mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-01 15:35:12 +01:00
085160816871a030ad3e4916006c19ec2b6f8fd1
21
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 scotttongandClaude Fable 5
|
0851608168 |
fix(ui): task-chat pane-tab underline hugs the properties header's bottom border
The Properties/Plan/Artifacts strip portaled into the pane header floated its active underline ~6px above the header's border-b (list padding + the bar's py-2). Move the bar's vertical padding onto the window-controls cluster, stretch the portaled strip to the header's full height, and pin the trigger underline to bottom-0 so it sits on the border line. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Fable 5
|
111f7bac6a |
fix(ui): task-chat phase 2e follow-ups — kill outer main scrollbar, restore pane-tab underline, conditional Plan/Artifacts tabs
Flag-gated (enableTaskChatRedesign), flag OFF unchanged: - Extra scrollbar: with the flag ON the page content used a fixed calc(100dvh - 8rem) thread height inside the padded outer <main> (overflow-auto), so main itself also scrolled. The IssueDetail root now fills main exactly (h-full flex column) and the chain down to the thread is flexed with min-h-0, so the thread's internal viewport is the only scroll surface. TaskChatThread's dvh height token still applies on mobile, where main has no fixed height (flex-basis falls back to it). - Pane-tab underline: the portal into the pane header bar kept React context but broke the DOM ancestry that Tailwind's group-data-[orientation]/tabs selectors need, so the active-tab underline never applied. A display:contents group/tabs wrapper inside the portal restores it. - Conditional tabs: Plan/Artifacts triggers render only when the issue has a plan document/accepted decompositions or attachments (same query keys as the tab bodies — shared cache). With neither, the header bar shows a plain "Properties" title and the pane body is the plain properties stack. Tabs are controlled with a fallback to Properties if the selected tab's content disappears. Verified on :3093 light+dark via Playwright: main scrollHeight == clientHeight (923/923) on //; underline opacity 1 on active portaled tab; Properties|Plan on , all three on , title-only on ; portaled tab clicks switch content; flag-off run scrolls the legacy page (4454px) with no redesign testids. ui tsc clean; issue-properties/task-chat/IssueDetail/IssueChatThread tests pass (1 pre-existing TZ flake in IssueProperties monitor row, fails on base). Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Fable 5
|
9a5f7e26e4 |
feat(ui): task-chat phase 2e — pane tabs in header bar, chat-only center, non-sticky header, plan CTA action bar
Flag-gated (enableTaskChatRedesign), flag OFF byte-identical: - Properties | Plan | Artifacts tab strip portals from IssueProperties into the pane's header bar (new slot left of the maximize/close controls). - Center Chat/Activity/Related-work tab strip hidden — the thread is the page; deep links that switched tabs stay on chat. - Issue header (parent breadcrumb, title/badge block, plugin toolbars, load- earlier button) renders INSIDE the thread scroll viewport, so it scrolls away with the messages instead of staying pinned. - --tc-thread-max-h reserve 21rem → 8rem: composer now sits ~26px above the viewport bottom. - New IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar: while a plan confirmation is pending, its Confirm/Decline CTAs (with decline-reason flow) pin to a footer slot below the pane's scroll area on the Plan tab. Verified: ui tsc clean; motion gate (25 files) + token gates clean; 218 tests across task-chat/pane/IssueDetail/IssueChatThread (1 pre-existing TZ flake in IssueProperties monitor row, fails on base); Playwright on :3093 light+dark — tabs in pane header, header scrolls away/returns, thread bottom 923/950, plan bar pinned at pane bottom in footer slot, zero page errors; flag-off run shows legacy tabs/pane title, 0 redesign testids. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Fable 5
|
a5bdb851ea |
feat(ui): task-chat phase 2c — center/widen shell, inline interaction cards, plan doc in Plan tab
All flag-gated behind enableTaskChatRedesign; flag OFF stays byte-identical. - --tc-shell-max-w (60rem) token; IssueDetail wrapper + skeleton become mx-auto w-full max-w-(--tc-shell-max-w) when the flag is on, and the thread body + pinned composer caps switch to the same token - interaction kind added to the task-chat model; TaskChatThread merges interactions chronologically (same sort keys + same-run handoff shift as buildIssueChatMessages) and renders them via TaskChatInteractionCard, a v7-grammar wrapper over the shared IssueThreadInteractionCard (expired confirmations demote to a marker row) - useIssuePlanDocument hook (404 → null) shared by the Plan tab, which now renders the plan document via MarkdownBody with a revision line above the decompositions, and by the thread's Plan updated/created marker Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Fable 5
|
474c4138ac |
feat(ui): task-chat redesign phase 2 — v5–v7 reconciliation + live-thread completeness
Reconcile the baseline with the accepted v5–v7 prototype decisions and finish the live-thread work items (, plan §5), all behind enableTaskChatRedesign: - Composer: v7 comp-bar (attach + far left, rectangle status-chip mode trigger via --tc-mode-* hues incl. ask-blue #3b82f6, assignee combobox left of send, all controls 32px, no shortcut hints), per-message mode with ⇧⇥ cycling, attachments via button/paste/drag-drop, reassign-on-send with implicit reopen. - Scroll pill: stock shadcn MessageScrollerButton (32px round, arrow-only) with tokenized entry/exit motion and easing-aware re-follow (smooth glide cannot unpin the follow state; wheel/touch cancels). - Turn fold: run activity grouped into TaskChatTurn — live turns stream expanded, settling folds to a one-line '✓ Worked · 38s · 3 tools · +34 −3' summary (--motion-turn-fold 380ms, instant for settled history, reduced-motion honored), settled turns interleave before their run's reply comment. - Bubbles: agent header gains the textless brand-gradient capsule avatar + name · mode chip (deterministic agent→gradient hash). - Properties pane: tab label Plans→Plan; drag-resizable (clamp ≥260px, dbl-click reset 322px, width remembered) + maximizable (320ms glide, spacer holds flex slot, 840px content cap) — flag-off DOM untouched. - Motion: new tokens (turn-fold, scroll-pill enter/exit + easings, pane-glide) in index.css :root + reduced-motion zeroing + tweak-panel catalog entries. Verified: workspace tsc clean; check-task-chat-motion + token gates clean; 53 task-chat/PropertiesPanel/gate tests, 29 experimental-settings tests and 21 server instance-settings tests pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Fable 5
|
d270ee47fd |
feat(ui): task-chat redesign baseline behind enableTaskChatRedesign
New ui/src/components/task-chat/ surface (model, TASK_CHAT_STATES inventory, fixtures, adapter, Bubble/Marker/StatusPill/ToolCard/ThinkingBlock/UsageReadout/ Scroller/PlanView/ThreadView, TweakPanel), motion tokens in index.css :root, useTaskChatRedesignEnabled hook + TaskChatRedesignGate, one-line ThreadComponent seam in IssueDetail.tsx, flag-scoped tabs in IssueProperties.tsx, dev harness /dev/task-chat-lab, gate script scripts/check-task-chat-motion.mjs. Flag wired through the 3 lockstep shared files (types/validators/feature-catalog), preference tier, default off. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
d84c5eae7a |
