mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
0748b9006273dae7ef8c303905ca0ffa0221a708
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
d38cdf261a |
perf(ui): speed up Tasks and Inbox startup (#18492)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks and Inbox are the main entry points for that work. > - Earlier changes made their data reads and row counts smaller. > - Those changes remain, but shared controls now pull in the whole task-detail bundle. > - A cold open can also read a remembered organization before selecting the one in the URL. > - This pull request separates collection code and selects the addressed organization first. > - It warms task code after collection paint, so the next task open stays fast. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17756, #18323, #16849, #17041, #17983, #17960, #18461. **What happened?** Tasks and Inbox still use their optimized index reads and row budgets. However, small shared controls and hooks were placed in the task-detail chunk. A collection had to download that whole chunk. The HTML also preloaded it on every route. The original production profile loaded about 6.5 MB of decoded JavaScript before useful rows, or 1.9 MB transferred with compression. Company bootstrap could select a different remembered organization before Layout selected the URL's organization. This started unnecessary company reads. A retained multi-company browser fixture reproduced two attention-count requests for different companies. **Expected behavior** Show correctly scoped, stable collection rows without waiting for task-detail code. Keep compact reads, bounded rendering, direct task preloading, immediate New Task input, and fast follow-on navigation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a production UI build with Coordinator enabled and two active organizations. 2. Remember one organization, then cold-open Tasks or Mine in the other. 3. Inspect startup script and company requests before the first useful row. The baseline UI revision is `91fdf02e95`. This is a UI change. It has no API, schema, migration, or authorization changes. ## What Changed - Group the static collection dependency trees above the task-detail group. Keep the existing startup and task grouping strategy. - Preload task detail and its static dependency closure early on direct task and agent-chat URLs. Keep collection aliases out of that preload. - Fetch the immutable task chunk at low priority after a collection paints, or on a same-origin task-link hint. After a successful immutable response is fully read, module-preload the cached chunk so it can compile without executing. A failed HTTP probe skips module preload. - Prefer an addressed active organization during bootstrap. Preserve manual selection, archived-company handling, and account-scoped company lists. - Preserve a task reading anchor when a programmatic scroll event reports an unchanged offset during restore reflow. Strengthen the Back journey to wait for a completed collection navigation. - Add production-browser checks for delayed indexes, correct company scope, stable row geometry, failed speculation, and early direct-task preload. Update collection verification notes and the feature map. ## Verification Final source: `e402ab7fc6`; baseline UI: `91fdf02e95`. - All **234 focused unit cases** and **44 production-browser journeys** passed on the final source: 33 task journeys and 11 collection journeys. Coverage includes compact history, saved cards, draft persistence, avatar continuity, failed-probe recovery, delayed data, pagination, deep links, desktop/mobile and reading-position restoration through Back. Desktop and mobile screenshots were inspected. - Workspace typecheck, full production build, map checks, token gates and diff checks passed. The default local `pnpm test:run` still stops before executing tests because the existing chat-test line selector reports `No test found` (1,816 skipped). This is not a passed full local test suite. Focused tests and remote CI remain separate evidence. - Greptile reviewed the exact final commit at **5/5**, with zero open review threads. Final code CI passed. The complete check inventory is **55 successful, 3 skipped, 1 neutral**. The neutral result is the separate Paperclip Review: its agent finished without completing an assessment, so it is not a passing review score. Five alternating baseline/candidate pairs per scenario, Chromium 151.0.7922.34, 1440×900, 4× CPU, 50ms latency, approximately 9Mbps down / 1.5Mbps up. Cold cases use fresh browser contexts with normal cache writes enabled; warm cases use the same context and normal application query cache. Both previews use the server's immutable hashed-asset cache policy and uncached HTML, with real local feature settings and no request interception. All task-owned builds and suites were stopped during timing; other host activity was uncontrolled. Readiness requires useful rows and editable search, or the readable task thread and editable composer, followed by two animation frames. | Journey | Baseline median (range) | PR median (range) | Median paired saving | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Cold Tasks | 3239 ms (3189–3333) | 2545 ms (2441–2682) | +752 ms | | Cold Inbox | 3207 ms (3203–3268) | 2679 ms (2502–3062) | +541 ms | | Warm Inbox | 717 ms (701–917) | 760 ms (745–768) | -47 ms | | Warm Tasks | 1150 ms (1126–1207) | 1136 ms (1119–1174) | +18 ms | | First task click | 943 ms (932–1008) | 1007 ms (976–1098) | -74 ms | | Back to Tasks | 584 ms (568–617) | 566 ms (559–575) | +10 ms | | Cold direct task control | 3389 ms (3377–3402) | 3415 ms (3395–3896) | -13 ms | All five pairs improved for each cold collection. The signed saving is baseline minus candidate for each pair; it is distinct from the difference of medians. Warm navigation is broadly similar. First task click was 74ms slower by median paired difference. Direct-task median paired difference was 13ms slower, with one slower 3.90s candidate sample retained in the range; this is not a claimed direct-task speedup. Completed script transfers by collection readiness fell from about **1.91MB to 1.14MB** (Tasks), and **1.90MB to 1.14MB** (Inbox). Task code warms after rows paint. At the test bandwidth, the removed 0.77MB critical transfer represents roughly 0.65s of download time; CPU and network overlap, so their savings are not added. Unthrottled loopback API control medians stayed about 17–18ms in both variants. All 30 cold samples had zero browser errors. Rejected experiments remain separate: automatic splitting produced over 200 startup requests; disabling recursive grouping slowed direct tasks; HTTP-only warming improved collection startup but slowed first task opens. The final correction preloads direct dependencies and compiles successfully cached code after paint. Routing disables HTTP caching, so intercepted runs were kept as diagnostic evidence rather than used for warm-cache acceptance; see [Playwright's cache behavior](https://playwright.dev/docs/api/class-page#page-route). Vite preview's default asset `no-cache` policy was also corrected to match the shipped server before final measurement. ## Risks - Bundle placement affects shared consumers. Browser checks cover collections and task navigation; the full PR checks also cover other routes. - Code warming still transfers the task chunk if the user stays on a populated collection. It moves that download past first paint and does not execute it. This is a startup latency improvement, not a claim that all eventual bytes disappear. - A direct click before warming finishes still loads code on demand. Direct task and chat URLs retain early module preload. - Local browser evidence does not establish a deployed staging speedup. This PR does not merge or deploy itself. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, tool use and local code execution. The context-window size is not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the relevant tests locally and they pass (234 unit cases and 44 browser journeys; the full-command limitation is documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All code CI gates are green (the separate Paperclip Review is neutral because its agent did not complete an assessment) - [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> |
||
|
|
aa58fa1073 |
perf(ui): restore fast Coordinator task and inbox loading (#18323)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage work done by agents. > - Tasks, Inbox, and Needs You must stay usable as work history grows. > - The Coordinator views bypassed some existing collection optimizations. > - Navigation fetched complete decision cards for a count, and Tasks mounted every loaded row. > - This PR uses the canonical attention rules for small count and task-ID responses. It also restores bounded rendering and the optimized Inbox selection. > - The benefit is less data and less initial rendering work without a second definition of pending work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Coordinator navigation fetched the full attention feed on every cold collection visit. Tasks rendered the entire loaded collection. Coordinator could also select the old Inbox loader when Streamlined UI was off. **Expected behavior** Fetch only the projection needed by each surface. Start with a bounded set of rows. Keep complete task membership, accurate counts, current permissions, and stable loaded rows. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Coordinator and open Tasks or Inbox with an empty browser query cache. 2. Observe a complete attention-card download for the navigation badge. 3. Open a large task list and observe that every loaded row mounts at once. 4. Disable Streamlined UI while keeping Coordinator enabled, then open Mine and observe three overlapping compact task reads. Related work: #17756, #3744, #17983, and #18312. ## What Changed - Add board-only attention count and complete task-ID projections. Reuse canonical company, privacy, addressee, deduplication, dismissal, snooze, and archive rules. Skip card bodies, plan/image reads, and presentation roster lookup. - Share the small count read across desktop and mobile navigation. Reuse the page-owned response on Needs You and Needs attention. Keep the newest known count through navigation, including zero. - Use the task-ID index for Needs attention and keep task row hydration in batches of at most 100. - Render 100 task rows initially, across the whole expanded tree. Reveal 150 more at a time through scrolling or a button. Keep existing rows through refresh and append. Defer offscreen leaf layout with shared tokens. - Keep Coordinator on the optimized Inbox when Streamlined UI is off. Use index reads for expanded project recents. - Add real-database, component, and production-build browser regression checks. Update the access and feature maps. ## Verification - All required CI checks pass on `1c68ac8957490a6c8585ba0939355f536c8120bf`: typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, serialized database suites, and eight E2E shards. Greptile is **5/5**, with its row-retention finding fixed and the review thread resolved. Storybook checks were intentionally skipped; Paperclip Review completed neutral. - Workspace typecheck and production build passed locally. The final rebased source also passed UI typecheck and production build. Token gates and map checks passed. - The attention service suite passed all 34 tests on disposable PostgreSQL. Final targeted checks cover compact projections, complete-set counts, quality approvals, snoozes, private tasks, and board/company access. Database response capture confirms compact projections do not read plans or images. All 31 OpenAPI tests passed after registering both endpoint contracts. - Six production-build browser journeys passed: desktop, mobile, Coordinator Inbox with Streamlined UI off, Needs You, Needs attention, and an older server page followed by task open/Back. They verify the initial 100-row budget, scrolling, retained DOM identity/height, one owner per attention read, complete task membership, 220 retained rows on Back, and less than 2 px of return-position difference. - The row-budget and Inbox regressions fail against original source and pass with this change. The final three affected UI suites passed 40 tests, and the broader Inbox/IssuesList suites passed 101 tests serially. ### Controlled production-build comparison Baseline `b31ec0a2dc079e32272a8f618425fe92b68bbaec` versus PR head `1c68ac8957490a6c8585ba0939355f536c8120bf`. Isolated baseline asset `index-CS9uPxMx.js`; candidate asset `index-BxJeTQ30.js`. Both UI builds used the same warm disposable API server and database, with 220 tasks and 110 pending board approvals. Chromium **151.0.7922.34**, 1440 × 900 viewport, **4× CPU throttle**, loopback with no added network latency, alternating baseline/candidate order. Cold cases use a new browser context with network cache disabled; warm cases navigate within the same context. Other host workloads are uncontrolled. Readiness requires the destination collection's first visible task row, then two animation frames. Inbox readiness waits for its canonical Mine route so previous-page rows cannot satisfy the measurement. Five paired samples per case; cold Inbox has a second five-pair confirmation wave because the first result was slower. Times below are **milliseconds**; parentheses show min–max. Paired savings are the median of individual before-minus-after pairs, not the difference between medians. | Journey | Pairs | Baseline median (range) | Candidate median (range) | Median paired saving | Faster pairs | | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | | Cold Tasks | 5 | 2752 (2542–3025) | 2300 (2275–2524) | 328 | 5/5 | | Cold Inbox | 10 | 2536 (2283–2927) | 2582 (2117–2856) | 37 | 5/10 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 5 | 2054 (1826–2479) | 1448 (1419–1548) | 635 | 5/5 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 5 | 2020 (1485–2254) | 1568 (1289–1848) | 350 | 5/5 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 5 | 1747 (1609–1948) | 1327 (1238–1355) | 472 | 5/5 | Cold Tasks, warm Tasks, warm Inbox, and Back improved in every measured pair. **Cold Inbox latency is inconclusive:** the two waves pointed in opposite directions, with the candidate faster in 5/10 pairs. This PR claims less badge work there, not a proven cold Inbox latency improvement. The canonical badge response shrank from **200,039 to 359 decoded bytes** (encoded HTTP transfer: **8,125 to 598 bytes**). The compact response also skips card payloads, plans, images, and presentation-only roster work. These are measured mechanism reductions, separate from end-to-end latency. Needs You still owns its full card feed; Needs attention owns its complete task-ID projection. Reproduction setup and assertions are in `tests/perf/collections/README.md`. <details> <summary>Individual paired readiness measurements (ms)</summary> | Journey | Pair | Baseline | Candidate | | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | | Cold Tasks | 1 | 3025 | 2283 | | Cold Tasks | 2 | 2542 | 2275 | | Cold Tasks | 3 | 2752 | 2424 | | Cold Tasks | 4 | 2783 | 2300 | | Cold Tasks | 5 | 2641 | 2524 | | Cold Inbox | 1 | 2927 | 2702 | | Cold Inbox | 2 | 2422 | 2629 | | Cold Inbox | 3 | 2409 | 2606 | | Cold Inbox | 4 | 2621 | 2769 | | Cold Inbox | 5 | 2539 | 2856 | | Cold Inbox | 6 | 2283 | 2117 | | Cold Inbox | 7 | 2466 | 2558 | | Cold Inbox | 8 | 2674 | 2286 | | Cold Inbox | 9 | 2696 | 2389 | | Cold Inbox | 10 | 2533 | 2183 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 1 | 2479 | 1423 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 2 | 2228 | 1548 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 3 | 2054 | 1419 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 4 | 1826 | 1448 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 5 | 1954 | 1518 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 1 | 2020 | 1661 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 2 | 2198 | 1848 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 3 | 1733 | 1497 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 4 | 2254 | 1568 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 5 | 1485 | 1289 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 1 | 1721 | 1330 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 2 | 1747 | 1275 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 3 | 1948 | 1355 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 4 | 1609 | 1327 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 5 | 1790 | 1238 | </details> ### Failed attempts and limits - The local full repository command hit embedded PostgreSQL startup failures and 16 failures in the untouched native session executor suite; it was stopped. The full local suite is not claimed green. CI on the final revision provides the broad test result. - A concurrent local UI run hit timing failures under host contention. Inbox/IssuesList subsequently passed all 101 tests serially. No tests were weakened to address these timeouts. - CI caught two integration gaps introduced during this work: missing OpenAPI entries for the new endpoints, and an attention fixture incompatible with the routine filters added on master. Both were fixed; the affected 31 OpenAPI and 40 UI tests pass. - The final revision's first CI attempt failed two untouched tests: scheduled-retry batch cancellation and the tool-access audience/archive race. Both failed jobs passed when rerun without changing the revision. Their original failed attempts remain visible in [the workflow history](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41083379875). - Browser evidence uses synthetic disposable data. This PR is not deployed staging or production verification. ## Risks - New attention sources must preserve canonical eligibility. Both projections call the existing collector, so they share its permissions and complete-set behavior. - The count and task-ID caches must not stand in for full decision cards. Each projection has its own key under the existing attention invalidation prefix. - A row budget can omit descendants if applied per parent. The tests cover one global budget across a large expanded tree, refresh, append, reset, and incremental loading. - Local browser evidence uses synthetic data and is not staging deployment proof. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact backend model deployment ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (affected suites; broad-run limitations are listed above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |