - Require a full `request_confirmation` interaction before plan acceptance starts automatic work. - Add service tests for acceptance, rejection, stale interaction kinds, and unchanged standard-mode behavior. - Check the route activity log for the planning-to-standard mode change. - Document the plan acceptance transition in the V1 contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` passes 140 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` was also started. Unrelated workspace-runtime tests failed because fixed local runtime ports were occupied or offset on the shared host. The same failures reproduce alone. The changed test files pass alone. ## Risks - Risk is low. The change adds one interaction-kind guard to the existing transition. - A full accepted plan confirmation still changes planning mode to standard mode and an eligible review issue to todo in one transaction. - Checkbox confirmations, questions, rejection, and standard-mode issues keep their previous behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose the exact model suffix or context window. ## 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> canary/v2026.901.0-canary.14	2026-09-01 17:18:42 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4b6de5327e	Remove cheap model profiles (#12683) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents that use different model providers and adapters. > - Paperclip must keep agent execution rules clear and predictable. > - The cheap-model profile added a second execution mode across adapters, task recovery, APIs, and the UI. > - That mode increased configuration and recovery complexity. > - This pull request removes the cheap-model profile as a product feature. > - The benefit is one model-selection path for normal work and recovery work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change simplifies model selection across agent configuration, task execution, recovery, and adapter capabilities. **Current behavior** Paperclip exposes cheap-model profiles in adapter metadata, agent runtime configuration, task overrides, recovery rules, APIs, and the board UI. Recovery work can select a different model profile from the agent's configured model. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip uses the agent's configured model for normal work and recovery work. Status-only recovery stays limited to coordination work. The API rejects legacy model-profile configuration. A migration removes stored model-profile values from existing agent, issue, and historical revision records. **Reason and benefit** One model path reduces configuration, API, UI, and recovery complexity. It also prevents status recovery from becoming a separate product-level model-routing feature. **Breaking changes** This change removes model-profile fields and adapter capability metadata. Existing stored model-profile values are removed by an idempotent migration. The validators reject new legacy profile values with clear errors. ## What Changed - Removed model-profile types, adapter capabilities, API fields, and model selection logic. - Removed cheap-model controls from agent and task UI surfaces. - Kept status-only recovery limited to coordination context while normal continuations use the configured agent model. - Added an idempotent migration that removes stored model-profile values from agents, issues, and configuration revisions without changing issue update timestamps. - Updated tests and product documentation for the single-model behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,607 passing tests and 8 environment-sensitive failures in unrelated fixed-port and database-deadlock suites. The same failures repeated in an isolated rerun. CI is the final clean-room result. ## Risks - This is an intentional breaking change for clients that send model-profile fields. - The migration changes legacy agent, issue, and configuration-revision JSON. It is idempotent and preserves unrelated fields and issue update timestamps. - The change is cross-cutting because the removed feature existed in adapters, shared contracts, the server, plugins, and the UI. > 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`. Reasoning and tool use were enabled. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-01 14:57:38 -05:00
Dotta	1ab159d3a7	feat(apps): consolidate connector management (#12684) ... Completes the post-managed-OAuth connector lifecycle, Paperclip Cloud provisioning defaults, governed test flows, and consolidated Apps UI.\n\nCo-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-01 14:55:35 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	141f202e40	Clean up experimental settings features (#12681) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Instance settings control optional product features and developer tools. > - The experimental settings page mixed active experiments, internal tools, and old recovery controls. > - Some workspace links also used the selected company instead of the workspace owner. > - These problems made settings hard to scan and could send users to the wrong company route. > - This pull request removes old controls, groups developer settings, and resolves workspace links from workspace data. > - The benefit is a smaller settings surface and correct workspace navigation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the instance experimental settings