feat(ui): hide task priority from the UI (keep data model) (#11024)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks and issues carry a `priority` field that renders across many product surfaces: the detail header, the Triage properties panel, Kanban and thread cards, the New Task composer, list Sort/Group/Filter menus, search filters, and the dashboard chart. > - Product feedback found the priority level adds visual noise and decision cost without clear value in day-to-day task flow. > - We want to remove priority from the interface, but keep the data model, API, validation, and search DSL fully intact so the choice is reversible with no migration. > - This pull request hides every priority indicator and control behind one compile-time flag, `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI`, set to `false`. > - The benefit is a calmer, simpler UI now, with a single-boolean revive path and zero data loss. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists. Describing in-PR per the feature template. --> **Subsystem affected** The web UI (`ui/src`): issue detail, properties panel, Kanban/thread cards, New Task dialog, issues list Sort/Group/Filter menus, search filter bar/sheet, dashboard charts, and the design-guide showcase. **Problem or motivation** The task/issue priority level appears across many surfaces and adds visual clutter and decision overhead without pulling its weight in normal task flow. We want it gone from the interface without discarding the underlying data or breaking anything that depends on it. **Proposed solution** Add a single compile-time UI flag, `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI` (default `false`), and gate every priority indicator and control behind it. Leave the data model, API params, Zod validation (including the `"medium"` default), and the search filter DSL untouched. Reviving priority is a one-line flip of the flag back to `true`. **Alternatives considered** Deleting the priority code and schema outright. Rejected: it is irreversible, needs a data migration, and throws away a field the API and search still support. A gated flag keeps the change reversible and low risk. **Roadmap alignment** UI simplification. This is a presentation-only change; it does not alter core agent or data behavior. ## What Changed - Added `ui/src/lib/ui-flags.ts` exporting `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI: boolean = false` (typed `boolean` so gated branches are not flagged as dead code). - Gated the priority row in the Triage properties panel and the editable priority control in the issue detail header (plus its skeleton seed). - Gated the per-card priority icon in `KanbanBoard` and in `IssueThreadInteractionCard`. - Hid the priority chip and the mobile "more" menu priority section in the New Task dialog. The submit path still sends the `"medium"` default. - Removed the Priority options from the issues list Sort and Group-by menus; the comparator and grouping logic stay dormant. - Hid the Priority sections in the issue filters popover and in the search filter bar and sheet. The `priority:` search DSL and filter state stay functional at the data layer. - Suppressed active-filter priority pills for consistency. - Gated the "Tasks by Priority" dashboard chart and the design-guide priority showcase subsection. - Left activity-feed "changed priority" history text intact as a historical record. - Updated call-site tests to assert priority UI is absent while the flag is off, added focused hidden-surface tests, and added a test that proves creating a task still persists `priority: "medium"`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all 3 gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run` on the touched surfaces (IssueProperties, IssueFiltersPopover, IssuesList, NewIssueDialog, IssueDetail, PriorityIcon and its interaction test) — all green under `TZ=UTC`. - Manual: with the flag off, priority does not appear in the detail header, Triage panel, New Task composer, Sort/Group/Filter menus, or the dashboard chart. Creating a task still persists `priority: "medium"`, and the `priority:` search token still filters at the data layer. ## Risks Low risk. The change is presentation-only and additive: no data model, API, validation, or search-DSL changes. The priority code paths remain compiled and tested; flipping `SHOW_TASK_PRIORITY_UI` to `true` restores the full UI. Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated per the `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use / code execution in an agentic coding harness. ## 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 - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
f950952de7 |
fix: reliably show plans in the Plan pane and restore sticky plan confirmation CTAs (#10930)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Chat-style tasks show an agent's plan in a dedicated "Plan" pane, and a plan confirmation lets the user accept or request changes to that plan > - When an agent asked for confirmation but never actually published the plan document (it only wrote the plan in a comment or a question), the Plan pane rendered empty, and the confirmation call-to-action that used to sit pinned at the bottom of the pane had disappeared > - A user asked to confirm a plan they cannot see, with no visible CTA, is stuck — the feature silently fails > - This pull request closes the gap on both sides: it prevents plan confirmations that don't point at a real, latest plan revision, it teaches agents to publish the plan document before confirming, and it restores the sticky confirmation action bar and an explanatory empty state so the pane never goes silently blank > - The benefit is that when a plan is expected, it reliably shows up in the right pane with reachable accept/revise actions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description <!-- No public GitHub issue exists; describing in-PR per the bug template. --> **Bug report** - **What happened:** A task in planning mode could present a plan confirmation while the Plan pane stayed empty (no plan document rendered), and the plan-card confirmation CTAs that were previously pinned to the bottom of the Plan pane no longer appeared. - **Expected behavior:** When a plan is expected, the plan document appears in the Plan pane; when a plan is genuinely missing, the pane explains why rather than showing nothing; and the accept/request-changes CTAs stay visible and reachable while the plan scrolls. - **Steps to reproduce:** Put a task in planning mode with the chat-style task view enabled, have an agent create a plan confirmation without first publishing the `plan` document, and open the Plan tab — the pane is blank and the confirmation actions are missing. - **Deployment mode:** Local dev and self-hosted; UI + server. Related PR (not a duplicate): #9609 "Pin pending confirmations by composer" pins confirmations in a different surface (the composer); this PR restores the Plans-pane action bar and the server/agent guarantees behind it. ## What Changed - **Server:** Reject a `request_confirmation` whose target is a plan document unless a plan document exists and the target points at its *latest* revision, so a confirmation can never reference a plan the pane cannot render (`readPlanTarget` is now exported for reuse). - **Agent instructions:** The CEO and default agent instruction bundles now spell out a plan-publish contract — publish the `plan` document, re-`GET` it and capture `latestRevisionId`, then create the confirmation targeting that revision; never present a plan only in a thread comment or via `ask_user_questions`. - **UI — sticky CTAs:** Restore the plan confirmation action bar pinned to the bottom of the Plans tab so accept/revise stay reachable while the plan scrolls. - **UI — diagnostics:** Keep the Plan tab visible whenever an issue is in planning mode (even before a plan document exists) and show an empty state explaining why the pane is empty instead of rendering nothing. - **UI — annotations:** Add a `panelPlacement="inline"` mode so the plan-document annotation panel renders in document flow instead of as a floating side panel when hosted in the narrow task properties pane. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN - `pnpm typecheck` → clean (all packages) - UI: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/issue-properties/IssuePlanConfirmationActionBar.test.tsx src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx` → 69 passed - Server: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/agent-skills-routes.test.ts` → 60 passed - Manual: with a planning-mode task, the Plan tab stays visible, shows the plan document (or a diagnostic empty state), and the confirmation CTAs stay pinned at the bottom. Visual note: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated — per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". The `storybook-visual` label is intentionally not added. ## Risks Low-to-moderate. The server change adds a validation gate on plan-document confirmations: an interaction that targets a stale or nonexistent plan revision is now rejected with a 422 instead of being created. This is the intended guarantee, but any caller that relied on creating such confirmations will now need to publish the plan document first (which the updated agent instructions cover). UI changes are additive to the Plans tab and gated by the existing chat-style-task experimental flag. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, with tool use (file editing, shell, test 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1fa36be353 |
