mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 18:19:05 +02:00
0735ca2dc9e5559636c4ca4c4515838ed96b78f2
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
d0db8820db |
fix(connections): repair native baseline and approval continuations (#15420)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and the tools they may use. > - Connection setup separates provider preference from permission to use a tool. > - The first native connection baseline could not exercise its intended decisions. > - The browser used mutable task titles, and the provider fixture already granted access. > - Native provider-choice instructions also disagreed with the preferred question format. Schema rejection gave no field guidance. > - This pull request repairs those test preconditions and native guidance, then fixes restart/approval defects exposed by the corrected baseline. It also restores missing OpenCode tool-error evidence. > - The benefit is an inspectable baseline before any further instruction reduction. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15407. The original 15-cell baseline remains 0 PASS / 15 FAIL. Ten cells stopped on stale titles, two Codex cells had schema denials, two OpenCode cells used already-granted tools, and one Claude cell returned no native result. No intended user decisions were submitted. The exact invalid Codex field and underlying Claude failure cause remain unknown. [Original campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37562577199) · [Original report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-37562577199-1/index.html) ## What Changed - Match the browser's task route and visible identifier instead of a title the agent can change. - Start native provider-choice fixtures with no agent tool access. Verify the public effective-access records. - In the positive case, select Arcade, then grant its exact HubSpot tool through the real access card. Require both saved decisions and exactly one observed call. - Return a canonical `providerQuestionSet` for native input and retain the equivalent legacy `providerQuestion`. - Keep invalid input rejected. Return bounded schema locations and required field names without submitted values. - Preserve Claude's exact session/content identity while allowing authenticated registered instruction-copy paths to rotate on a new run. - Reject duplicate approval reports for an existing exact tool-action card before they create another human review. - Wait for a recorded service-approval continuation within the existing deadline; retain missing or failed continuation grades. - Forward OpenCode tool activity through the runner facade, preserving bounded errors and execution-part identity without inventing host-call joins or exposing arguments. - Preserve original grades, costs, scope limits and diagnoses in the dated repair report. ## Verification - Eval typecheck passes. Support suite: 1,801 PASS, one intentional skip; Node checks: 128 PASS. - Connection/schema tests: 51 PASS. Real-server public fixture setup: one PASS with zero providers. - Browser support regression: five PASS, including renamed and wrong tasks. - Focused Rust safe-feedback test: one PASS. - Repository typecheck and build pass before the latest master replay. Post-replay connection/shared/real-server fixture checks: 52 PASS; eval typecheck passes. The browser review fix additionally passes all five browser checks and seven suite checks. - The full local repository run was interrupted incomplete after about 45 minutes, with five integration failures retained. All five pass in a separate targeted invocation (1,250 unrelated tests skipped). No full local-suite pass or root cause for the initial local failures is claimed. - Corrected frozen source `162cc90fdabe7f505b88ae095044531b82784c92`: **10 PASS / 5 FAIL** across the [passing Codex canary](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37575158761) and [remaining 14 cells](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37576261807). The canary passes all 17 checks. Claude's two provider-choice continuations fail on restart, Claude service approval exposes an early evaluator rejection, Codex service approval creates a duplicate approval, and OpenCode provider-second times out after both decisions with no HubSpot call. No original result is regraded. - Final ledgers count 31 actual runs: 27 succeeded, two failed, two cancelled during cleanup. All 15 cleanup/budget checks pass. The late Claude continuation is absent from its earlier workflow snapshot; it remains in the result/API/final ledger. Original evidence retains 279 hashes. Recorded LLM subtotal $0.04553787 is incomplete billing, not actual total cost; local runtime is unmetered. - New repair regressions reproduce the Claude attach failure, duplicate approval acceptance and dropped OpenCode tool events before their respective fixes. Nine Rust attachment checks, 127 ACPX host/adapter tests, 33 completion/control-plane checks, nine eval deadline tests, 59 OpenCode proxy/driver tests, one Rust tool-error/redaction check, and TypeScript/Rust composer parity pass. Eval typecheck, repository typecheck and build pass. Existing support coverage is 1,802 PASS plus 128 Node PASS, one intentional support skip; two additional deadline tests also pass. - New-source full CI/review and live canaries are pending. The next bounded selection is Claude provider-decline, Codex service-approve and one OpenCode provider-second diagnostic with repaired event evidence. No broader campaign or instruction-reduction qualification is claimed. - Initial corrected campaign [37574251834](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37574251834) was cancelled during shared build after review found the breadcrumb whitespace assumption. Its matrix job has zero steps and no provider execution. The real adjacent-span browser regression now reproduces the old failure and passes after the fix. ## Risks - The corrected baseline remains 10/15. The new restart/approval fixes require live qualification; OpenCode evidence forwarding does not itself establish or fix its prior behavioral failure. - The positive provider case now expects three runs, including separate access approval. Its new results are distinct from the original invalid fixture. - The old Claude missing-result cause and rejected Codex field are unknown. These repairs do not retroactively explain or erase either failure. - Path rotation must preserve prompt, custom instruction, skill/content identity and protected provider settings; regression checks reject stale or changed content. No connection authorization, JSON schema, budget, cleanup, or final-result requirement is relaxed. Historical Everyday prompts and gateway setup remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployment variant and context window are not exposed in this session. Used repository inspection, code editing, test execution and retained-evidence analysis. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a386a59998 |
Reduce repeated native completion guidance and preserve final replies (#15151)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native agents receive task constraints and completion tools from Paperclip. > - Completion tools already define the procedure for reporting a result. > - Repeated procedure text adds instructions to each full task turn. > - The final reply must still explain a blocker and link a saved document. > - This pull request removes repeated procedure text and keeps these visible outcome requirements explicit. > - A document receipt supplies the exact link, and stricter evals check the persisted reply and browser navigation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #14961. Related: #14948 and #15007. **What happened?** Native task envelopes repeat completion procedure text. A reduced envelope needs explicit final-reply requirements. The `write_document` receipt also lacks a canonical document link. **Expected behavior** Keep the completion tools as the source of procedure details. Require one accepted completion result before the final reply. A blocked reply must explain the reason, owner and unblock action. A document reply must contain a working link to the saved document. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the native assigned-skill document case and native blocker case. 2. Inspect the run-attributed provider final and its persisted comment. 3. Check the blocker explanation or open the final reply's document link. ## What Changed - Remove repeated completion procedure text from the native task constraints and backend instructions. - Keep explicit blocker and document-link requirements in full task turns. - Return a company/task-scoped `documentHref` from `write_document`. Preserve the link in the idempotent mutation receipt. - Repeat canonical links for this run's current saved revisions in accepted completion feedback. Give blocked providers final-response guidance for the cause, owner and unblock action. - Keep internal document/comment anchors when Markdown issue links load cached issue details. - Add a manual six-cell comparison suite with strict source, build, default-instruction and budget admission. - Capture eighteen shared runnerd RPC projections and six direct OpenCode HTTP projections across start, resume and continuation phases, using scripted local transports and no provider execution. - Apply v3 checks only to the manual instruction comparison; preserve v2 checks for the existing native completion suite. Check the actual persisted blocker reason and exact saved-document link. Click the rendered document link and check the original content marker in the classic document card or the new document tab. - Forward exact OpenCode finishing calls through the controller. Wait for acceptance, keep accepted feedback and concrete rejection text, and reject malformed responses. Preserve ordinary dynamic-tool response handling. - Settle the completion decision and tool response before mapping a racing idle/error/abort event or handling explicit close/interruption. Reject a concurrent finishing call before controller admission. - Add a provider-free regression through real runnerd, the OpenCode proxy and a fake provider. Reject the first completion, accept the corrected report in the same turn, and propose one result. - Keep all original verdicts unchanged. Treat replay under new checks as separate diagnostics. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass locally. - Native document-authority tests pass, including company/run authorization and idempotent replay. - Native runtime-context, backend and measurement tests pass. - Final-answer calibration, protocol scoring, source-admission and catalog tests pass. Wrong reasons, absent links and wrong link targets fail. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passes. Discovery lists exactly six single-attempt local cells with the declared models. - Exported `prepareNativeInstructionPreflight` then `verifyNativeInstructionPreflight` pass on this clean committed source. They build locally and make zero provider calls. - Corrective live confirmation is incomplete. Source |
||
|
Dotta
|
2e5a24e177 |
feat(runner): add qualified OpenCode runtime (#12588)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner provides a durable execution boundary for supported providers. > - The current production runtime supports Codex but cannot execute OpenCode sessions. > - OpenCode needs a qualified transport, strict input mapping, and normalized events. > - This pull request adds the OpenCode runtime as one isolated provider unit. > - The benefit is a reviewable provider expansion that does not weaken the existing Codex path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: packages/paperclip-runner and the Codex-local adapter configuration contract. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip Runner has provider-neutral contracts, but the production backend factory cannot start a qualified OpenCode session. This blocks OpenCode from using the durable runner path. **Proposed solution** Add the qualified OpenCode app-server proxy, driver, MCP bridge, backend, fixtures, and factory wiring. Keep existing Codex behavior unchanged. **Alternatives considered** Keeping OpenCode only on the direct adapter path would avoid this runtime work, but it would not provide durable runner recovery or normalized provider events. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting provider-runtime project. This change extends the existing Paperclip Runner architecture. ## What Changed - Added the qualified OpenCode app-server proxy and input queue. - Added collaboration-mode and provider-event normalization. - Added the OpenCode MCP bridge and native session backend. - Added strict fixtures and focused unit coverage. - Added only the package exports and adapter configuration required by this runtime. - Kept deferred SDK, lab, eval, and public package surfaces out of this change. ## Verification - GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this PR. - Run the package type checks and focused OpenCode tests in CI. - Run repository typecheck, test, build, security, and policy gates through the stack-aware workflow. - Local tests were not run because this checkout is resource constrained. ## Risks - OpenCode protocol changes could affect event normalization or recovery. - The driver fails closed on malformed input and unsupported runtime behavior. - Existing Codex selection remains unchanged unless the stored provider is OpenCode. > 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. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel agent 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout - [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 ## Stack - Position: 1 of 4 - Base: master - Next: additional qualified provider runtimes |