page, task watchdog controls, dependency wake recovery, and execution workspace routes. **Current behavior** The settings page shows old recovery controls and mixes product experiments with internal developer settings. Task watchdogs require an extra feature flag. Some direct workspace links use the current company prefix instead of the company that owns the workspace. **Proposed behavior** Remove the old task recovery experiment and its unused API surface. Make task watchdog controls available without the removed flag. Put worktree execution and managed environment controls in the developer section. Resolve direct workspace links from the workspace owner and reject a company prefix that does not own the workspace. **Reason and benefit** The smaller settings page is easier to understand. The server keeps only the dependency wake backstop that it still uses. Workspace links open under the correct company route. **Breaking changes** This removes the experimental issue graph recovery preview and run endpoints. It also removes the task watchdog feature flag. Task watchdog data and dependency wake behavior remain available. ## What Changed - Removed the old task watchdog and issue graph recovery feature flags. - Removed the old issue graph recovery preview, run controls, API contracts, and unused recovery implementation. - Kept resolved dependency wakes as the scheduler backstop. - Grouped product experiments and Paperclip developer settings on the instance settings page. - Made task watchdog controls available without an extra experimental flag. - Added owner-aware redirects and company checks for execution workspace routes. - Hid the false stopped-state badge while a workspace has no active runtime state. - Updated focused server and UI tests for the new behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,620 passing tests and four failures in unchanged workspace runtime port tests. The same four failures repeat when the two files run alone. - The complete GitHub CI matrix passed, including all server, serialized server, build, canary, and end-to-end jobs. ## Risks - Clients that call the removed experimental recovery endpoints must stop calling them. - The route checks depend on workspace detail access. An unknown or cross-company workspace returns the global not-found page. - There are no database migrations, lockfile changes, workflow changes, or design image changes. > 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 exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> canary/v2026.901.0-canary.13	2026-09-01 14:23:05 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	24a674f885	fix(runner): stop capability live-session tests from failing on unhandled turn-timeout rejections (#12676) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Paperclip Runner package manages live sessions and durable command recovery > - Capability live-session tests can fail when a turn-timeout rejection has no handler > - A resumed session can also stall when the durable control plane rejects an indeterminate command result > - These failures make valid tests fail or hide the turn that stalled > - This pull request captures timeout rejections early and accepts indeterminate recovered commands > - The benefit is stable tests and clearer timeout failures after a runner restart ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Capability live-session tests failed intermittently on loaded CI hosts. A timer could reject a turn promise before the test attached its assertion. A resumed session could also stall after a runner restart because the durable control plane rejected the indeterminate command status. **Expected behavior** The test must handle a timeout rejection at promise creation. The durable control plane must accept an indeterminate recovered command and allow the session to continue. A configured timeout must persist in the checkpoint and identify the stalled turn. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the capability live-session test file on a loaded host. 2. Create a turn promise with a timeout and delay before attaching its assertion. 3. Resume a session after a runner restart with a journaled but unconfirmed command. 4. Observe the unhandled rejection or the stalled resumed session. **Paperclip version or commit** Commit `ede642e57e22ea3fb0a73590fca8bcc994f1a47f` on `master`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. The tests use the Paperclip Runner package. **Database mode** Not database-related. **Additional context** Pull request #12646 also updates durable recovery for indeterminate command results. If it lands first, this pull request must retain the compatible behavior without duplicate edits. ## What Changed - Add a helper that captures a turn rejection before any await step. - Update three live-session test sites to assert the captured rejection value. - Add a helper test that waits past the turn timeout before it asserts. - Accept indeterminate as a terminal recovered-command status. - Add tests for acceptance, duplicate absorption, and reload from persisted state. - Add an optional turnTimeoutMs value to resume and pin its checkpoint behavior. ## Verification - `npx vitest run src/live/live-session.test.ts` from `packages/paperclip-runner`: 19 passed, 1 skipped. - `npx vitest run src/control-plane/durable-prp-control-plane.test.ts` from `packages/paperclip-runner`: 5 passed. - The live-session file passed 10 of 10 runs with 30 competing workers on a 32-core host. - TypeScript reported five pre-existing errors in `src/eval/workflow-harness.ts`. - CI must run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all`. ## Risks The durable control plane now accepts one additional terminal recovery status. The change affects only recovered command handling and capability live-session tests. The main risk is overlap with pull request #12646 if that pull request lands first. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> canary/v2026.901.0-canary.12	2026-09-01 11:17:14 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	ed3559dd21	feat(server): split the Sentry DSN into front-end and backend variables (#12678) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip reports server and browser errors through optional Sentry monitoring > - One environment variable sends both error types to one Sentry project > - Operators need separate control for browser and server error data > - This pull request adds specific variables and keeps the existing variable as a fallback > - The benefit is separate monitoring without breaking current deployments ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Sentry configuration for server and browser monitoring uses one environment variable. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Current behavior** `SENTRY_DSN` supplies the server and browser clients. Both clients therefore report to the same Sentry project. **Proposed behavior** `SENTRY_DSN_FRONTEND` supplies the browser client. `SENTRY_DSN_BACKEND` supplies the server process. `SENTRY_DSN` remains a fallback for either component. **Reason and benefit** Operators can send browser and server errors to separate Sentry projects. Operators can also activate only one component. **Breaking changes** None. Existing deployments can continue to use `SENTRY_DSN`. ## What Changed - Add `resolveSentryDsns(env)` and use it in the server and browser configuration paths. - Add precedence, empty-string, fallback, and route tests. - Update the README, observability guide, and stale code comments. - Log one warning when the server uses the legacy fallback without exposing a DSN value. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run --project server sentry-dsn` — 8 tests pass. - `pnpm vitest run --project server auth-routes` — 21 tests pass. - The earlier run of the three targeted suites passed 40 tests. - `tsc --noEmit` passes for the files in this diff. - All required GitHub Actions checks pass, including the full continuous-integration suite. ## Risks The main risk is an incorrect environment variable precedence rule. Unit tests cover specific values, empty strings, and legacy fallback behavior. The existing `SENTRY_DSN` path remains compatible. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex — GPT-5, current runtime, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-01 11:02:04 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	314ff24b7a	refactor(docker): declare the build stage's C toolchain explicitly (#12673) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Docker images compile the Rust runner (paperclip-runnerd) during the build stage > - The previous change replaced apt's cargo/rustc with a pinned rustup install > - apt's cargo package pulled gcc in as a dependency; rustup does not install a C toolchain > - Every master docker build now fails with "linker `cc` not found" in the build scripts > - This pull request installs gcc, libc6-dev, and pkg-config explicitly in the build stage > - The benefit is that the build stage declares its own C toolchain instead of inheriting one by accident ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Master `docker.yml` builds fail in `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`: cargo build scripts (`libc`, `quote`, `proc-macro2`) die with `` error: linker `cc` not found ``, and the job exits with code 101. **Expected behavior** Master docker builds compile the runner and publish images. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the `docker.yml` workflow on current `master`. 2. Observe the `build-and-push` job fail with the linker error above. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` after commit `317394456` (the rustup change); example failing run: docker.yml on `86ebdf842`. ## What Changed - The build stage installs `gcc`, `libc6-dev`, and `pkg-config` explicitly, with a comment recording why: the old apt cargo brought gcc in as a dependency and the pinned rustup install does not. ## Verification - Replicated the build stage's exact package sequence in `node:24-trixie-slim` — base-stage packages only (which include no compiler), then this new line, then the pinned, checksum-verified rustup install: the runner compiles (`Finished release`) with `rustc 1.97.1` and `cc 14.2.0`. - Note: `docker.yml` triggers only on master pushes, so a PR run cannot exercise the image build itself; the container replication above is the pre-merge check. No test files: build-infrastructure fix (`fix:` on the Dockerfile only). ## Risks - Low risk. Three packages added to the build stage only; the production stage is unchanged. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic — Claude Code harness, extended thinking + tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-01 10:38:53 -07:00