fix(ui): use HTTP-safe clipboard copy everywhere (#10875)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators often open self-hosted Paperclip over plain HTTP on a LAN or private network. > - Browser Clipboard API writes are not reliable in that insecure context. > - Paperclip already has one shared helper with a legacy copy fallback, but many current copy actions bypass it. > - This pull request routes every core UI copy action and the first-party workspace-diff plugin through the shared helper. > - The benefit is consistent copy behavior on HTTPS, localhost, and plain-HTTP private deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #3529. This change supersedes the stale prior attempt in #3531. Current master has more copy surfaces and a first-party plugin UI bridge that the prior branch does not cover. ## What Changed - Replaced direct Clipboard API writes and duplicate fallback implementations across the current core UI with `copyTextToClipboard`. - Added an HTTP-safe clipboard function to the plugin UI SDK and wired the host bridge to the same implementation. - Migrated the first-party workspace-diff plugin to the plugin SDK clipboard function. - Added unit coverage for native rejection fallback and plugin host delegation. - Added a source-level regression test that rejects new direct clipboard writes outside the shared implementation. - Documented the plugin UI clipboard function. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ...` for 14 affected suites: 164 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run tests/ui-clipboard.test.ts` in `packages/plugins/sdk`: 1 test passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm -r typecheck`: passed for 31 workspace projects. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm test:run`: passed. - `NODE_ENV=production pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed with all gates clean. ## Risks Low risk. Secure contexts still use the modern Clipboard API. Plain HTTP and rejected modern writes use the existing `execCommand("copy")` fallback. That API is deprecated, but it is the compatibility path required for insecure contexts. The change has no schema, API, or visual design effect. > 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-5.6-sol`. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, repository editing, test execution, and GitHub CLI access 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
185515c97b |
fix(external-objects): refresh PR status labels (#10704)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue properties panel can show external objects such as GitHub pull requests. > - Those objects are resolved by external-object providers and then displayed as compact status labels. > - A GitHub pull request could remain in the fallback `unknown` state and appear as `Not yet resolved`. > - That label is confusing when the object is known but has not been refreshed yet. > - This pull request refreshes due external objects from the heartbeat scheduler and improves the unknown-status copy. > - The benefit is a properties panel that moves from pending refresh to the real pull request state without a manual refresh. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. I searched for related public issues and pull requests using the terms `Not yet refreshed`, `external objects refresh`, and `external PR status`, and did not find a duplicate implementation. **What happened?** The issue properties panel could show a GitHub pull request as `Not yet resolved` even when the referenced pull request was valid. The object stayed stale unless a manual refresh path ran. **Expected behavior** A known external object should show pending-refresh copy while it waits for provider data. When the scheduler refreshes it, the properties panel should show the provider status such as open, merged, or closed. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create or view an issue that references a GitHub pull request. 2. Open the issue properties panel. 3. Observe the external object row before a manual refresh has run. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local dev and self-hosted server. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. **Database mode** Not database-related. **Access context** Board view. **Privacy checklist** I reviewed this description and did not include logs, credentials, private URLs, internal issue IDs, or PII. ## What Changed - Added a heartbeat scheduler tick that refreshes due external objects for active companies. - Kept manual external-object refresh behavior on the same service path. - Changed display copy so known provider objects use liveness labels such as `Not yet refreshed`, while fresh unknown provider statuses show `Status unavailable`. - Added server and UI tests for scheduled refresh and label behavior. ## Verification - `corepack pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - GitHub PR checks passed on head `0e7fcd30` - Greptile reported 5/5 on head `0e7fcd30` with no unresolved review threads Notes: - I ran recursive typecheck and build first. Both hit container resource limits with exit 137 during concurrent package work, so I reran the affected server and UI targets separately. - An unrelated workspace-runtime auto-port test fails in this container with a PID ownership mismatch. It is outside the files changed here. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The scheduler does more periodic external-object work, so the main risk is extra provider refresh load. The implementation bounds the work to active companies, due non-terminal objects, and 50 objects per company per tick. The path also stays behind the external-objects experimental setting. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in the Codex execution environment, with shell and GitHub CLI tool use. The runtime did not expose a more specific internal model ID 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> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Fable 5
|
c185e64b77 |
feat(ui): chat-style task view behind an experimental flag (#10606)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators spend most of their time on the issue detail page. They talk to the assigned agent there through comments. > - The current page reads as a ticket form. The thread sits below properties, the composer sits mid-page, and live agent activity renders as dense transcript logs. > - Talking to an agent is a conversation. A chat-first layout matches that mental model better than a ticket form. > - A layout change this large must not disrupt current users. It needs a safe opt-in path and full parity with the existing thread features. > - This pull request adds a chat-style task view behind a new "Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle. The flag is off by default and the existing page is unchanged when it is off. > - The benefit is a focused, readable conversation with the agent: live tool activity folds into compact summaries, the composer stays at the bottom, and properties, plan, and artifacts move into header tabs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #49 (chat with agents is a much-wanted feature). Related PRs found in the dedup search: - #4489 — an earlier, closed attempt to promote the conversation to the primary surface on issue detail. This PR is a fresh, flag-gated take on the same goal. - #8837 — an open PR that proposes a two-column task layout. It restructures the same page but keeps the ticket paradigm; this PR is orthogonal because it is opt-in and chat-first. **Subsystem affected** UI (issue detail page). **Problem or motivation** The issue detail page presents agent conversations as a ticket: properties first, thread below, composer in the middle of the page, and raw transcript noise during live runs. Users who mainly converse with their agents must scroll past chrome to follow the conversation, and live activity is hard to read. **Proposed solution** An opt-in chat-style view of the issue detail page, gated by a new "Chat-Style Tasks" experiment toggle in Settings → Experimental. With the flag on, the thread fills the center pane, the composer docks to the bottom of the viewport, Properties / Plan / Artifacts become header tabs, live turns show a status pill with the current tool action and elapsed time, and settled turns collapse to a "Worked · N tools" summary that expands into per-tool rows. With the flag off, nothing changes. **Alternatives considered** Restyling the existing layout in place (rejected: too disruptive without an opt-out), and a separate chat page beside the issue page (rejected: splits the task's single source of truth). A per-request lab page (`/task-chat-lab`, dev-only) was kept for design iteration instead. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md "CEO Chat" wants lighter conversations that still resolve to real work objects. This PR keeps the core task-and-comments model — it only changes presentation, opt-in — so it does not duplicate that planned work. ## What Changed - New `enableTaskChatRedesign` instance setting, exposed as a "Chat-Style Tasks" experiment card in Settings → Experimental (shared feature catalog, validators, server instance-settings service, and UI settings page). - New `ui/src/components/task-chat/` component family: chat thread with turn grouping, agent reply bubbles, live status pill, collapsible turn summaries with per-tool rows, plan tab with a sticky CTA action bar, inline interaction cards, per-request mode chips, and a bottom-docked composer. - A shared tool taxonomy (`tool-taxonomy.ts`) maps tool names to verbs and icons; the status pill, tool rows, and the classic transcript view all use it. - A transcript adapter converts stored run logs into chat turns; it dedupes tool-call updates by `toolUseId` so tool counts match the expanded rows, and it keeps a tool row's first real name when later generic updates arrive. - Composer: posts on Cmd/Ctrl+Enter, supports image paste with object-URL thumbnail previews (revoked on clear/unmount), and uploads through the issue attachments route. - `IssueDetail.tsx`: with the flag on, pane tabs move to the header bar, the header is not sticky, and the chat fills the center; with the flag off, the previous layout renders unchanged. - Motion tokens for the new animations live in `ui/src/index.css` with a `motion-tokens.ts` catalog and a test that keeps the two in sync (the catalog now also covers the shared enter/exit/swap tokens that the decision/quicklook block declares). - A dev-only `/task-chat-lab` page with fixtures and a tweak panel for motion tuning. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — clean across the workspace. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN. - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run` — 3,344 of 3,345 tests pass locally. The one failure is `IssueProperties.test.tsx` monitor-row time formatting, which is timezone-sensitive: it also fails on unmodified `origin/master` in a non-UTC timezone and passes with `TZ=UTC`. It is not related to this change. - `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — 21/21 pass (covers the new setting). - Manual: start the dev server, open Settings → Experimental, enable "Chat-Style Tasks", and open any issue. The thread fills the page, the composer docks to the bottom, and Properties / Plan / Artifacts appear as header tabs. Assign an agent and comment to watch a live run: the status pill shows the current tool action with elapsed time, and the finished turn folds into a "Worked · N tools" summary. Disable the toggle and confirm the classic page is unchanged. - Visual snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated: per `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`, "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks - The flag-off path goes through the same `IssueDetail.tsx` file, so a regression there would affect current users. Mitigation: the classic markup renders through the same components as before behind explicit flag conditionals, and the full UI suite passes. - The transcript adapter interprets stored run-log formats, including legacy entries without `toolUseId`. Malformed logs degrade to generic tool rows rather than crashing. - The new view changes no server behavior other than one additive instance setting; it is additive and default-off. Overall risk with the flag off is low. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model id `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file editing, shell, test execution) via Claude Code / Claude Agent SDK. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky Leach
|
564870020b | Exclude archived projects from the default project list route (#10146) | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
53d6297f75 |
fix(ui): simplify external object labels and star controls (#9929)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents and their work > - Operators rely on task detail properties and header actions to scan linked resources and make quick decisions > - External GitHub objects used a long pull-request label and repeated mention counts that added visual noise without adding state > - The task-detail star action also rendered as a labelled outline button, unlike the compact star controls used elsewhere > - These inconsistencies made dense task-detail surfaces slower to scan and broke Paperclip's content-first visual language > - This pull request shortens the GitHub pull-request label, removes duplicate mention-count decoration, and aligns the detail star action with the icon-only control pattern > - The benefit is a calmer, more consistent task-detail experience with accessible labels preserved for assistive technology ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue or open pull request was found. **What happened?** On the task detail surface, linked GitHub pull requests were labelled `Github Pull Request` and could show a repeated `×N` mention count. The detail-header star control used a labelled outline button rather than the compact icon-only star pattern. **Expected behavior** Linked pull requests should use the concise `Github PR` label without duplicate mention-count decoration, and the detail star action should render as an accessible icon-only ghost button consistent with neighboring controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task with a linked GitHub pull request mentioned more than once. 2. Inspect the external-object property label and value row. 3. Inspect the star action in the task detail header. **Paperclip version or commit:** `230126d80b` (`master` at preparation time) **Deployment / installation:** Local development, built from source. **Scope:** Core UI; not adapter-specific, database-related, or configuration-related. ## What Changed - Render GitHub pull-request property labels as `Github PR`. - Remove repeated external-object mention-count decoration from property values. - Render detail-header star controls as icon-only ghost buttons while preserving `aria-label`, pressed, busy, error, and tooltip states. - Expand component coverage for concise labels, duplicate-count suppression, visual variants, and accessible star actions. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx` — 54 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Visual review (before/after plus normal, starred, pending, and error states): https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://gist.githubusercontent.com/cryppadotta/9688862a8826c1134aa2b2e8c16509d8/raw/45cb4921851f8968b21e7490e0d705161a9e165d/star-toggle-review.html - `pnpm check:token-gates` — reports five existing `#9627` violations in files unchanged by this PR; the same values are present on `master`. ## Risks - Low risk: changes are limited to task-detail presentation and tests. - The star action remains fully accessible through its existing ARIA label and tooltip, but it no longer displays visible text. - External-object mention counts remain available in data; only the redundant property-row decoration is removed. > 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-5.3 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent with repository and shell access. ## 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> |
||
|
|
f12bb27bcd |
feat: make issue monitors visible across task surfaces (#9783)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to supervise AI-agent companies. > - Operators need task execution state to be visible where they read, reply to, and manage an issue. > - Scheduled monitor state was easy to miss because it lived in a description-area card and used inconsistent, mostly static time copy. > - The task page, composer, retry card, and properties panel therefore needed one shared monitor-state and countdown language. > - This pull request adds shared live-ticking time utilities, moves monitor status into a top-of-page banner and composer strip, and redesigns the properties row with complete read-only details. > - The benefit is that operators can immediately understand when an agent resumes, why it is waiting, and how to act without hunting across the page. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Issue monitors can schedule a future agent check, retry, or wake, but the UI did not present that state consistently or prominently. The existing description-area activity card competed with issue content, the composer did not explain that replying wakes the agent early, compact properties copy truncated important details, and relative times did not share a live two-unit formatter. This change makes scheduled monitor state visible and consistent across the issue header, reply composer, properties panel, and scheduled-retry card. Related prior server-side recovery visibility work: #9629 (distinct scope). ## What Changed - Added shared two-unit monitor ETA/offset formatters and a live-ticking countdown hook, including compact absolute-time rules for Today, weekday, and cross-year dates. - Replaced the description-area monitor activity card with a top-of-page status banner and added an inline composer strip that explains replies wake the agent before the scheduled check. - Redesigned the properties Monitor row as readable two-line copy with attempt state, due/overdue/cleared wording, click-to-edit behavior, and a hover/tap details tooltip. - Adopted the shared two-unit formatting in the scheduled-retry card and added focused coverage for monitor formatting, state transitions, visibility, and controls. - Added the approved wireframe package and published reference: https://pages.paperclip.ing/pap-14557-monitor-visibility/ ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-monitor.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueMonitorBanner.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 3 files, 74 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed with existing Vite optimization/chunk-size warnings. - UX review approved the rendered real components across desktop/mobile, light/dark, and the scheduled/retrying/due/overdue/cleared/none state matrix. - QA passed 6/6 criteria in Chromium, including a live countdown transition without refresh. Review evidence included the P2 banner state-matrix screenshot and the P3 properties-row and details-tooltip screenshots, plus a dark-mode capture. - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports five pre-existing `#9627` comment literals on `origin/master`; this branch introduces none of those literals or any new token violation. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate UI behavior risk: monitor copy and placement change across several issue surfaces, but all derive from one shared state builder and focused tests cover the state matrix. - Countdown rendering wakes once per minute while a visible monitor is scheduled; the hook is limited to active monitor surfaces and stops when hidden. - No database, API contract, migration, telemetry, or authorization behavior 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, `gpt-5.6-sol`; context-window metadata was unavailable in this runtime; reasoning, repository tool use, command execution, and test execution enabled. Earlier implementation commits were assisted by Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context), as credited in their commit trailers. ## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
59fb27ff79 |
feat(inbox): let agents safely tidy user inboxes (#9724)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status > - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully attributable > - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and #9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together > - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior harder to review and land as one coherent capability > - This pull request consolidates the remaining server, shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current master > - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI. ### Problem or motivation Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed for safe agent-managed cleanup. ### Proposed solution Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening. ### Alternatives considered - Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization. - Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because completion signals can still require human review or a decision. - Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed and verified together. ### Related work - Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658. - Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661. - `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization initiative. ## What Changed - Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage. - Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency, and detailed activity auditing. - Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and Paperclip skill. - Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human action. - Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane handling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed. - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing `#9627` literals outside this PR's diff. ## Risks - Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths. - Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or visibility. - The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist and disabled modes can reduce agent access. - This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new migration number or modification to an already-applied migration. > 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 using GPT-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, code review, and test 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 (`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
89af58b6dc |
Clarify task-level model overrides in issue properties (#9710)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane where operators configure and inspect AI-agent work. > - An issue can override the assigned agent's primary model for that task. > - The issue-properties UI labeled that per-task setting as `Custom · <model>`, which could be read as a property of the model rather than a replacement of the agent default. > - Operators need the UI to distinguish the agent's primary model from an issue-specific override at both the collapsed summary and selection point. > - This pull request renames the lane presentation to `Override` and adds concise provenance text without changing the stored lane value or adapter configuration behavior. > - The benefit is that operators can immediately understand which model will run and why it differs from the agent default. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. Related implementation work: #9700 moved Codex ACPX model configuration to startup and is already on `master`; #9355 also addresses ACP session-config rejection behavior. Those PRs concern execution behavior, while this PR is limited to clarifying the issue-level override UI. Bug report details: - **What happened?** The issue-properties Model row displayed `Custom · <model>` for a task-level `assigneeAdapterOverrides.adapterConfig.model`. Operators could misread `Custom` as describing the model itself and could not see that the value replaced the agent's primary model for this issue. - **Expected behavior:** The UI should explicitly identify a task-level model as an override and explain that it replaces the agent's primary model for the issue. - **Steps to reproduce:** Configure an agent with a primary model, set a different model on an issue, and inspect the Model row and model picker in Issue Properties. - **Paperclip version or commit:** Reproduced on the pre-change branch derived from current `master`. - **Deployment mode:** Local development or any deployment using the board UI. - **Installation method:** Built from source. - **Agent adapters involved:** Adapter-agnostic; any adapter exposing model selection. - **Database mode:** Not database-related. - **Access context:** Board operator viewing issue properties. - **Relevant logs or output:** Not applicable; this is a presentation ambiguity. - **Relevant config:** An issue-level `assigneeAdapterOverrides.adapterConfig.model` differing from the assigned agent's primary model. - **Additional context:** The internal lane identifier remains `custom`; only user-facing copy and explanatory text change. - **Privacy checklist:** No private instance links, internal ticket IDs, secrets, usernames, or local paths are included. ## What Changed - Renamed the collapsed issue model label from `Custom · <model>` to `Override · <model>` and added a provenance tooltip. - Renamed the model-picker lane from `Custom` to `Override` and added explanatory subtext at the selection point. - Updated the Issue Properties component test to assert the new label. - Added an isolated Storybook fixture for the task model override state so visual review has a stable target. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 43 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — the changed files are clean, but the repo-wide command currently reports nine unrelated `#9627` comment references already present on `master` as color literals. ## Risks - Low risk: this changes display strings and explanatory copy only; override storage, lane identifiers, API contracts, and execution behavior are unchanged. - The global token-gate false positive may also appear in CI until the unrelated `#9627` references on `master` are allowlisted or the scanner ignores issue-number comments. > 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 coding agent assisted this PR preparation using medium reasoning, repository-aware shell execution, Git/GitHub tooling, and local test/typecheck execution. The hosted runtime did not expose an exact model ID or context-window size to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
5c85ae64a0 |
Cases: experimental first-class case object (#9198)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single task thread. > - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for content artifacts and their supporting metadata. > - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history, issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend on Cases. > - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views, reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases without making them the default workflow. > - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature. > - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the `enableCases` flag. > - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work, references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads without polluting the core issue model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature. Feature request fields: ### Problem Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on. ### Proposed solution Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and writable by agent workflows through documented conventions. ### Alternatives considered Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution history. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and experimental `enableCases` instance setting. - Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments, and idempotent agent-oriented upserts. - Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than leaking existence. - Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot. - Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters and no-project filtering. - Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible lookup regressions. - Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes, list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children, attachments, and issue-page case rail. - Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company route. - Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or update Cases. - Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to `0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence. ## Verification - Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`. - Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing PR branch. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff --check` before commit. - Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no `.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the Greptile 100-file limit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the timestamp and lookup fixes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` — passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file / 12 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the list-filter fix. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes. - Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build, typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review, Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral. - Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads. ## Risks - Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI. - The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default operator exposure while the model is exercised. - Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect remains for externally entered URLs. - Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second pass for ancestor/context rows. - Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where relevant for safer replay. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex in the Paperclip local coding environment was used for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation, push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter. Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers recorded in git history. ## 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [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 - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Fable 5
|
c90e66bdd6 |
feat(ui): design-system component convergence — Card/Badge adoption, multiplicative radius ladder, unified list surfaces (#9240)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its UI is governed by a design system (`DESIGN.md` + the token layer in `ui/src/index.css`, merged in #9134) whose first principle is "one way to say each thing" — one Card, one Badge, one nav row > - After the token extraction landed, ~35 files still hand-rolled card containers, ~45 files hand-rolled pill spans, the sidebar agents section duplicated the nav-row chrome, and the inbox and tasks lists rendered the same task rows two subtly different ways > - Each divergence is a place where a future design change (radius, hover language, status vocabulary) silently misses surfaces, defeating the "edit tokens + run checks" model the design system exists for > - This pull request converges those surfaces onto the shared primitives, codifies the radius scale as the modern multiplicative shadcn ladder, and unifies the row/hover/tree-guide language across the inbox and tasks lists — every visible delta was human-reviewed screen-by-screen against a live instance across nine feedback rounds > - The benefit is that the app's look is now steerable from single knobs (one `--radius` anchor, one Card, one Badge, one row component), and the visual regression suite covers the result (514 snapshots including a new AgentDetail page story) ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work; describing per the feature template: - **Problem**: after the design-token foundation (#9134), component-level drift remained — hand-rolled cards/pills, duplicated sidebar row chrome, and two different renderings of task rows (inbox vs tasks list) meant design changes had to be applied per-surface and frequently missed spots (e.g. status glyphs rendered 16px in the inbox but 20px in the tasks list because a slot override silently beat the component default). - **Proposed behavior**: all card-shaped containers render via `Card`, all label pills via `Badge`, sidebar rows via `SidebarNavItem`, and both task-list surfaces via one `IssueRow` configuration; the radius scale is a single multiplicative ladder anchored at `--radius: 0.5rem`. - **Alternatives considered**: converting interactive `<button>`/`<Link>` cards to `Card` divs (rejected — breaks semantics; documented inline with `design-allow` comments instead); keeping the legacy additive radius ladder (rejected in favor of the standard shadcn multiplicative mapping). ## What Changed - `Card` adoption across ~35 files (settings pages, auth/board flows, dashboards, list containers, KPI tiles); non-adoptable sites (interactive cards, `<li>` rows, class-string props, chart tooltip) carry documented `design-allow(card-pattern)` comments - `Card` gains an `interactive` prop — one quiet hover affordance for clickable cards (cursor, border darken, shadow lift, focus ring), applied to skills tiles, artifact cards, and the company selector; cards carry no resting shadow - `Badge` adoption for 113 hand-rolled pill spans across ~45 files; `PropertyChip` wraps `Badge` internally; `StatusBadge`, external-object chips, and match chips stay bespoke by documented decision (WCAG-tuned status mechanics) - Radius ladder becomes the multiplicative shadcn mapping (`sm/md/lg/xl/2xl/3xl/4xl = 0.6/0.8/1.0/1.4/1.8/2.2/2.6 × --radius`, anchor `0.5rem`); every card surface unifies on `rounded-lg`; the orphaned 8px literal token is deleted - Sidebar: agent rows render via `SidebarNavItem` (new additive props: `iconNode`, `active`, `trailing`, `liveAccessory`); live dots use `--status-agent-running`; one row rhythm and inset rounded pill highlight; right-aligned trailing badges; every labeled section is collapsible - Inbox + tasks lists unified: md status glyphs, `accent/50` rounded row hovers, vertical tree guides under parent rows (opaque underlay so dark-mode translucent borders don't stack), no horizontal dividers under expanded parents; the swipe-to-archive reveal layer shows only mid-swipe; board toggle uses the `SquareKanban` glyph - Kanban: every column carries a status-hued tint; lanes default expanded (including empty); compact mode collapses empty lanes to labeled rails (fixes a clipped, label-less empty-column state) - Storybook: new AgentDetail page story (realistic fixtures, light+dark) joins the visual suite; suite captures with `reducedMotion: 'reduce'` and the ux-lab reasoning ticker honors `prefers-reduced-motion`; a stale lexical alias in `storybook/main.ts` is fixed (build was broken since the lexical 0.46 bump) - Keyboard navigation, from live review of the unified lists: inbox navigation keys work on every tab (archive keys stay scoped to the archivable tab); keyboard-driven scrolling no longer hands the selection to whatever row lands under the stationary cursor (hover selects only after real pointer movement); the tasks list view gains the same j/k / arrows / Enter selection model as the inbox; and the `g` then `i` go-to-inbox chord works app-wide instead of only on the issue detail page - Token gates restored to 3/3 CLEAN (tokenized a post-#9134 regression in the recovery card); decisions recorded in `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` and `doc/design/COMPONENT-INVENTORY.md` (investigation verdicts: FileTree vs WorkspaceFileBrowser and the four entity pickers stay separate — evidence included) ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → 3/3 CLEAN - `pnpm typecheck` → green (all packages) - `cd ui && npx vitest run` → 2106/2106 (assertions updated in lockstep where they documented superseded decisions; new tests for the global go-to-inbox chord) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` → exit 0 - `pnpm build-storybook` → succeeds (also fixes the lexical-alias break on master) - Visual regression: 514-snapshot Playwright suite green against the updated baseline (zero diffs from the keyboard-navigation round — those changes are purely behavioral). Note: baselines live outside git per the suite design and the baseline-manifest archive is not yet published, so CI cannot run this suite — it was run locally throughout; every visible delta was reviewed screen-by-screen in a live instance across nine review rounds. Review evidence (before/after triplets) intentionally kept out of the repo for size; available on request. - Manual: exercised dashboard, tasks (list + board), inbox, agents, skills, costs, settings, and artifact surfaces in light and dark themes ## Risks - Wide but shallow visual surface: most changes are class-string substitutions with behavior preserved (props, handlers, roles, test ids). The riskiest areas — dnd-kit card refs (React 19 ref-as-prop), inbox swipe-to-archive, and sidebar overlays — are covered by existing unit tests (all green) and were manually exercised. - Intentional visual deltas (rounded cards, tinted kanban columns, md status glyphs, unified hovers) are design decisions recorded in `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`; each maps to a re-baselined snapshot set locally. - The visual suite cannot yet run in CI (unpublished baseline archive — pre-existing condition from #9134); until that lands, snapshot coverage is local-only. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — agentic coding with tool use (file editing, test execution, Playwright screenshot verification); extended thinking 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (will confirm once CI runs) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending first review) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
c07e650cd7 |
feat(ui): single-source design tokens, visual regression suite, and theme retune (#9134)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its UI is the operator's daily surface: task lists, boards, budgets, agent status — all built on shadcn components and Tailwind > - Visual values (colors, spacing, type sizes, radii) were hardcoded at ~1,600 call sites: the same "small gray label" was 9/10/11px depending on the file, charts disagreed with chips about status colors, two toggle-switch implementations coexisted in two greens, and there was no visual regression coverage > - This made the UI drift-prone and made any restyle a hundreds-of-files project, which discourages design iteration > - This pull request extracts visual values into a single token layer in `ui/src/index.css`, adds a Storybook visual regression suite backed by external immutable baseline archives, and then applies a deliberate retune reviewed change-by-change on screenshot diffs > - The benefit is that Paperclip's look becomes a config surface: retheming is a token edit reviewed as a snapshot diff, drift is blocked by a token gate, and future UI PRs can prove exactly what changed visually without committing hundreds of PNGs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue covers this work (searched "design tokens", "visual regression", "design system" across issues and PRs). Related in spirit: Refs #8982 (theming a hardcoded panel — a one-off instance of the same problem class this PR addresses systematically). **Problem (feature-request form):** UI visual values are hardcoded per call site with no source of truth and no regression coverage; consistency depends on reviewer memory, and restyling requires mass file edits. **Proposed solution (this PR):** a single token layer + enforcement gate + externally stored visual snapshot suite, then an intentional restyle on top of that foundation. ## What Changed - **Token extraction (zero visual change, machine-verified during development):** committed codemods (`scripts/codemod-*.mjs`) moved ~1,600 hardcoded color/type/spacing/radius/shadow/misc values into named tokens in a non-inline `:root` block of `ui/src/index.css`. - **Visual regression suite:** `pnpm test:storybook-visual` covers 255 stories × light/dark = 510 Playwright screenshots at `maxDiffPixels: 0`, plus new primitive-coverage stories and deterministic-render fixes. - **External visual baselines:** committed PNG snapshots were removed. `tests/storybook-visual/baseline-manifest.json` pins an immutable archive URL/hash/size/count, and `scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs` handles `download`, `verify`, `pack`, and trusted maintainer `upload` flows. - **Opt-in visual CI artifacts:** added a `Storybook Visual` workflow that runs on manual dispatch or PRs labeled `storybook-visual`, downloads/verifies the baseline, runs Playwright, and uploads Playwright report/test-result artifacts for review. Normal PR runs do not mutate baseline objects. - **Token gate:** `pnpm check:token-gates` — zero hex literals, zero arbitrary bracket values, zero raw font-sizes in `ui/src/components/**` and `ui/src/pages/**`, with a documented inline allowlist for legitimate opt-outs. - **Theme retune (intentional, snapshot-reviewed):** new base theme values; radius ladder derived from a single `--radius` knob; micro-type cluster collapsed to a named ladder (`--text-nano/micro/compact` + Tailwind `text-xs`/`text-sm`); letter-spacing collapsed to named steps. - **One status-color vocabulary:** charts, quota/budget bar fills, RUNNING/live chips, and liveness indicators all use the canonical `--status-*` hues. Light-mode legibility fixes for red alert surfaces that used dark-tuned text classes. - **One switch:** `ToggleSwitch` restyled to the registry capsule form, second hand-rolled implementation removed, and all call sites unified. - **Docs:** `DESIGN.md` is the design contract; `doc/design/` holds audit reports, decision logs, and updated guidance for external baseline review/update workflows. - Dead code removed (`agentStatusBadge` duplicate map), byte-identical contrast constants consolidated, semantic renames (`--project-seed`/`--project-none`, `--liveness-blue`). ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN during the design-system run - `pnpm typecheck` && `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — green during the design-system run - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` — pass after external-baseline rework - `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --pretty false --module NodeNext --moduleResolution NodeNext --target ES2022 --types node,@playwright/test tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts` — pass after external-baseline rework - `git diff --check origin/pr/9134..HEAD` — pass after external-baseline rework - `find tests/storybook-visual -type f -name '*.png' -print | wc -l` — `0` - `node scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs verify` — intentionally fails closed until the first trusted maintainer publishes the baseline archive and updates `baseline-manifest.json` ## Risks - **Large but shallow:** the PR still touches many UI files due to mechanical token extraction and retune work, but committed PNG snapshot churn has been removed from the branch. - **Baseline publication required before the visual suite can pass in clean clones:** the manifest currently has placeholder archive metadata. A trusted maintainer must publish the first immutable archive, then update `baseline-manifest.json`. - **Rendering platform variance:** the external baseline should be captured in the documented Linux/Chromium environment. Future CI runs verify against the pinned archive and fail closed on checksum/count mismatch. - **Visual CI is opt-in while stabilizing:** add the `storybook-visual` label or dispatch the workflow manually to produce downloadable Playwright report/test-result artifacts. - **Scheduled follow-ups, deliberately out of scope:** Tailwind palette classes map to semantic tokens in a dedicated pass; card/pill component consolidation; ESLint ratchet. Tracked in `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking, running in Claude Code with tool use; mechanical phases delegated to Claude Sonnet subagents. Follow-up external-baseline rework assisted by OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5` coding agent with repository, terminal, and GitHub tool use). All bulk rewrites executed via deterministic, idempotent scripts committed in `scripts/`; intentional visual changes were human-reviewed on screenshot contact sheets. ## 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 targeted local verification and documented the intentional baseline-publication failure 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green *(pending new CI run after this rework)* - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups *(pending review)* - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) and OpenAI Codex --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > 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-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
47448721e1 |
[codex] Clean up issue properties pane (#8941)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue details sidebar is a high-traffic operator surface for scanning task state, ownership, policy, relationships, and external references. > - The previous properties pane mixed too much behavior in one large component and several rows could overflow or become hard to scan with long labels and relation lists. > - The UI needed a narrower, more reusable structure so compact property rows, relation pills, external URL rows, and picker triggers behave consistently. > - This pull request splits the properties pane into focused helper modules and tightens the pane's layout, truncation, popover, and overflow behavior. > - The benefit is a denser, more stable properties pane that stays usable when issues have long titles, many relationships, external URLs, or execution policy IDs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this work. I searched GitHub issues and PRs for `IssueProperties properties pane`; there was no duplicate issue and the matching PRs were unrelated test stabilization or other work. ### Problem or motivation The board issue details properties pane is a frequent operator workflow surface, but it was implemented as one large component and several rows could become hard to scan with long labels, many relationships, external URLs, or execution policy IDs. ### Proposed solution Split the properties pane into focused modules, tighten compact row layout and truncation behavior, add bounded previews with explicit expansion controls for long relation and URL lists, and make execution policy ID generation work on insecure origins as well as normal browser origins. ### Alternatives considered A smaller patch inside the existing monolithic component would fix individual overflow symptoms, but it would keep related primitives, picker behavior, relation controls, and external URL rendering tangled in one file. The split keeps the behavior easier to test and review without changing public APIs. ### Roadmap alignment This is an incremental UI quality improvement to the existing board task details surface. I checked `ROADMAP.md` and did not find overlapping planned core feature work. ## What Changed - Split the issue properties pane into focused modules for helpers, primitives, relation controls, property pickers, and external object rows. - Cleaned up row spacing, truncation, picker trigger alignment, scroll behavior, status color coverage, and long-value titles. - Added bounded previews and expand/collapse controls for blocking, sub-task, related-task, and external URL lists. - Fixed execution policy ID generation so insecure origins fall back to a stable base URL instead of throwing. - Updated Storybook issue-management stories and expanded unit coverage for the new properties pane behavior. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 38 tests passed ## Risks Low to moderate risk. The changes are UI-only, but they touch a frequently used task details surface. The main risk is a subtle layout regression in an untested viewport or issue shape; the branch adds targeted coverage for long relation and external URL lists. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI access, and local test execution. Context window size was not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |