mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-29 12:59:13 +01:00
0a08d37aa0dfd5c60d403c2215a220f9b0a70221
88
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
bd382eee53 |
fix(recovery): explain retained source verification failures (#17773)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Workspace recovery must prove the identity of retained work before it uses an allocation. > - The verifier rejects several different contracts with the same `source_binding_invalid` code. > - A saved Retry can therefore stop before file preservation without enough evidence for a safe repair. > - Operators need a bounded observation of the selected source without another attempt or weaker guards. > - This pull request records closed failure reasons and adds an explicit read-only inspection on the run page. > - The benefit is a precise next diagnostic step while the saved work, intent, and ownership fences remain intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17741, #17053. This is a diagnostic follow-up. It does not change recovery admission or the retained-source acceptance policy. **What happened?** A retained-source recovery exhausted in `verify_execution` with only `source_binding_invalid`. Run and task diagnostics could not distinguish an invalid reference, lease policy, source binding, or reopened allocation. The normal recovery-actions read can also revalidate recovery state, so it was not a safe substitute for a current read-only inspection. **Expected behavior** Record an allowlisted reason at the rejected guard. Allow a reader to inspect one exact task/run/action without changing its attempts, saved input, receipts, or ownership. Clearly separate the recorded failure from current identity observations. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Prepare a terminal native run with a retained-source action and a lease policy of `reuse_by_environment`. 2. Attempt source verification. The guard must still reject that policy. 3. Open the failed run and choose Inspect recovery, then Inspect current source. The diagnostic should name `lease_policy_not_retained` and the allowlisted policy. ## What Changed - Split existing source-binding guards into closed reason codes. Keep each acceptance predicate and physical recovery action unchanged. - Persist validated, path-free reason/policy detail with future system recovery failures. Keep historical generic records compatible. - Add an explicit query on the existing task recovery-actions GET. Exact company/task/run/action selection bypasses read revalidation. Run selection lists at most 20 actions; inspection stops before per-lease lookup when a record has more than eight sources. - Add a manual inspection control on native export-failure run pages. Keep resolved retained actions inspectable. Show recorded failure and current recorded-source identity separately. - Update execution semantics and feature/access recipes. The shared type is the normalized server/UI contract; it contains no provider payload or secret. ## Verification - RED: the prior verifier failed both reason assertions for rejected warm policy and foreign-run lease binding. GREEN: the final focused source/HTTP, system-state, and UI suites pass 23 tests. The UI follow-up passes 8 tests after the review fixes. - HTTP tests prove exact selection, cross-company denial, resolved-action access, reused-allocation rejection, redaction, and unchanged actions, runs, leases, tasks, wakeup receipts, workspace operations, and activity. A nine-source case proves bounded inspection while the existing worker verifier still accepts all nine valid sources. - Review follow-up: show allowlisted saved detail beside a changed current observation, preserve all listed actions, and follow exact-action selection in verified/limited/error tests. The prior component fails the saved/current drift regression in an in-memory RED control; the current component passes. UI typecheck/build pass again. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. Token gates, maps, module boundaries, and `git diff --check` pass. - Rebased onto master `46de15ff4b` without conflicts. Range-diff proves both diagnostic commits are unchanged. On new head `a7e2bc87fcea75e76b6b736304d1287257f71174`, all 23 focused tests, full typecheck/build, token gates, maps, and module checks pass again. Both fresh reviews are 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. Final exact-head GitHub status is CLEAN: 55 success, 2 skipped, 1 neutral, no pending checks or failures. The [ci / verify aggregate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40387002325/job/121802415824) passed in eight seconds. All test/build/typecheck/E2E lanes passed. - Existing full workspace recovery suite: 56/56 pass (103.5 seconds) before the byte-equivalent rebase. `pnpm test:run` hit repeated embedded PostgreSQL initialization failure before database-suite assertions and was stopped. No full local suite pass is claimed. The owned external `_test` database provided the focused HTTP/source verification. The prior browser attempt also stalled at Network.enable before its click; that attempt did not establish browser acceptance. - Current-head local browser acceptance passes through the actual run page: Inspect recovery lists the exact action, Inspect current source shows recorded generic failure separately from the current rejected policy, and reload resets inspection to the explicit control. Explicit selection works again after reload. The app used isolated data, an empty inherited environment, a paused synthetic agent, and no provider credentials. Final state remains failed/exhausted with zero attempts, zero wakeup receipts, zero workspace operations, and unchanged original generic failure. The local app and temporary tab were stopped. This proves the diagnostic journey, not the deployed source's actual lease policy or its recovery. - Final merge verification at `a7e2bc87fcea75e76b6b736304d1287257f71174`: GitHub reports CLEAN and mergeable. Both repository-required checks, `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`, pass, as does the exact-head Greptile check (5/5, zero unresolved threads). The separate [Entire trail](https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/paperclip/trails/7) has no recorded reviewer approval; no such approval is claimed. It is not a configured GitHub merge gate. - Initial local setup failures were distinct from product assertions: localhost sandbox EPERM required scoped local access; a browser harness import path was corrected. A test UUID type inference error and historical native-export UI selection gap were corrected before the green run. The live task remains blocked; this diagnostic does not claim it recovered. ## Risks - This change improves evidence. It does not prove provider termination, local descriptor integrity, or successful file preservation, and it does not repair the original source. - Current inspection spans multiple database reads. It is an observation, not a historical cause or execution authority. It performs no provider/filesystem calls and starts no retry or executor. - The optional persisted detail is backward compatible. Unknown values and extra fields are excluded. Oversized source lists remain uninspected through this explicit diagnostic path; physical recovery rules do not change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with code execution and browser tools. The exact serving model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5061ab7b35 |
perf(ui): speed up task and inbox cold opens (#17756)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task lists and inboxes are the main entry points to that work. > - Cold opens fetch overlapping task lists, task descriptions, and run details before useful rows settle. > - Independent responses can insert rows above content that a person has started to read. > - This pull request loads a small task index first and adds details only for visible rows. > - It keeps row order and geometry stable while those details arrive. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Cold opens of Tasks and Inbox, including the shared navigation badge. **Subsystem affected** Server list reads, shared response contracts, and the React UI. **Current behavior** The badge fetches full task bodies. Mine fetches several overlapping lists. Historical diagnostics and row metadata add work before the first useful list. A fast failed-run response can appear before task rows, then move down when tasks arrive. **Proposed behavior** Load the selected inbox source and its required context together. Use an index without task descriptions or recovery diagnostics. Fetch diagnostic details for up to 50 visible rows. Keep skeletons, recovery indicators, external status, and live metadata in fixed space. **Reason and benefit** Reduce work on a cold open and prevent loading-induced row movement. On the same 100 local fixture tasks, the compact response was 262,441 decoded bytes and the index was 110,909 bytes. This comparison excludes compression and is not a page latency benchmark. **Breaking changes** Existing full and compact responses remain available. New index/row projections are opt-in and marked as partial data. Mine keeps its existing most-recent-100 display limit, now selected on the server. Existing filters and group preferences remain in the client. No database migration. **Additional context** Refs: #17593. Related: #13095, #17428, #13803. This change addresses collection overfetch and layout stability. It does not replace the blocked-inbox query work or the database activity-index work. ## What Changed - Add authorized index and row projections, with bounded task and parent ID batches. - Replace badge list downloads with unread IDs and aggregate counts. Preserve actor privacy, dismissals, and local archive behavior. - Load only the selected inbox source, plus bounded parent and failed-run context. Return only relevant failures from the bounded run window. - Batch hierarchy reads, including at most one authorized child per collapsed parent in one request. Collapsed markers do not consume the expanded row budget, and partial descendant counts are not shown as totals. Enrich visible rows without replacing membership, ordering, titles, or read state. - Reserve row geometry on desktop and mobile. Reveal the initial inbox only after its sources settle. Preserve legacy task-list reads. - Start collection module downloads during access checks. Keep partial rows out of the task-detail cache. - Keep ETags and concurrent request sharing for the new projections, but skip the short server response TTL so archive undo sees fresh state. ## Verification - On final head `ef6afb2a56`, the full CI workflow passed, including build, typecheck, server/workspace/runner suites, and all eight browser shards. A server shard reported **1,489 passing tests** before runner shutdown canceled the job; its single infrastructure retry passed. Both Greptile and Paperclip Review are **5/5**, with zero unresolved review threads. - The optional external **Entire Gates** check remains `unassessed` because it has no active assessed Change for this comparison. Entire is not set up in this checkout. The repository ruleset requires `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`; both passed. No gate configuration was changed. - Passed workspace typecheck after the final API batching change. The full production build also passed on the final commit; the exact-retry E2E run built the shipped UI. - Passed token gates and map validation. The final batch-preview pass has 91 passing route/hierarchy/component tests, including privacy, request bounds, 30 collapsed parents in one read, and a 120-child parent alongside a sibling. - Passed the 166-test focused UI/inbox/badge run, 47 additional UI regression tests, and 34 issue-list route tests. The latest regressions cover low-trust agent badge IDs, cold company selection, 30 description-only Mine matches with archive actions, retrying optional row details, and collapsed/expanded siblings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` spanned the rebase and reported failures in five suites before it was stopped; it is not claimed as a complete pass. A fresh serial rerun of all five suites passed **452/452** tests (tool gateway, native resume, project repositories, workspace recovery, and runner selection). Full current-commit coverage is checked by CI. - Real browser: delayed index and row-detail responses on Tasks and Mine. The first placeholder and first row had the same origin and 44-pixel height. Twelve rows on each page had zero position, height, or title-width change after recovery details arrived. - Real browser: reviewed long titles and recovery status at a 390 by 844 viewport. Task text stays on one line and recovery uses a compact indicator. - Three fresh document loads per page on final commit `260893bf92`, with HTTP cache retained on a warm local development server: Tasks 1.031–1.190 seconds; Mine 0.999–1.193 seconds. Browser-control overhead is included. These values must not be compared directly with staging latency or the earlier local samples taken during a full test run. - The browser archive test exposed stale results after Undo. The new projections now bypass the server TTL; immediate-mutation regression tests pass. The final browser retry passed: Archive followed by Undo restored exactly one row and the badge count. - CI exposed a hook-order crash when company selection resolved after the first inbox render. The hook now runs before the empty-company return. All seven affected exact-retry and legacy-continuation browser scenarios pass locally after the fix. - Real browser review regressions: 97 description-only source matches retained Archive actions; deliberately failed optional row reads displayed a retry notice while all 12 observed row positions and heights stayed unchanged. Retry restored the recovery indicator. Network fault injection was removed. - The final production build and workspace typecheck passed. Final focused verification passed 153 UI/helper tests and 26 heartbeat privacy route tests. Final review regressions cover newer diagnostics arriving during the index read, reloading diagnostics when the same task ID changes version, optional source failure/retry without hiding available rows, and required external-status filter failure. The latest-failures route test verifies bounded selection, agent filtering, success suppressing an older failure, and private-run redaction. - Real browser: deliberately failed the run source, then retried it. Twelve available task rows kept the same position and 44-pixel height before, during, and after retry. No loading skeleton replaced them. Fault injection was removed. - Hierarchy review decision: the cold-open barrier stays because inserting ancestors or expanded children after revealing index rows would cause layout shifts. Existing hierarchy context now survives subsequent requests, with a regression proving a new ancestor read does not blank the list. The bounded recursive tree read can still add latency for unusually deep expanded trees. - Tasks now handles a failed external-status filter with an explicit error and Retry, suppressing a false empty state. All 52 Tasks component tests pass, including failure-to-success retry. One existing large-tree test timed out while workspace typechecking ran concurrently; the whole component suite passed when rerun without that competing work. Workspace typecheck, the full production build, and token gates passed for this fix. ## Risks - Saved filters and grouping still operate on the existing bounded collection. This is not a new global server pagination model. - Fixed row slots reduce available title width. Long titles remain accessible through task navigation. - Recovery and related diagnostics arrive after core rows. Their responses cannot replace ordering fields, and stale versions are rejected. - Index/row requests now revalidate against current data instead of a short server TTL. They still share concurrent reads and use ETags. - This has not been deployed by this pull request. Staging latency must be measured after deployment under comparable conditions. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used code editing, terminal execution, and real-browser diagnostics. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a1f77821b9 |
perf(tasks): show recent conversation before historical activity (#17593)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - A task page must show the instruction and current conversation
quickly.
> - The current page waits for related task data and historical run
transcripts.
> - These reads grow with task history, even when the reader only needs
the latest answer.
> - This pull request gives cold opens a small initial view and loads
older history on demand.
> - Messages and runs observed while the page stays open remain visible.
> - The benefit is a readable task before historical diagnostics finish
loading.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related: #14667 and #16229. The first changes the reveal gate and scroll
anchors. The second adds general history pagination. This PR adds a core
task read and a folded recent-conversation view. It preserves the
default full-read API contracts. The shared files will need coordination
if either related PR lands first.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Cold opening an ordinary task with a long conversation or large run
logs.
**Current behavior**
Task enrichment and historical transcripts delay the readable
conversation. A cold open can fetch several megabytes of tool activity
before revealing saved messages.
**Proposed behavior**
Show the task instruction, recent saved replies, latest human input, and
the latest run's conversation data first. Fetch older messages and full
run activity when the reader chooses **More messages**. Retain new
messages while the page stays open.
## What Changed
- Add an authorized core issue view that skips related enrichment. Keep
enrichment on the existing detail read. Share task mutation, rollback
and invalidation updates with the core cache.
- Add a bounded recent-comment read. Preserve the first human
instruction when no description exists, including legacy rows with a
NULL author type. Keep company and task access checks and comment
redaction.
- Add optional recent activity and run-summary views. Fetch original
input receipts for visible comments separately so delivered messages
stay out of the queue. Reconcile watched unfinished runs after a
reconnect beyond the preview window, removing deleted runs after
reconciliation.
- Filter the latest native run's initial events to assistant messages,
request lifecycles and terminal results. Full event reads remain
available on expansion. Legacy fallback reads use a small tail extended
to the first complete record. HTTP cancellation aborts the storage read.
- Retain observed messages across cursor catch-up and new runs. Apply
local cancellation and deletion to both caches and their task aliases.
Refetch locally seeded history pages on expansion. Preserve expansion
across identifier and UUID links. Keep deep links, classic tasks and
Agent Chat on their existing full-history path.
- Update API documentation, design guidance, capability maps and
regression coverage.
## Verification
- Final acceptance on `9ea0b15ae44d9f6d2c9a9f824b4835f299f92979`: all CI
gates passed, including server/UI tests, all eight browser shards,
runner checks, full typecheck and build. [Final CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40326990328).
GitHub reports 55 successful checks, two intentionally skipped checks,
and one neutral Paperclip Review check described below. No checks are
pending or failed; Greptile is 5/5 and no review threads remain open.
- October 26 merge update: merged current `master`. The only conflict
was in task-page imports; both the compact-history hook and the new
live-update hooks remain. All CI tests and build jobs passed on
`044fd6733d`. Fresh review found canceled-comment cache drift, legacy
human-comment filtering, send-then-expand truncation, and partial legacy
log records. These defects were fixed in `af3d66a5bd`.
- Review-fix verification: 470 tests pass across ten affected suites,
including all six PostgreSQL cold-open tests without a helper override.
Cancellation/delete and send-then-expand regression tests failed before
the fixes and pass afterward. Coverage includes task identifier/UUID
reopen, stale in-flight reads, legacy NULL author types, local-file and
object-storage tails cut inside UTF-8 text, route forwarding, and
request cancellation. Full workspace typecheck and production build,
token gates, map validation and diff checks pass.
- Follow-up review found that a failed expanded legacy read lost its
record-alignment state on retry. `9ea0b15ae4` commits the expanded
window only after a successful read. The new regression fails before the
fix and passes afterward; all 19 transcript tests, UI typecheck, UI
build and token gates pass. Greptile reviewed this commit at 5/5 with no
actionable findings, and all review threads are resolved.
- The final Paperclip Review check ended neutral because its execution
did not complete; no passing Paperclip assessment is claimed. Its
earlier four concrete findings were fixed and regression-tested.
Greptile and the security scans completed successfully on the final
commit.
- The preceding `af3d66a5bd` CI run was canceled when superseded by the
retry fix. Its server shard 11 check briefly reported failure, but the
job API records cancellation and its test step passed all 1,750 tests.
This superseded run is not used as final CI acceptance.
- 549 focused tests pass on the final implementation across nine task
UI, activity-route, OpenAPI and PostgreSQL suites. These cover pending
history, desktop/mobile visibility, expansion, retained runs, message
bursts, cancellation recovery and queued-comment removal in both views.
- Legacy expansion keeps the latest answer visible while fetching and
deduplicating older output.
- Five PostgreSQL tests pass for core access denial, recent comments,
missing-description instructions, event paging and bounded activity/run
reads. macOS could not start another PostgreSQL cluster because it
exhausted its semaphore limit. These tests used a separate disposable
database on an existing local server through a temporary test setup
override. The helper was restored afterward.
- Full workspace typecheck and build pass with the final state fixes, as
do token gates and capability-map validation.
- Token gates, capability-map validation and `git diff --check` pass.
- Browser proof used a disposable task with 80 comments and six large
run histories. The cold view showed the instruction and recent exchange.
**More messages** revealed older comments. Navigation away and back
preserved expansion.
- Local HTTP sample: core 50 ms, recent comments 24 ms, recent run
summaries 17 ms. The latest native conversation response was 839 JSON
characters / 8 ms; its full event response was 1,099,005 / 86 ms.
Browser content paint was 1.34 seconds with development assets cached.
These are local observations, not staging latency claims.
- The first CI run passed every job except four board-send browser cases
and the review threshold. Those browser fixtures only mocked the old
comments endpoint; they now serve both recent and full reads, retaining
all message and attachment assertions. Both initial review findings were
fixed with regression tests. The next CI run passed every job. The
deeper review identified core-cache mutation, older delivery receipt and
retained run-status gaps; those are now fixed with regression coverage.
Final review is 5/5 with zero unresolved findings. Final-head CI
initially failed one unchanged runner shutdown test
(`runnerd-codex-transport.test.ts`, timeout-attachment case) with
`NativeSessionCloseUnrecoverableError`; all other CI jobs passed. The
same runner code passed on
|
||
|
Dotta
|
46760cc588 |
fix(chat): honor dismissal for all composer requests (#17218)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations show requests in the feed and above the message composer. > - Earlier fixes kept dismissed questions in history, but excluded completion reviews and other request kinds. > - Closing those forms left a pending badge, and the server could still demand a response. > - This pull request saves human dismissal and removes the request from composer reminders and ordinary completion gates. > - People can continue the conversation and reopen the request from history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: #15229 and #15392. **What happened?** Dismissing a completion review closed its form but left it counted as pending. It could return after reload, block a retry, or cause the agent to demand another response. Raw runtime requests could also lose their only usable control when dismissed. **Expected behavior** Dismissal leaves an accessible request in the feed and clears the composer form and pending count. It persists after reload. It does not submit an answer, approve an action, or wake the agent. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task with a pending completion review or another composer request. 2. Dismiss the request, then reload the task. 3. Check that the composer stays clear and the feed entry can reopen the request. ## What Changed - Add nullable dismissal fields and a human-only dismissal endpoint with company, private-task access, resolver, and locked review-policy checks. - Persist saved-request dismissal on the server. Keep browser persistence for raw runtime requests and existing question dismissals. - Keep confirmations, choices, item verdicts, suggested tasks, and runtime requests accessible in the feed. - Exclude dismissed ordinary requests from completion and retry gates. Tell agents not to repeat deferred requests. - Preserve tool, secret, connection, plan, company-policy, and configured review authorization gates. Expire deferred non-question requests when their task completes. - Preserve the selected form when another dismissal finishes saving. Keep reopened reviews visible through delayed comment refreshes. - Add a completion-review Storybook test drive and update design, API, database, and capability documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. The final UI changes also passed the UI typecheck. - `pnpm build`: passed. The final UI changes also passed the UI production build. - Focused UI and transcript tests: 550 passed across nine files after merging the current base branch. - Focused database, completion, and prompt tests: 105 passed across three files, including two review-policy regressions that failed before the fix. The tests reject a review requester excluded by current policy, preserve the pending gate on denial, and permit an independent reviewer to defer the request. - Route regression suite: 81 passed, including denial before reading or mutating a private-task request. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - Map and Storybook structural checks: passed; 30 map/catalog script tests passed. - Browser: used the production task-thread components in the completion-review fixture. Dismissed, reloaded, reopened from the feed, and dismissed again. No pending badge or composer takeover remained. Story callbacks simulate API saves; separate server tests cover persistence and permissions. - `pnpm test:run`: stopped after the general-server group reported one failure in `workspace-runtime.test.ts`: "returns a bounded structured conflict and exposes only same-company workspace references". The same test passed in isolation (1 passed, 178 skipped). The cause of the full-suite failure is not established. The full PR CI suite subsequently passed on e243cbb001; its two authorization review findings are fixed in |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d33b40a5c3 |
fix: recover saved work and provide reliable task Retry (#16965)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must retain work when an execution or workspace export fails. > - Retained-workspace holds can leave saved input waiting with no usable Retry action. > - Users cannot verify process ownership or repair provider allocations. > - This pull request gives system recovery a durable budget and gives each deliberate Retry a durable intent. > - Safe recovery can preserve files, settle an accepted result, or prepare an independent workspace. > - One task state keeps infrastructure diagnostics out of the ordinary conversation while preserving real permission and approval gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with a retained workspace can show recovery, failed-run and saved-message warnings at the same time. Historical runs without native workspace descriptors cannot use the native restore path. Old recovery metadata can prevent a new attempt even when an independent workspace would be safe. **Expected behavior** Paperclip owns bounded infrastructure retries and file preservation. A user can request another attempt with ordinary Retry. Thinking appears immediately. The service preserves completed effects and current user controls. It does not claim that starting fresh recovered the old files. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a failed run and its workspace after export or process-stop failure. 2. Save a follow-up while the recovery hold is active. 3. Open the task and try to continue without infrastructure credentials or operator certification. Refs #16906, #16835, #16883. This extends their recovery and receipt contracts. Related work: #16962 and #16963. ## What Changed - Add task-level Retry with company-scoped authorization, all-status idempotency and durable admission before physical work. Keep exact-run Retry compatible. - Add typed recovery phases, finite persisted backoff, historical adoption and durable local failure diagnostics. - Preserve native workspaces or verified historical snapshots. Admit an independent fresh workspace only after execution containment. Keep old-source preservation and cleanup obligations separate. - Carry completed publication and API receipts forward. Fence uncertain mutation retries across replacement runs. Preserve connected-chat identity and authorization. - Re-enter normal dispatch for saved input. Reuse accepted results through the existing finalizer. - Use one task interruption projection across the thread, composer and task list. Show optimistic Thinking, ordinary Retry and genuine user gates. - Add PostgreSQL, filesystem, API, browser-fixture and controlled provider coverage. Document the behavior and update the feature/access maps. ## Verification - All GitHub Actions CI jobs pass on `6d8c6d27d50586d8548b31d03b47f6d73a0ee11d`: typecheck, all server/chat/workspace and serialized suites, Runner checks, eight browser shards, canary and build. The required merge gate passes. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. Its two earlier P1 findings are fixed. - Full recursive typecheck and build pass locally on the final commit. All 16 task Retry cases pass against isolated real PostgreSQL. The unrelated-success case and both stale Retry cases fail on the previous code and pass after the fix. - The corrected gateway fixture passes its uncertain-mutation and independent-read case. Four real HTTP API cases pass for definite 403/422 rejection, completed-effect reuse, and uncertain-effect fences across deliberate and automatic retries. These focused gateway/API checks used a temporary database lifecycle harness on an existing healthy local PostgreSQL process. The standard repository helper is unchanged. - Earlier qualification covers 291 task UI cases, saved-file copyback and ancestry, current Agent Chat ownership races, nine chat Retry API browser cases, and six assembled browser recovery fixtures. A real API/PostgreSQL/native-runner journey showed Thinking in 25 ms despite a delayed response, admitted one successor in a separate workspace, retained original files, and survived reload. - The controlled Daytona test interrupts export, joins the controller, restarts it in a separate process, and verifies one agent start, one external sentinel operation, retained file contents and no premature cleanup. It does not establish abrupt-kill or live LLM/GitHub acceptance. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and was not green: an OAuth row-lock timing assertion failed, and a later suite exhausted macOS PostgreSQL semaphores. The ten OAuth timing cases passed on rerun against a separate database. Later embedded database initialization failures remain recorded; the final CI matrix passes. - Security scanning passed on production-code commit `63953edf069b111c6becc3144dffa6deb52f68b5`. Its only successor changes one test-fixture identity line. The final scan is neutral/inconclusive because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. Both rerun API requests returned 404, so no fresh successful scan is claimed. Socket and Snyk checks pass on the final head. - The optional Paperclip Review remains queued behind an earlier run in workspace finalization. Its prior completed assessment was incomplete because a comparison tool was blocked by the platform filter. It is not counted as a completed code review. GitHub does not require this check for merge. - Hosted acceptance remains pending deployment. Local and CI results do not establish recovery of a hosted task or its retained files. ## Risks - Recovery changes span admission, physical ownership and dispatch. Incorrect evidence could permit overlapping work. Existing physical locks and authoritative stop requirements remain in place. - The migration adds concurrent indexes. It requires the existing top-level migration runner and retries incomplete index creation safely. - A fresh attempt can complete while old-source preservation remains unresolved. The service retains that obligation and does not report those files as recovered. - Unknown tool mutations remain blocked until their authoritative receipt owner resolves them. Generic upstream tools have no universal result-query protocol. - Recovery and diagnostics stay inside the stack. No Cloud incident endpoint, notification worker or new outbound reporting channel is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell execution, source editing and browser tools. No model subagents were used for this implementation. ## 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 (focused suites; the full local run limitation is documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
bc091f0a21 |
fix(recovery): recover retained workspaces before saved messages (#16906)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A stopped run can leave useful files in its original sandbox. > - The server keeps that sandbox when it cannot confirm file copyback. > - The task can then save new user input but offers no safe way to recover the files. > - A retry of the old agent turn can repeat work that already finished. > - This pull request recovers files through the existing workspace owner and delivers only saved human input. > - The user can recover a task without certifying infrastructure facts or losing completed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16883 and #16835 for publication receipts and verified process termination. Related: #16478 clears stale holds after copyback already succeeded. This change performs the missing export and records its proof. #16901 manages the main GitHub response comment and does not perform workspace repair. **What happened?** A failed run retained its workspace. A later user message stayed saved behind a file-repair hold. The task asked the user to verify process termination and file recovery but offered no repair control. Sending a message could show an optimistic Working state and move the task to Todo before admission succeeded. **Expected behavior** The harness should recover the original files when it can prove ownership and termination. It should preserve newer edits and completed operations. Only waiting user input may start another turn. Missing evidence must keep the source held with a specific explanation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Interrupt a sandbox run before workspace finalization succeeds. 2. Retain its exact allocation and save a user follow-up. 3. Observe the file-repair hold and missing end-user repair path. ## What Changed - Add source-bound background recovery for native and legacy runs. An accepted native result is not required. - Share the physical copyback lock and durable owner. Resume only the exact stopped allocation, export files, verify persistence and obtain a fresh stop receipt. - Persist retry limits and idempotent requests on the existing recovery record. Limit each server to two background exports. Add an indexed candidate scan and a separate cleanup obligation. - Add a task-editor recovery endpoint. Deny agents and viewers. Reject caller-supplied stop or repair claims. - Deliver waiting human input once through ordinary admission. Preserve pause, approval, budget and assignment gates. Require historical conversational-adapter evidence for legacy-to-Runner continuation. - Include exact GitHub publication receipts in continuation context. Preserve unknown effects and the original failed run. - Show observed recovery progress, a transient-failure retry action and specific service blockers. Keep saved messages visible. Suppress false startup feedback and implicit Todo promotion behind a file hold. Hide unavailable workspace links. - Update execution semantics, capability maps and production-component stories. ## Verification - Red: the original read model failed the new recovery-progress assertion; the other 23 checks in that file passed. - Passed: recovery regressions with 28 cases with real PostgreSQL, files, tar and Git operations. Lifecycle provider calls are controlled test boundaries. Coverage includes native/legacy export, concurrent owners, rollback after export, interrupted archive export with a new database connection, lost replies, historical discovery, durable retry limits, separate cleanup and saved-input delivery. The actual candidate query uses its partial index with 3,000 unrelated history rows. A first automatic repair can bind verified old-controller stop proof without an accepted native result. Review also reproduced and fixed export-only continuation and cleanup lost after a committed repair. Cleanup remains discoverable without waiting input and after task reconciliation. - Passed: two GitHub integration cases verify that continuation context carries the existing publication receipt and does not write another response. Company and task boundaries are checked. - Passed: 293 continuation, workspace-sync, platform-receipt and OpenAPI checks. After file repair, actual dispatch retains pause, cancellation, approval, real budget-policy and assignment gates. - Passed: 174 route checks, including editor admission, agent/viewer denial and rejection of fabricated repair claims. - Passed: 351 task detail, workspace properties and comment-reopen checks after updating the new read boundaries and asynchronous workspace-link expectations. Two new route cases keep held tasks Blocked when a comment is saved. - Passed: 265 task-thread and recovery-notice checks. The broader continuation suite also passed; its new legacy migration case first exposed a gap that the focused recovery suite now covers. - Passed after rebase: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The later master merge adds an unrelated permission migration; recovery migration generation and safety checks passed after the merge. - Passed: token gates, module boundaries, map structure and migration checks. The recovery index is migration 0360 after current master. - Browser: inspected the production recovery component and its retry-to-queued transition with fixture data. The first dev dependency load failed; a reload after optimization resolved it. This is UI evidence, not a live provider recovery claim. - Every test shard passed on final commit `bbbc09efb4`. The older local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the complete CI test matrix passed. Local full typecheck and production build passed. The first CI build compiled and booted, then lost its runner during the clean public npm-install check. An isolated retry passed the build, production boot and clean public npm-install verification. - Greptile reviewed final commit `bbbc09efb4` at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - The change is not deployed. Hosted recovery remains unverified until the served revision includes this change. ## Risks - Recovery crosses process, provider and persistence boundaries. Missing or mismatched ownership, stop, descriptor or file evidence keeps the hold. It never selects a replacement allocation or silently starts over. - File recovery does not certify external action outcomes or authorize replay. New input still uses normal execution admission. - Historical sources without sufficient durable evidence can remain blocked. Destructive reconstruction stays separate. - The index migration is idempotent. It changes no task data. Snapshot pruning follows repository policy. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with code execution and browser tools. `gpt-6-astra` assisted earlier investigation. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3e5a9f5afe |
perf(ui): load recent tasks with bounded summaries (#16851)
Replace passive recent-task detail reads with bounded, authorized summaries. Keep account isolation, stored history, task actions, and live recovery behavior. Overlap access checks with shell settings and avoid duplicate session and health reads on the first healthy socket opening. Retain domain reconciliation. Add focused coverage and local performance evidence. Isolate the existing cache capacity test from entry expiry on slow CI runners. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7c7d2d8d2c |
fix(runtime): continue from saved sources after workspace loss (#16690)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runtime must preserve saved work and prevent duplicate execution. > - Older cleanup could destroy a sandbox before its workspace export finished. > - The existing recovery controls require either the original sandbox or recovered original files. > - Surviving attachments can support a rebuild, but they do not prove that missing edits were recovered. > - This pull request adds an explicit reconstruction decision and one fresh continuation through the normal execution gates. > - Operators can continue useful work while the original failed run remains truthful. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A historical failed export can have an accepted result, a prepared workspace descriptor, and a confirmed destroyed sandbox. Its notice can also say `new_source_execution_path` and disappear. The task then has neither a truthful original-file repair path nor a supported reconstruction path. **Expected behavior** Keep the missing-file obligation visible. Let an authorized operator choose surviving task attachments and record lost work and external action outcomes. Start one fresh continuation after current execution checks. Keep the old result and failed export intact. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Seed a failed native export with a prepared descriptor and an exact destroyed-lease receipt. 2. Resolve its notice with the historical `new_source_execution_path` bookkeeping value. 3. Read the task. The baseline hides the hold even though no source reconciliation exists. 4. With this change, choose **Continue from saved sources** and submit a reconstruction decision. Related public work: #16451 preserves healthy warm sessions. #16583 prevents destructive cleanup of unexported work. This change handles historical source loss that those fixes cannot undo. Searches of open and closed work found no equivalent reconstruction endpoint. ## What Changed - Add a board-only reconstruction endpoint with `runtime:manage` and task visibility checks. - Validate the exact run, result, descriptor and destroyed lease. Reject active copyback, competing owners, newer work, stale task status, and foreign attachments. - Record attachment hashes, missing work, and external action outcomes. Preserve the original failed run, accepted result, prepared descriptor and terminal failure. - Hold other continuation paths until the durable reconstruction intent admits its successor. Record that successor in the same transaction and preserve the retry count. - Add an operator control that distinguishes reconstruction from original-file recovery. Update the recovery runbook and capability maps. ## Verification - Exact baseline source returns no blocker for the destroyed-source fixture. The same fixture returns a required recovery hold with this change. - New real PostgreSQL and assembled API/heartbeat suite: 25/25 pass. It covers duplicate submissions, lost acknowledgement, context reset, source identity, task ownership, concurrent execution attachment scope, later human blocks, deleted sources and agent pause. - Existing export retry, explicit continuation and recovery-action suites: 386 cases pass. One new-fixture constraint error in the combined run was corrected; the full new suite then passed. - UI recovery suites: 46/46 pass across three files. They cover disabled actions, loss acknowledgement, failure retention and runtime authority. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. The first sandboxed typecheck attempt could not open the TypeScript IPC socket; the authorized rerun passed. - Module boundaries, map checks, token gates and diff whitespace checks pass. - OpenAPI route coverage: 21/21 pass. The first CI head exposed a missing endpoint registration; this head adds the registration and the focused suite passes. - Review identified a missing dispatch-time check and an isolated attachment cache. Both are fixed. Claim and final handoff recheck the exact successor, sources and current execution gates. A controlled post-claim operator block prevents the assembled heartbeat from entering the provider. The shared attachment cache refreshes uploads and removes deleted selections. - Final focused run: 180/180 pass across six suites, including reconstruction, existing dispatch/stale-queue contracts and UI recovery. - A second review reproduced cancellation by an already satisfied historical connection card while the task was `todo`. Read-only connection availability now works before checkout; active-task mutation checks remain strict. The baseline failed two cases; after the fix all 74 connection and reconstruction tests pass, including revoked access, pending questions and pending approvals. - All current-head CI gates pass on `9d197236da11fa24f1ceadf5589cb2b81179d824`, including general/serialized tests, Runner, build and browser gates. Greptile is 5/5 for that exact head with no unresolved threads. The full local `pnpm test:run` is still running its serial server group; no full local pass is claimed. Live staging recovery is pending deployment. ## Risks - Reconstruction cannot restore missing bytes. The operator must identify surviving sources and actions that must not be repeated. The agent must verify those attachments before rebuilding. - This path is limited to exact, confirmed destroyed remote sources with an accepted result. Retained or uncertain sources keep their existing repair path. - No schema migration, credential change, budget increase or warm-session policy change is included. Normal pause, ownership, budget, approval and dispatch gates still apply. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use and code execution. The session does not expose an exact backend model ID or context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [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 (focused suites; full local run limitation recorded above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
976cdc77ed |
fix(recovery): expose settled holds and their preserved decisions (#16169)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task recovery preserves work when execution or tool outcomes are uncertain. > - Automatic recovery can settle its record while keeping replay blocked. > - The recovery-actions API omitted those records unless they held workspace files. > - Operators and agent tools could therefore see an empty recovery history for a task that still had an execution hold. > - This pull request lists those holds and shows their matching decision in the existing stopped-run notice. > - Existing stop verification, continuation, and file repair gates remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A cancelled or failed task can retain a settled recovery record with `automaticRecovery.replay: blocked`. The task remains held, but the recovery-actions API returns no action. The board notice also lacks that record's decision. **Expected behavior** List settled execution holds that still block replay. Let an authorized board user inspect the current action and run in Recovery details. Preserve the existing guarded continuation and required-file repair paths. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Stop a run whose outcome requires inspection. 2. Let automatic recovery settle its record with replay blocked. 3. Read the task's recovery actions and open its stopped-run notice. 4. Before this change, the action list is empty unless workspace recovery is required. **Paperclip version or commit** This PR includes current master through `66424362a85`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated and local deployments with persisted execution recovery holds. The original API correction and route regression are by Tao Xie (@TaoXieSZ). This update preserves those commits and adds the board inspection path, current documentation, and regression coverage. Related: #14840 describes controller lease loss. This change exposes recovery records; it does not change controller lease renewal. ## What Changed - Include settled execution reconciliation holds with replay blocked in the company-scoped recovery-actions response. - Read the matching action from the existing stopped-run notice. Show its decision under Recovery details, including when active recovery is empty. - Reject mismatched historical records in the notice. Bind history to the current action/run and refresh visible decisions every five seconds. Keep history read errors visible beside the current guidance. - Preserve existing run inspection, new-message continuation, and required-file repair controls. No new reconciliation form is added. - Update the execution documentation and both recovery capability maps. ## Verification - Recovery route suite with real embedded PostgreSQL: 80 passed, none skipped. - Notice and retry-client suites: 36 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed. This checks structure only. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Full `pnpm test:run` was started. It is not yet a full local pass. Initial database tests were affected by missing packaged macOS library aliases; the aliases were restored in this worktree's dependencies, and the complete recovery route suite then passed. - All CI checks passed on `09e4461e4d3a0960a4dc8bc270a2a10c628bf524`, including the full test matrix, typecheck, build and browser checks. Optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - Apex: 5/5 on the same head. Both review threads are resolved; the reviewer confirmed the existing guarded continuation design. ## Risks - The API response now includes settled records that still block replay. Consumers must distinguish a settled record from permission to continue. - Recovery history is supplemental. A failed history read keeps the current blocker and guidance visible. - The UI binds the decision to both the current action and run. It does not certify tool outcomes or grant execution authority. - No schema, dependency, telemetry, or runtime admission changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution, assisted with the board inspection and verification follow-up. The exact serving snapshot ID and context window size are not exposed in this session. The original API work is retained from Tao Xie's contribution. ## 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 (targeted suites; full-suite limits above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5a6d0d08a7 |
fix: record verified workspace file recovery from tasks (#16104)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Recovery must preserve files and show the next operator action. > - A stopped run can leave a file repair hold after its recovery action is resolved. > - The task notice shows that hold but has no form to record verified file recovery. > - A chat connection can also replace the file repair instruction with a chat retry instruction. > - This pull request adds a file recovery form and preserves the file repair instruction. > - The form records evidence for the original run and keeps the current task status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A retained workspace file hold can block a task after its recovery action is resolved. The task page offers no file recovery form. A chat binding can hide the required file repair instruction. **Expected behavior** An authorized board member can record verified recovery of the original files. The server checks the original stop proof. The task keeps its current status and does not start another run. Chat instructions must not replace file repair instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a stopped legacy run with a retained workspace recovery marker and a resolved recovery action. 2. Open its task page, including a task with a chat connection. 3. Observe that the file hold has no supported form to record verified recovery. Refs: #15857, #15824, #16095. Those PRs address shutdown export, native finalization and workspace source isolation. This PR uses the existing file repair API. ## What Changed - Add a board-only file recovery form with evidence and an explicit file verification confirmation. - Preserve the current task status when recording file recovery. - Project whether the original recovery marker supports file recording. - Keep file repair instructions when a task has a chat binding. - Add UI, route and Storybook examples for success, denial and chat-connected file holds. - Document the recovery flow and update the affected Storybook catalog entries. ## Verification - Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index conflicts. Upstream review notes and classifications are preserved, together with all four retained-file recovery examples and their stable story IDs. Both fix branches also combine without merge conflicts or catalog fingerprint drift. - Passed locally after conflict resolution: 47 tests covering the file recovery UI, execution blocker notice and retained workspace repair route. The earlier ownership-route pass also covered 196 tests. - Passed: UI token gates, the complete Storybook catalog check with no drift errors, feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17 catalog/index script tests. Verification inventory counts match all 262 authored suites and 2,485 story IDs. The upstream production verification obligations remain intact. - Passed: full workspace typecheck, build and Storybook build on latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48`. The built index retains all four file-recovery story IDs. - Latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48` has 54 successful checks and two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Apex is 5/5 on that exact commit, with no unresolved findings. The full general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards passed in CI. Local tests use the focused suites above. Storybook browser interactions have not been executed locally. - Manual check: open a task with a retained file hold. Verify that evidence and confirmation are required. Record verified file recovery. Confirm that its status stays unchanged and no run starts. Repeat without board runtime access and with an unverified stop receipt. ## Risks - The form records an operator attestation. It does not recover files itself or prove external action outcomes. - A stale source or missing stop proof must remain rejected by the existing server route. - No database migration or automatic task retry is added. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`), used through Codex with reasoning, repository tools, code editing and test execution. The exact context window size is not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run 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> |
||
|
|
0b0e53029f |
fix: recover saved workspace results automatically (#15824)
## Thinking Path - Paperclip preserves accepted agent results before workspace copyback and result commitment. - A replaced controller can leave a physical copyback owner receipt behind. A lost database lock or expired lease cannot prove that its tar/Git children stopped. - Infrastructure recovery should belong to the runtime and deployment harness; task users should not investigate processes or attest shutdown. - New receipts record the exact deployment. The harness independently verifies that deployment fully stopped and signs a short-lived proof bound to the stack, run, owner and deployment. - The existing guarded reconciler then finishes the same accepted result without a new agent turn. Legacy receipts retain the documented administrator API after independent platform verification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An accepted native result can remain at `workspace_finalizing` with an abandoned physical copyback owner. Repeated recovery sweeps could replace specific instructions with advice to start new agent work. The first version of this PR exposed a shutdown-evidence form in the task; that asks end users to resolve infrastructure details. **Expected behavior** Automatically verify and recover the exact stopped deployment, preserve the original accepted result and existing approval/monitor waits, and show only a quiet task status. Unknown or live workers must remain fenced. Older receipts without platform identity need independently verified operator assistance through the administrator API. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Persist an accepted native result and a copyback receipt from a prior controller. 2. Replace that deployment before workspace finalization commits. 3. Let the normal finalization reconciler revisit the saved result. 4. With a platform-bound receipt and a fully stopped deployment, recovery should finish automatically. With missing, live, unverifiable or changed ownership, it must not write files or create another provider turn. Related public work: #14402 introduced copyback ownership; #9687 handles dead-run finalize barriers; #15795 handles terminal stale-run cleanup. This change addresses an accepted result whose physical copyback owner prevents commitment. ## What Changed - Record Railway project, environment, service and deployment identity on new physical copyback owners. - Request read-only platform verification from the managed cloud harness. Require an Ed25519 stop receipt with a disjoint purpose, configured signing key, exact stack/run/owner/deployment binding and valid expiry. - Keep live, unknown, malformed, unavailable and legacy owners fenced. Compare the whole prior receipt during ownership takeover, under the existing dedicated advisory lock. - Persist platform proof and audit automatic takeover. Resume normal finalization of the same saved result, preserving task ownership, approved boundaries, monitors and pending confirmations. - Remove process metadata, shutdown evidence, confirmation checkboxes and infrastructure-repair forms from task views. Suppress the duplicate technical owner-recovery card. Show “Restoring saved work…” only from server-confirmed recovery or queued operator recovery; platform identity alone shows the operator-assistance fallback. Remove the status when recovery resolves. - Share current-task, current-running-execution, accepted-result, authoritative-reviewer and newer-execution checks between automatic and operator recovery. Validate after the provider lookup, atomically with the owner claim, and again before file publication; closed or superseded tasks cannot start copyback. - Keep the separately authorized exact-owner API for operator recovery of legacy receipts, with active-lock, live-controller, stale-result and newer-execution rejection. Generic dismissal cannot bypass the copyback fence. - Replace obsolete form stories with production-backed automatic, queued, legacy, completed and mobile examples; retain stable suite IDs. Update the operator runbook and scoped Storybook catalog. ## Verification - Red/green: new platform-proof tests failed before implementation; the database takeover regression failed against the original ownership guard; reduced-UI assertions failed against the original form. All pass after the changes. - Passed: 59 physical-owner/finalization database tests using isolated PostgreSQL, including real reconciler commitment from all three saved-result phases through both automatic and operator recovery. They preserve result identity, exact saved file bytes, pending approval and overdue monitor waits, and create no new run or wake request. Unknown evidence and changed ownership remain fenced. - Passed: 162 focused proof, cloud identity, recovery route, recovery-card and reduced-UI tests. - Passed: full workspace typecheck and build, final server/UI typechecks, token gates, and Storybook build. - Browser inspection: desktop task composition shows only the quiet status; completed example removes it and retains the approval-wait message. Mobile shows the existing bottom navigation with no horizontal overflow. These are fixture UI observations, not live provider acceptance. - A companion harness change implements the actual provider check, signed receipts, server-token authentication and bounded/coalesced provider reads. Its full typecheck and test suite passed: 3,240 passed, 92 skipped, zero failures. This application alone cannot enable platform verification. - The updated full application `pnpm test:run` was stopped after repeated local embedded-Postgres startup failures; it is not claimed green. The same affected recovery suites pass against isolated PostgreSQL. CI passed on final head `9ad5c3529e`: 54 successful checks, two intentional skips, and successful legacy Snyk status. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Global Storybook catalog validation is green: 225 files, 2,224 stories. Its 17 catalog/index tests pass. Master was merged and the inherited index metadata was reconciled after source review. - Review correction red/green: two UI and two database assertions reproduced misleading progress / missing server recovery state; all pass after server-confirmed state was added. All 153 focused server tests and 68 UI tests pass on the final recovery code, including repeated-sweep idempotence. Full workspace typecheck/build, token gates and Storybook build also pass. - Safety regression red/green: stale-task copyback and publication tests failed against the previous guard. The final suite covers changes during proof lookup, closed/cancelled tasks, replaced execution/checkout, newer and queued legacy runs, reassignment and rejected/unbound results, plus the real reconciler selecting closed or superseded tasks. Files remain untouched and no workspace operation starts. - No staging mutations, deployment, live provider probes or live production recovery were performed. The three historical receipts lack deployment identity and still require independent operator proof. ## Risks Automatic takeover requires the companion harness release and configured runtime-identity keys. Deploying only this application leaves unavailable evidence fenced. Legacy receipts are not retrospectively assigned a deployment identity. An authorized operator can still make an incorrect attestation through the fallback API; its administrator gate and exact-owner safeguards remain. Provider history that is missing or deeper than the bounded lookup defers automatic recovery. Copyback can still fail under its existing retained-workspace policy. No migration, telemetry change or cloud provider credential delivery is required. The companion harness PR also has passing CI and a 5/5 review; neither branch is deployed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, browser verification, tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the relevant 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: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
be380ba155 |
fix(ui): hide agent-created tasks by default (#16157)
Hide agent-created, system-created, and chat-channel tasks from independent collections by default. Preserve task hierarchy context and existing inbox participation. Add a saved opt-in checkbox without helper text. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b6b3cb3761 |
Fix unavailable workspace branches with an inline repair and retry (#15726)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Isolated workspaces must resolve a starting Git ref before an agent starts. > - A task can explicitly select a branch that the repository does not have. > - The current recovery notice calls this a missing secret and offers no branch repair. > - This pull request explains the branch failure and adds a task-scoped repair action. > - Operators can correct the branch and request a guarded retry from the task thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: Refs #11892 added unresolved-ref recovery. Refs #15719 added bounded failure diagnostics. This change uses that recovery path and adds its operator repair UI. **What happened?** A task that selects `main` in a repository with only `master` stops before the adapter starts. The task shows a missing-secret message and a generic retry. Repeating the run cannot fix the stored branch setting. **Expected behavior** Explain that the starting ref could not be resolved. Offer a verified repository default, or let the operator enter a branch. Save only the task's starting branch and retry its recorded owner through the existing admission gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an isolated-workspace task in a repository with `master` and no `main`. 2. Set the task's base ref to `main` and assign an agent. 3. Wait for the configuration failure. 4. Use the inline branch repair and confirm the agent completes in a worktree based on `master`. ## What Changed - Replace the missing-secret diagnosis for unresolved workspace refs. Keep uncertain fetch/access failures described as uncertain. - Read the remote's advertised default branch with the existing Git credentials and a bounded timeout. Do not guess or silently change the branch. - Add an atomic branch repair to the existing recovery resolution endpoint. Check company access, board runtime permission, incident identity, current owner, task/project state, dependencies, interactions, approvals, budget, and active execution before requesting a retry. - Preserve the effective inherited workspace setup when saving the task branch override, and attach one repair notice per failed run even when the incident is reused. - Bind the shared repair card to the exact recovery notice and failed run in both task-thread renderers. Validate branch syntax and prevent duplicate submissions. - Add Storybook examples, regression tests, and a documented local acceptance fixture with a real Git repository and process adapter. ## Verification - Red/green regressions cover the repair endpoint and preservation of inherited agent setup. The regression failed before each fix and passed afterward. - Focused integration suite: 162 tests passed; task-thread/card suite: 230 passed. After review refinements, all 13 repair-route tests, 10 card tests, 77 recovery-action tests, and the repeated-failure heartbeat regression passed locally. - Real browser acceptance passed for suggested-branch and custom-entry repairs. Invalid syntax left the task blocked. Both valid repairs ran the authenticated worker in a real isolated worktree and reached Done; reload preserved the result. - Repeated failures reused the recovery incident and retained an actionable notice on the latest run. The inherited-setup journey verified the provisioned file, agent branch template, worktree parent directory, and actual Git commit before completing. [Before/after screenshots](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15726#issuecomment-6088734666). - Full local typecheck and build passed; server typecheck passed again after review fixes. Token gates passed. - The monolithic local Vitest run was stopped after resource-contention timeouts and stale assertions. Targeted regressions were rerun; the full CI matrix passed on final revision `26c543ff490bec29ddc77a49ee532c7f84fb96dc`. One signoff E2E worker-cancellation failure passed on a rerun without code changes. The two opt-in Storybook workflow jobs were skipped; the Storybook journey was checked manually. - Repeat the live journey with `tests/e2e/workspace-base-ref/README.md`. Storybook examples use simulated callbacks and are not the live acceptance proof. ## Risks - Default-branch discovery can add up to 10 seconds to an unresolved-ref failure. Lookup failure leaves manual entry available. - A valid branch name can still be absent or inaccessible. The retried workspace preparation remains authoritative and can block again with new evidence. - Retry remains subject to normal admission gates. The repair changes only the task override; it does not alter project or agent defaults. - No database migration or new dependency. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution, repository analysis, and browser testing. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b315580640 |
feat: add private task creation and sharing controls (#14718)
Add private task creation and sharing controls, effective access explanations, private project management, and locked task references. Constrain the mobile composer plus menu to the viewport and explain named inherited privacy on hover, focus, or tap. Include 125 production-component Storybook stories and thirteen interactive user journeys. Final head passes all CI checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 with no findings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
228f0e2807 |
fix(ui): make pull request review waits visible (#15375)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people supervise agent work and review its outputs. > - A task can wait for a human to review a pull request while an agent schedules checks. > - The PR work product and detected external links use separate display paths. > - A private PR can disappear from the useful sidebar view when its provider lookup fails. > - The monitor countdown says when the next check runs but omits the saved review request. > - This change shows the saved PR and requested review in the task's existing surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task kept checking whether a private GitHub PR had merged. Its work product requested board review, but the Properties sidebar used detected external objects instead. The PR URL was stored only in metadata, which the PR refresh path did not read. The composer showed a generic monitor countdown with no PR link or review action. **Expected behavior** Show saved PR links even if provider access fails. During a GitHub monitor wait, make outstanding review requests visible with the next check time and a status-check action. Stop requesting review when a PR merges or closes. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Register a PR work product with `reviewState: needs_board_review` and its URL in `metadata.url`. 2. Schedule an external-service monitor for GitHub. 3. Open the task with external-object lookup unavailable or unable to access the private repository. 4. Inspect Properties and the composer wait strip. Related work: #14469 added rich artifact cards. #8759 addresses attention on monitored task blockers. This change uses the existing work products and monitor action; it adds no blocker or approval mechanism. ## What Changed - Show saved PRs in Properties, including metadata-only links, independent of external-object availability. - Deduplicate equivalent GitHub PR URLs while preserving the saved navigation link, and put explicit review requests first. - Keep provider status and freshness on the combined PR row; keep private PR links usable when lookup fails. - Show the saved PR review request above the composer and in the existing monitor banner during a GitHub monitor wait. - Label the existing monitor action `Check status` and show check failures inline. - Suppress review prompts for merged, closed, or archived PRs even if their review flag is stale. - Refresh PR metadata using `metadata.url` and the existing `repository` alias. - Share saved work-product reads across the thread, Properties, and Artifacts. Refresh GitHub in a separate query and enrich only matching PR versions. - Start a fresh saved-row request on live invalidation so late provider responses cannot hide new artifacts or changed review requests. - Cover stalled GitHub lookups in both panels so refresh latency cannot hide saved work. - Scope monitor-check mutation state to the task so failures and late responses do not leak across navigation. - Refresh GitHub status when the displayed run finishes, including when saved PR rows have not changed. - Clarify that PR review and external release handoffs need a saved human-input interaction with an agent assigned for continuation; a flag, monitor, or handoff comment alone does not create that card. ## Verification - 386 tests pass across eleven affected UI and server suites on `184c7d8746`. Regressions cover saved links, provider status, cold-cache loading, panel reopening, monitor errors during navigation, and live updates during provider refresh. - Three live-update regressions and two run-completion regressions fail before their fixes and pass afterward. These tests use the real API client's GET coalescing and abort handling. - Full repository typecheck and build passed on the merged parent `1a49112dd2`. The latest UI changes pass UI typecheck and token gates; CI also verifies the latest build. Capability contract/inventory checks pass. - Storybook build and browser checks passed before the query race fix. Browser checks cover desktop and 390px mobile review waits, plus video, mixed-file, and empty artifact galleries after background refresh. - The earlier full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped under disk pressure. It reported failures outside the changed suites; an isolated skill-cache run reproduced three existing macOS permission failures. The full local suite was not rerun for this follow-up. - Latest-head CI passes on `184c7d8746`, including the browser shards and canary dry run. Apex is 5/5 with no actionable findings and no unresolved threads. All eight reported findings are addressed. ## Risks - This uses saved PR review state. When GitHub access fails, the saved state can remain stale until the agent updates it. The link remains visible and the status check remains available. - `Check status` wakes the existing monitor owner. It does not merge a PR, accept an approval, or mark the task done. - No schema, permissions, or scheduler behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, repository analysis, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass — 277 affected tests - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
018993140f |
feat: let agents name prompt-only tasks (#14761)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Users create tasks with a title and a description. > - A required title adds work when the prompt already explains the request. > - An agent can name the task once it reads that request. > - This pull request accepts prompt-only tasks and starts them with a short prompt slice. > - A scoped title tool lets the assigned agent replace that slice early without changing execution state. > - A live browser eval checks the real agent call, saved title, audit entry, and preservation of user titles. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: task creation, shared contracts, database, server, runner tools, and board UI. **Problem or motivation** Users must currently write a title before they can submit a detailed task prompt. The agent has enough context to write a useful title itself. **Proposed solution** Make the title optional when a description is present. Save the first 120 characters of the normalized prompt as a provisional title. Ask the assigned agent to call `set_task_title` early. Use an atomic provisional-title guard to preserve titles supplied or edited by users. Keep explicit titles supported. Related: #14543 and #14556 concern empty-title submission. This change intentionally enables that submission when a prompt is present, instead of requiring a title. ## What Changed - Add the `titleNeedsGeneration` field with an idempotent migration. Keep existing titles unchanged. - Add `PUT /api/issues/:id/title` and the native and legacy `set_task_title` tool. Enforce company access, active-run ownership, shared, bounded retry receipts across native/HTTP calls, and transactional audit logging. Refresh external-object links after commit, with the same feature gate and plugin detectors as ordinary title edits. - Add early naming guidance in Standard, Ask, and Plan task context. Preserve the description, status, and assignment. - Allow prompt-only root and child task creation, plus draft restoration in the New Task dialog. Keep user titles supported. - Add an opt-in Product E2E suite for prompt-only Standard and Ask tasks, plus an explicit-title control. It checks actual provider calls within the first five tools, persisted state, audit attribution, and the reloaded UI. - Preserve a closed vocabulary of API key maintenance phrases in declared prose while rejecting opaque credential suffixes. Add one bounded naming retry after wording is rejected, without treating the rejected call as a saved title. - Repair the native cleanup receipt check exposed during full verification: accept matching input digests, retain legacy input checks, and reject conflicting receipts. ## Verification - Live Product E2E on `f43478473800e3a46b85c5ee79677efdb15108e7`: **3/3 passed** with native Codex `gpt-5.4-mini`, first attempts only, automatic retries disabled. Standard and Ask each saved “Rotate expired API key” on their first tool call, with matching persisted state and a single same-run audit entry. The explicit-title control retained its user title with zero title writes. All three verified the reloaded browser UI. - Campaign: `local-2026-09-30T21-30-11-021Z`. Earlier failed campaigns are retained separately; they exposed credential-prose handling and prompted the naming recovery fix. No failed result was regraded or deleted. - Reproduce with `pnpm test:e2e:runner -- --id task-titles.runner-codex-mini.local.prompt-title-standard --id task-titles.runner-codex-mini.local.prompt-title-ask --id task-titles.runner-codex-mini.local.preserve-explicit-title --max-automatic-retries 0` and an authorized provider key. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the latest commit. The runner build used the configured external eval source tree. - Product E2E unit suite: **61 files, 818 tests passed**; E2E typecheck and UI token gates passed. - Title API/native regressions cover prompt-only and explicit child creation, user edits, ownership/company isolation, external reference refresh, cross-surface retry replay, and the 64-key limit without receipt eviction. All passed. Prompt-context coverage: **44 tests passed**. - Rust credential regressions: **35 tests passed**, including benign maintenance qualifiers and opaque credential rejection in every declared prose field. Catalog/report reconciliation: **28 tests passed**. Native recovery: **560 tests passed**. - Broad local `pnpm test:run`: **14,555 tests passed** in the general server group; two suites failed to initialize embedded PostgreSQL and the existing 40,000-file Git streaming stress test exceeded its 300-second macOS timeout. All three suites then passed in isolation (**5 tests passed**) without code or timeout changes. The original full local command exited nonzero and is not being represented as a clean full run. - Latest-head GitHub checks are green: **53 passed, 4 skipped, zero failed or pending**, including all test shards and the canary packaging dry run. Greptile reviewed the same commit at **5/5**, with zero unresolved review threads. ## Risks - The additive database field must reach the server and UI together. The migration uses `IF NOT EXISTS` and defaults existing tasks to a final title. - Title generation depends on the assigned agent running. Tasks without a run keep their provisional title. - Live qualification covers the native Codex path in Standard and Ask modes. API/legacy and Plan behavior have deterministic coverage. - The credential-prose exception validates the entire suffix against a closed maintenance vocabulary. Unknown suffixes, assignments, quoted values, credential prefixes, and diagnostics retain strict checks. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The live eval uses the native Codex `gpt-5.4-mini` profile. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
14795136f5 |
fix(runtime): finalize and recover sandbox workspace exports safely (#14402)
Serialize native workspace finalization, validate streamed archives within bounded limits, and quietly recover unsafe exports from saved results. Preserve exact allocations for exhausted transient failures and provide export-only retry without rerunning the provider. Consolidates #14314, #14315, #14329, and #14334 while preserving the already-merged finalization label changes. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
df984cbc2c |
fix: dispatch queued legacy messages with operator identity and task permissions (#13315)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations save messages that arrive during an active turn. > - Legacy adapters deliver these messages in a later turn. > - A run can stop before the saved queue is delivered. > - The Interrupt button previously required an active run, so it could not release this queue. > - This pull request lets a board operator send the saved queue after the run stops and retries queues missed during finalization. > - Manual dispatch must use the clicking operator and must not require permission to create agents. > - The task can continue without a duplicate message or a second execution owner. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A legacy task retained a queued message after its run stopped. Interrupt was disabled because the queue had no active target. Finalization and deferred message admission can also leave a queue without a successor. **Expected behavior** Interrupt sends the saved messages when no runner is active. Messages that arrive during normal completion are delivered automatically. An uncertain previous execution still requires proof that its process or sandbox stopped. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Queue a user message during a legacy conversation turn. 2. Let the turn stop or simulate a server restart before queue promotion. 3. Open the task with a deferred queue and no active run. 4. Try Interrupt. Before this change, the button is disabled. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against `8f40b4ad4`. **Deployment mode** Legacy conversation adapter. The same persisted queue state is covered with an isolated PostgreSQL fixture. Related public work: #13275 adds active legacy interruption. #13291 addresses automatic sandbox conversation recovery. This change handles explicit saved-queue delivery and late queue promotion. ## What Changed - Accept a null Interrupt target while retaining queue identity, revision, company, and assignee checks. - Save the operator's request on the existing queue. Reuse normal admission after verified stop, including older messages, different authors, and queues whose original wake came from the system. - Strip interruption authority from caller-supplied wake payloads. Only the board queue route can persist that authority. - Retry durable interruption requests after restart and deferred queues after legacy cleanup. - Let an explicit Interrupt retry cleanup for its stopped run, including old ephemeral leases that recorded success without a provider stop receipt. Preserve retained resources, other lease owners, and the automatic retry limit. - Preserve the server's waiting explanation when normalizing and combining queue entries. - Revalidate the consumed board queue receipt at dispatch so a different message author does not cause setup failure. - Use the Interrupt user's execution identity for the new run. Preserve original message authors. Validate the receipt independently at startup and inherit the resulting identity on retry. - Persist authenticated board authority for ordinary manual wakes too. Adopting someone else's queued messages cannot switch a manual run to that author's permissions. Strip caller-supplied authority markers and retain private conversation ownership checks. - Keep the clicking user when a manual wake is merged into an older deferred receipt. Update its requester and payload in the same transaction. - Use the same current-queue/revision API on task details and pipeline conversations; show Interrupt after a legacy target stops. - Keep manual wakes out of active runs, including unscoped agent wakes. They receive their own execution identity; a matching receipt requester is not sufficient because an exact retry can retain a different originating identity. - Authorize both existing-agent wake endpoints with `agent:wake`, available to active non-viewer company members. Keep `agents:create` for hiring. Validate the stored task and current assignee before an exact task retry. - Reject viewer Interrupt requests before saving intent or stopping execution. Keep external chat retry authorization and per-action agent/user permission checks. - Preserve edits and discards until dispatch. Prevent another queue promotion when the same agent already has a successor. Keep independent reviewer recovery available. - Suppress cancelled/failed run toasts for intentional operator interruption. Keep ordinary runtime error notices. - Add UI, route, admission, restart, successor ownership, and toast regression tests. Document the behavior. - Reuse the existing socket reservation helper for both credential-quorum test cases after CI exposed an ambient-port collision. This changes test preparation only; production credential staging is still called exactly once. ## Verification - Failing regression tests reproduced the message-author identity bug and an operator's `agents:create` rejection before the fixes. - All 316 focused tests pass across eight route, queue, identity, authorization, continuation, and responsible-user suites, including the 44-test rerun of queue admission and actual startup after the final manual-wake restriction. Regressions reproduce cross-user merging both with and without a task, and same-requester receipt ambiguity. The cross-company existence guard also passes both tests. - Startup integration tests reach adapter execution under the clicking operator and retain that identity through follow-up. Coverage includes mixed authors, adopted queues, system-origin queues, restarts, forged or stale receipts, viewers, suspended memberships, changed assignees, private conversations, and caller-supplied authority markers. - The earlier queue/cleanup/UI regression suite passed 402 tests. The final review corrections pass another 180 tests across queue admission/persistence, real heartbeat startup, UI API, conversation rendering, and pipeline suites. Regression tests reproduced both review findings before correction. The final head has a 5/5 review with no unresolved threads. Full CI passes on `c2002979c`, including every general and serialized server shard, all browser shards, Paperclip Runner verification, typecheck, build, canary dry run, and the aggregate gates. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and UI token gates pass after the final application changes. CI identified an outdated task-page API mock after the shared helper extraction; the fixture now exercises the real helper, and all 131 task-page/API tests pass. The final application build passes with the additional manual-wake restriction. - CI exposed a pre-existing port collision in the Codex credential-quorum fixture. It reproduced locally; both listener cases now use the existing bounded reservation helper. All 41 credential tests pass on rerun. One intervening local run hit a separate ambient bind collision in the two-occupied-port case. - The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was stopped after host contention caused focused-suite timeouts. The affected focused tests passed on rerun. An expiring trace fixture and a missing private-conversation state were corrected. The successful full CI run is the complete-suite verification. - Hosted Interrupt previously cleared the original queue and produced exactly one successor with neutral interruption feedback. It exposed the dispatch authorization defect. Retry on that earlier build was rejected for missing `agents:create` before creating another run. - Deployed the final application build (`38257f391`) to the scoped hosted instance and verified readiness. The latest PR commit changes only the credential test fixture; application code matches that deployment. A live Retry by the same operator without `agents:create` created one successor attributed to that operator, passing the former dispatch permission gate. Startup then stopped at `configuration_incomplete` because that operator has not configured their required personal Claude Code OAuth secret; the post-deployment run page confirms the operator identity and no provider work started, and the My secrets UI still shows the token as not set. Provider execution remains unverified pending that credential. No permission grants or credentials were changed. ## Risks Queue admission and finalization can race. The task lock, durable queue receipt, current comment IDs, and successor guard prevent duplicate dispatch. Process and lease stop checks, task pauses, approvals, ownership, and budgets remain in force. The API change only allows null on legacy Interrupt; native steering still requires an active run. No schema migration is required. Active non-viewer board members can now invoke existing agents without agent-creation permission. Agent self-invocation rules, raw provider-trace admin access, task retry scope, external chat authorization, and action-specific user/agent permissions remain enforced. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The session does not expose an exact backend model ID or context-window size. Used reasoning, repository search, code execution, tests, and browser tools. ## 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 #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ab15aff390 |
feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. **Problem or motivation** Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. **Proposed solution** Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. **Roadmap alignment** This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f12b647ae8 |
fix: reliably interrupt and resume legacy message queues (#13275)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task can collect more messages while its agent works. > - Legacy runners must stop the active process before they can receive those messages. > - The old Interrupt action cancelled the run but could leave the queue idle and hidden. > - Codex could also classify a cancelled run as successful or start a fresh process after cancellation. > - This pull request joins cancellation, preserves the provider session, and dispatches the current queue after cleanup. > - The benefit is reliable interruption with the saved message order, edits, and deletions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Interrupt could strand a legacy message queue. The UI could hide pending messages after the run stopped. A Codex signal exit could race the cancellation write. A stale session warning could also trigger a fresh process after an interrupted resume. **Expected behavior** Interrupt stops the active turn and sends the remaining messages once, in their saved order. Deleted messages stay deleted. An interrupted Codex turn keeps its session and does not restart itself. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a task to a legacy Codex agent that runs a long command. 2. Queue three messages. Edit one, discard another, and move the last message first. 3. Click Interrupt in the queue. 4. Repeat the interruption while the resumed session runs another command. Related work: Refs #13160, which moves native queue steering into the wake-queue module. This change fixes legacy interruption and keeps native steering unchanged. ## What Changed - Add a revision-checked, company-scoped endpoint for legacy queue interruption. - Promote only the requested queue after the provider stops and releases its lease. Retry its persisted interrupt intent from the scheduler after a promotion error or server restart. - Keep pending legacy queues visible after a run stops. Use server state for the interrupt result. - Serialize owned process cancellation before classifying the adapter result. Preserve late session and log metadata. Acknowledge cancellation only when an actual process or process group was owned; scheduler placeholders retain their normal release policy. - Send Ctrl-C to legacy Codex. Prevent missing-session fallback once the session has started. - Add cancellation race, multi-actor queue order, durable retry, resume fallback, and stale request regression tests. Document the behavior. ## Verification - Real browser tests passed with legacy Codex CLI and ACP engines, using Codex 0.153.4 and gpt-5.6-sol. - All three automated ACP browser scenarios passed locally: immediate Interrupt delivery, no replay of an unfinished write, and pause requiring Resume. Updated the old test expectation that required a separate “go” after Interrupt. - Browser tests covered queued edits, deletion, reordering, deleting the final message, and repeated interruption. - Two consecutive CLI interrupts kept one provider session. Both stopped processes exited. The final message arrived once. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - All 346 post-review scheduling, recovery, queue-route, archived-company, worktree-suppression, and stale-queue regression tests passed. - All 318 process-recovery and durable-chat tests passed after the final cancellation guard. - Codex adapter, queue UI, issue-page, and OpenAPI contract tests passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - Full local suite coverage completed with `PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false`, using the stable runner and its CI shards: 618 general server suites, all 145 serialized server suites, and all workspace groups. Every failing suite passed a targeted rerun after the fixes, rebuilding the native test fixture, correcting macOS temporary-path setup, or retrying setup/timing failures. Existing skips remain. - The original monolithic run reported failures before the final fixes; its failed suites were rerun rather than rerunning all 618 suites again. The final process-recovery/durable-chat regression run passed all 318 tests. - All CI checks passed for `e30eaf787f23a5511a3cb3cdb5abbccab9ed001d`: [run 34654820774, attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34654820774/attempts/2), including typecheck, build, all test shards, E2E, and canary. The signoff and Cursor sandbox tests each hit a timeout in the initial attempt; both suites passed locally, and both failed shards passed their single CI rerun. All three corrected ACP browser scenarios passed in CI. - Greptile reviewed `e30eaf787f23a5511a3cb3cdb5abbccab9ed001d`: 5/5, no open review threads. ## Risks Cancellation order affects local adapters. The tests cover signal exits, graceful exits, adapter exceptions, termination errors, and cancellation write errors. Embedded adapters keep their cancellation controls. Ordinary run cancellation and task pause keep their distinct queue policies. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, browser testing, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The live test runner used OpenAI gpt-5.6-sol. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7b829efdf6 |
feat: show tasks created from a task by project (#13241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task can cause an agent to create more tasks. > - Those tasks can belong to other projects or have another parent. > - The subtask view does not show all work created from the current task. > - This pull request adds a Tasks tab with separate subtask and creation groups. > - Operators can follow created work without changing its parent or project. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Operators need to see all work that an agent creates while running for a task. Parentage alone does not describe this relationship. Legacy and native runs must follow the same rules. **Proposed solution** Show all subtasks in one section. Separately group tasks created from the source task by their current project, with a No project group when needed. A created subtask appears in both sections. Use saved run context and recorded creation activity to find the source task. **Alternatives considered** Making all created tasks children would change their hierarchy. Removing overlap between sections would hide the creation relationship. This change keeps the two memberships separate. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Activity log & action attribution capability. It does not add a new roadmap area. Related PR: #9727 adds a stored source-task field and inbound attribution UI. This PR adds the outgoing task list using existing run and activity records and does not require that schema change. ## What Changed - Add a company-scoped createdFromIssueId filter to issue lists. - Save the actor run during task creation, including legacy child-helper calls. - Recover historical run attribution from creation activity when the origin run is absent. - Render the production Tasks panel with all subtasks and independently grouped created work. - Keep progress only for subtasks. Add folding, hover fades and project links. - Fetch all result pages and refresh on issue activity. Show load failures with Retry. - Add database, API, UI and pagination tests, design-guide examples and Storybook pages. ## Verification - Before rebase: 158 targeted tests passed. Workspace typecheck, UI/server builds, Storybook build and token gates passed. - After rebase: full workspace typecheck and build passed. The cursor fix passes 26 focused tests and UI/server typechecks. - The full local test command completed its general-server group with 10,563 passing tests and two failures: a missing native-runner fixture and a concurrency-test timeout. Building the fixture and rerunning both affected files passed all 41 tests. The local command stopped before its remaining groups; all corresponding GitHub test shards passed on the submitted head. - GitHub checks on commit |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
889947c238 |
feat: add experimental native chat connectors (#13038)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools. > - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized source. > - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or expose private data. > - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data contracts. > - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable control plane. > - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery in Paperclip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs. Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite #13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML galleries. ## What Changed - Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its normal setup path. - Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks, runs, permissions, and audit records. - Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts. Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel. - Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials, runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs, credentials, or tool arguments. - Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup credentials in Paperclip secret storage. - Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot launch a provider. - Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order. Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo unrelated access changes. - Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable. - Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout, runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued comments are adopted after Stop. - Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run. Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop, agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a false cancellation receipt. - Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion path. - Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction, simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the accompanying deferred-wake merge. ## Verification Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594) is **5/5**, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341) passes **all 24 jobs**, including Build and both required aggregates. Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no human approval is present. Normal **squash auto-merge is enabled** as of September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified; no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor. - Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36 agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed attempts remain recorded below. - Latest test-only qualification: 141/141 route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome, test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858) passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail. Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are retained. - Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all 995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes remain frozen. The preceding [CI attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777) passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass. - Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries, stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained; its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it, and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics. - The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed [all 24 CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958) and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review prevented its normal merge before master advanced again. - Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear. - The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820), including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and required this reconciliation. - Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI, server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear. - Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already terminal run. - Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree, retained input, and no error toast. - Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or retries, on a fresh database. - The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11. Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency evidence. - Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests do not prove live provider behavior. - Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification log](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md). The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds. Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion, deadline, or CI gate was weakened. Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh disposable databases. See the [browser runbook](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md) for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps. ## Risks - This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open. - Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient visibility. - Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible. Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and quarantine during future changes. - Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox. - The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented in the [temporary handoff](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are included. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8cfd30fb07 |
feat(ui): add composer Stop and simplify task controls (#13104)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task composer is where operators direct running agents. > - Operators need to stop work without leaving the conversation. > - Existing pause controls already hold task trees and interrupt both runner types. > - This pull request connects the composer to those controls and removes repeated feedback. > - Operators can pause work quickly and still queue messages while agents run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Task pause, resume, and cancellation in the task page and composer. **Current behavior** The empty composer cannot stop a running task. Task controls require extra confirmation and reason text. Pause can show several notifications for the task already on screen. **Proposed behavior** Show Stop while this task runs and the composer is empty. Text or attachments switch it to Send. Stop and the menu use the same manual pause hold. Parent pauses include descendants. Keep task cancellation in the menu with a compact confirmation. Show one quiet pause row and gray cancelled-run details. **Reason and benefit** Operators can interrupt execution with one click. Drafts and queued messages keep their existing behavior. The UI waits for actual termination, including native cancellation acknowledgment. **Breaking changes** No endpoint, schema, or task-status change. Pause no longer asks for confirmation or a reason. Resume now honors the existing wake-agents option. Task notifications are suppressed for the task and subtree currently in view. Related UI work: #8228 changes navigation and composer shortcuts. This PR covers execution controls. No duplicate Stop-button PR was found. The change improves existing controls and does not duplicate a roadmap milestone. ## What Changed - Add Stop, pending feedback, duplicate-click protection, and inline errors to the composer. - Share the pause mutation across the composer, active-run controls, and menu. - Poll affected runs after a pause request. Require native cancellation acknowledgment. - Remove pause confirmation and shared reason fields. Reduce cancel confirmation to its task count and actions. - Honor wake-agents for executable tasks only. Preserve the pause when recovery review is needed; show partial wake failures inline. - Preserve explicit legacy reconciliation decisions while their continuation waits for dispatch. - Suppress notifications for visible task trees. Use quiet pause and cancellation feedback. - Add interactive stories using production controls and native/legacy end-to-end tests. ## Verification - User reviewed the running feature and revised Storybooks in the browser. - Rebased focused checks passed: 295 original targeted tests, 161 updated route/page/notification/status tests, and 26 recovery integration tests. - Both isolated runner journeys pass on the final revision (1.7 minutes). Coverage includes queueing, parent and child interruption, persisted holds, no automatic continuation, reconciled resume, cancellation, terminal exclusions, and no Stop toast. - Native coverage uses real runnerd with a deterministic provider fixture. Legacy coverage checks actual process termination. Live hosted-provider execution was not tested. - Repository typecheck and build, Storybook build, and token gates passed after rebase. The final server typecheck/build also passed. - The broad local run completed its general-server stage with 7,219 passing tests, 48 skipped, and two failures from cached pre-fix source and a stale native provider fixture. Both failed tests pass in fresh final-head reruns after rebuilding the fixture; the script did not continue to its later local stages. CI runs all test groups on the final revision. - Final revision: all 31 applicable CI checks passed; Storybook visual regression was skipped by its workflow conditions. Greptile: 5/5, zero unresolved comments. - Review `Tasks / Execution Controls` in Storybook. Type and clear a draft, stop a run, expand cancellation details, and test the menu on desktop and mobile. ## Risks - Stop pauses descendants for a parent task. This is the existing pause contract. - A held task can remain active if interruption fails. The UI shows an error instead of claiming termination. - Resume can start multiple assignees when wake-agents is selected. Backlog, blocked, and terminal tasks stay excluded. Existing execution reconciliation remains mandatory where required; Resume never invents action-outcome evidence. - Notification suppression uses the visible task and cached subtree. Notifications for unrelated work remain enabled. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact runtime snapshot and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, tool calls, code execution, and browser inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
35fdc0c66b |
fix: make task recovery durable and preserve current requests (#13075)
Make task recovery durable and preserve the latest user request across native and legacy continuations. Keep routine recovery quiet and prevent replay when action outcomes are uncertain. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e200104727 |
feat: review connection actions from tasks (#13063)
Bring governed connection reviews into task history and composer approvals. Share resolution with Connections, add scoped remembered permissions, and resume agents through durable outcome receipts. Keep cards compact, collapse raw results, isolate untrusted provider output, bound continuation payloads, and reconcile missed live events. Add Storybook coverage, browser journeys, and service regression tests. Verification: all PR CI gates passed, Greptile 5/5, security scans passed, five connection-review browser journeys passed, and real native Codex approval/continuation was verified against the local MCP fixture. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7ed122911b |
Add end-to-end session goals to Paperclip Runner
Add capability-aware slash-goal controls, durable provider goal state, PRP v2 negotiation, autonomous goal execution, and safe local session recovery. Integrate with current master, preserve provider session identity, and verify the browser goal/chat/replacement/clear workflow and unsupported-agent rejection. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
87d05e194b |
feat(work-products): add rich cards and run artifact inventory (#12717)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for AI-agent companies. > - Agent outputs must remain visible after a run and easy to inspect from a task. > - The thread and artifact inventory need one consistent rich-card vocabulary. > - Run uploads also need durable artifact registration and producing-run context. > - Reviewers need deterministic examples for each rich-card kind and state. > - This pull request adds the shared presentation, registration, inventory, and Storybook review coverage. > - The benefit is a complete output path that reviewers can inspect without seeded data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change improves work-product presentation in task threads and the task Artifacts tab. **Subsystem affected** The change affects shared work-product contracts, the runner diff path, server attachment and work-product services, GitHub metadata refresh, the React board UI, and Storybook. **Current behavior** The thread used generic cards. Some files uploaded by a run existed only as message attachments. The Artifacts tab showed a flat list without run context or filters. Storybook showed only one resting card per kind. **Proposed behavior** The thread uses rich cards for supported work-product types. Each run-produced file registers one attachment-backed artifact work product. The Artifacts tab groups outputs by run and supports filters. Storybook shows every kind and requested state, PR lifecycle states, stats variants, truncation, mobile layout, and message-tail media. **Reason and benefit** Users can identify outputs quickly. Reviewers can inspect all card permutations without creating task data. **Breaking changes** None. The metadata fields and automatic artifact registration are additive. Existing attachments and work products keep their current behavior. ## What Changed - Added a shared rich work-product card with kind-specific content and a compact inventory variant. - Added pull-request and commit diff metadata plus bounded GitHub state refresh. - Added media strips and typed file chips to message-tail attachments. - Registered each run-produced attachment as an artifact work product in the same server transaction. - Grouped task artifacts by run with agent and timestamp headings. - Added type and run filters, image thumbnails, compact cards, and a company Artifacts link. - Added a Storybook kind-by-state matrix with stats variants for all eight visual kinds. - Added PR open, draft, merged, and closed examples, long-title truncation, an exact 375-pixel viewport, and message-tail overflow coverage. - Closed reconciled runtime work products when the linked runtime stops or disappears, so the card shows `Stopped` instead of `Unhealthy`. ### Screenshots Before: one resting card per kind.  After: the kind and state matrix.  After: message-tail media at 375 pixels.  [Open the Storybook evidence viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-work-product-storybook-20260902/). The earlier artifact inventory comparison remains available in the [artifact inventory viewer](https://pages.paperclip.ing/rich-artifacts-inventory-proof-20260902/). ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `pnpm build-storybook` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/work-product-runtime-reconciliation.test.ts` passed with 5 tests. - Chromium visual checks passed at desktop and 375-pixel widths. - All 30 latest-head GitHub checks passed. One unrelated annotation test was flaky and passed on its single retry. - Greptile passed at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The Storybook change adds review fixtures only. The runtime fix changes read-time reconciliation without database writes. - The matrix is intentionally large so every permutation stays visible in one review surface. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This work does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 and GPT-5.6-sol across this pull request. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. The context-window size is not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public branch name describes the change and contains no internal task id - [x] I have run tests locally and the changed-path tests pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
39206c0096 |
feat(ui): complete the task workspace (#12640)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task page is the main place where people guide and review agent work. > - Native runner events already project into the existing task chat on the lower stack. > - The larger task workspace must support those events without breaking direct adapters. > - Legacy questions, final replies, empty transcripts, and classic controls must keep their behavior. > - This pull request completes the provider-neutral task workspace experience. > - The benefit is one coherent task surface for native and direct execution paths. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12639. Refs #12617. Refs #12352. **Subsystem affected** Task chat, task detail, side panels, interaction forms, and transcript presentation. **Problem or motivation** The task page does not provide one complete workspace for live activity, plans, questions, queued guidance, files, and documents. Earlier native UI work also exposed compatibility risks in legacy question and reply paths. **Proposed solution** Add the task workspace components and provider-neutral protocol presentation. Keep runner-only controls behind runtime facts. Preserve all direct-adapter composer, transcript, interaction, and finalization behavior. **Alternatives considered** A separate runner page would duplicate task behavior. Replacing legacy transcript logic would create unnecessary adapter regressions. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the unified task experience and the Cloud and Sandbox agents milestone. ## Stack - Base PR: #12639. - Lower PR: #12638. - This PR contains only its 119-file UI delta against `runner/remote-wss-transport`. - The next stack PR adds administrator and observability controls. ## What Changed - Added a reusable task workspace side panel for files and documents. - Added provider-neutral cards for tools, plans, questions, protocol activity, and progress. - Added queued guidance and richer composer state. - Added compact and expanded interaction presentation. - Added live activity, thinking, usage, recovery, and final reply presentation. - Added document annotations and task deep links. - Added bounded question validation and response handling. - Preserved native runner event projection from master. - Preserved legacy channel-less replies and explicit final reply precedence. - Preserved direct-adapter and classic-interface controls. - Did not change server execution selection, Rust code, migrations, workflows, or `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Verification - GitHub Actions will run UI tests, repository tests, typecheck, build, browser tests, security, and policy gates. - Tests cover active, settled, empty-transcript, interaction, queued-message, plan, question, file, document, and classic-interface states. - Compatibility tests cover direct adapters and native runner projection together. - Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses GitHub Actions for this series. - `git diff --check runner/remote-wss-transport...HEAD` passes. - The delta contains 119 UI-only files. ## Risks - This is a large task-page change. - Most files are new focused components and tests. - Shared transcript code keeps the lower native projection and legacy direct-adapter fallbacks. - Runner-only controls use adapter and runtime facts. - No execution path or rollout flag changes in this PR. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode, repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit agents. ## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Michael Nguyen
|
0fa318b8da | feat(artifacts): bridge Markdown work products into the document review surface (#11822) | ||
|
|
678728f650 |
feat: maintained in_review review-path contract + stalled-review actions (#10675)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents move issues to `in_review` and rely on a "review path" (an interaction, an approval, a monitor, or a named reviewer) to tell them who decides next. > - That review path can silently disappear. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction, a monitor is exhausted, or a run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with nobody reviewing it and no visible action. > - Such issues become invisible zombies. Nobody knows a decision is owed, so the work stalls forever. > - This pull request makes the review path a maintained invariant, exposes a `reviewAttention` surface, and gives every stalled review three inline actions in the UI. > - The benefit is that an `in_review` issue always shows who reviews it, or shows an amber "nobody is reviewing this" notice with one-click Approve, Request changes, and Send back to work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This pull request describes the problem inline. The tracking issue is internal. **Subsystem affected** The review and attention loop that agents and humans share: the `in_review` status, the `reviewAttention` surface, the /decisions attention feed, and the issue-page review panel. **Problem or motivation** Agent-owned issues in `in_review` can lose their last review path. A user comment supersedes the pending interaction. A monitor is exhausted. A run ends without restoring a path. The issue then sits in `in_review` with no reviewer and no visible action. It becomes an invisible zombie and the work never progresses. **Proposed solution** Maintain the review path as a server invariant. Expose a `reviewAttention` field that says what is under review, who decides, and since when. Render a persistent review panel on the issue page and inline actions on the /decisions feed. Keep human PATCHes into `in_review` ungated, but record the requesting user so the panel never renders empty. **Alternatives considered** A pure background auto-recovery sweep. This stays opt-in and is not enough on its own, because it is invisible to the human. A bare status banner. This is rejected, because it gives no action to resolve the stall. **Roadmap alignment** This improves the core review and attention loop that both agents and humans use every day. ## What Changed - **Server — maintained review-path invariant:** when an issue enters or sits in `in_review`, the server derives and persists a review path (interaction, approval, monitor, or the requesting user) and recovers a stale path with one bounded wake instead of leaving the issue pathless. - **Server — `reviewAttention` surface:** a new field describes what is under review (bound target with links), who decides, since when, and whether the review is stalled. Stalled agent-assigned reviews are now included in the attention feed. - **Server — inline stalled-review decisions:** secured routes let a permitted responder Approve (→ `done`), Request changes (→ `todo` + wake carrying the note), or Send back to work (→ `todo` + wake) directly from the attention feed. - **Server — resume-intent wake:** an `in_review -> todo` transition now wakes the assigned agent so a resumed review is not dropped. - **Server — user-entry symmetry:** user PATCHes into `in_review` stay ungated (no 422 for humans) and record the requesting user, who becomes the named responder when no other path exists. - **UI — review panel:** a persistent `IssueReviewPanel` renders above the thread whenever status is `in_review`. The covered state shows the bound target, responder, and outcomes and hoists the pending interaction/approval card. The stalled state shows the amber notice plus the three actions. - **UI — decisions card actions:** the same three actions render inline on the /decisions `AttentionQueueRow`. - **UI — responsive fix:** the stalled action row stacks to full-width buttons at phone width and returns to a horizontal row at `sm` and up. New 390px stories capture the phone layout. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueReviewPanel.test.tsx src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/lib/attention.test.ts src/api/issues.test.ts` — 91 tests pass. - Server suites added and updated: `issue-review-attention`, `issue-stalled-review-decision-routes`, `review-path-recovery`, `recovery-observability`, and related route/liveness tests (run by CI). - A designer reviewed the UI at 390px and desktop in light and dark themes on both the issue-page panel and the /decisions card. The stalled action row stacks cleanly at phone width with no overlap and keeps the horizontal row on desktop. ## Risks - **Migration:** adds migration `0200` (next after master `0199`, no renumber). It extends the agent-wakeup-requests schema and is additive. - **Behavioral shift:** `in_review -> todo` now dispatches a wake. This is intended (resume intent) and covered by tests. - **Authz:** the inline decision routes are permission-gated. Only a permitted responder sees and can trigger the actions. - Overall risk is moderate and contained to the review and attention loop. ## Model Used - Claude, Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
627728bdde |
feat: add authoritative issue PATCH receipts (#10478)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents update tasks through the issue API. > - The update response did not state which values changed. > - Blocker updates also did not echo the scalar blocker IDs. > - Agents therefore used an extra GET request to confirm a successful write. > - This pull request adds an authoritative change receipt and an optional small response. > - The benefit is fewer API calls with a clear and compatible write contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, and the UI issue cache. ### Problem or motivation A successful issue PATCH returned the updated issue, but it did not identify the effective changes. Blocker writes returned relation summaries without the scalar IDs. Agents could not distinguish a confirmed clear operation from missing data. The response must confirm committed field and blocker changes while existing UI clients continue to receive the full issue by default. ### Proposed solution Add a `changes` receipt. Add a conditional `blockedByIssueIds` echo. Support `Prefer: return=minimal`. Keep the full response as the default. ### Alternatives considered Make the small response the default for agent tokens. This would create different response contracts by actor type, so this pull request does not use that design. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused control-plane reliability improvement. It does not duplicate an open roadmap milestone. ## What Changed - Compute committed issue row and relation changes in the issue service. - Omit no-op fields and truncate changed long text values to 200 characters. - Echo blocker ID arrays for blocker set and clear requests. - Add the opt-in `Prefer: return=minimal` response and `Preference-Applied` header. - Keep receipt metadata out of React Query issue caches. - Add route and embedded Postgres tests for the new contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-activity-events-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "returns authoritative update receipts for row fields and blocker relations"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low compatibility risk. The default response only adds receipt fields. - Minimal mode is opt-in. Existing clients do not receive a smaller body. - The receipt excludes `updatedAt` because the response already returns it as the freshness anchor. - Prose API and agent workflow guidance will follow after the server contract is available. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID, context window size, and reasoning mode are not exposed to the agent. The agent used repository tools, code execution, 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 (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> |
||
|
|
36ec79c196 |
feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
176645187c |
Fix request storm polling and issue-list coalescing (#9190)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI keeps issue, agent, activity, and run state fresh through polling across several pages and sidebar surfaces > - When multiple components or browser tabs poll the same company data at the same time, the API can receive bursts of duplicate issue-list requests > - Those duplicate requests increase database and server load without returning meaningfully different data > - This pull request adds server-side compression/coalescing plus client-side visibility-aware and cross-tab shared polling > - The benefit is lower request volume during normal board usage while preserving fresh UI data for active users ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found for this request. Problem: - The board can issue redundant polling requests for the same issue-list data from multiple UI surfaces and tabs. - In busy operator sessions, those bursts can trigger request-storm behavior and unnecessary issue-list load. - Expected behavior is to reuse identical in-flight work server-side and reduce hidden-tab or duplicate-tab polling client-side while preserving normal refresh behavior. Related public context found during duplicate search: - #8206 covers a different board UI 404-storm scope. - #5165 covers separate issue-list behavior around page-size truncation. ## What Changed - Added API compression middleware foundation and a company/created-at index for heartbeat run access. - Added server-side issue-list request storm detection and identical in-flight request coalescing. - Added UI fetch metadata, visibility-aware polling, and request deduplication for issue/activity/client calls. - Added cross-tab shared polling primitives and wired them into the sidebar, inbox, dashboard, issue, project, routine, and agent surfaces. - Resolved the latest `master` migration collision by keeping upstream `0140_built_in_managed_resources.sql` and renumbering this branch's heartbeat-run index migration to `0141_heartbeat_runs_company_created_at_index.sql`; the SQL uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` for idempotency. - Stabilized server heartbeat cleanup tests exposed by the PR check matrix. - Fixed the Greptile compression follow-up by weakening strong ETags on encoded JSON responses and bypassing compression for streamed/download responses. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — passed after resolving the latest `master` conflict in `IssuesList.tsx` and updating the 200-result cap expectations. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after the UI conflict resolution. - `jq -e '.entries | length as $n | (map(.idx) | unique | length == $n) and (map(.tag) | unique | length == $n)' packages/db/src/migrations/meta/_journal.json` — passed after renumbering the migration to `0141`. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts` - passed after the compression follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts` - passed after the compression follow-up. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed after the compression follow-up. - Greptile Review for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b` - passed after the latest conflict/migration fix; all Greptile review threads are resolved. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/client.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts ui/src/lib/polling.test.ts ui/src/lib/cross-tab-poll.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/api/client.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-worktree-suppression.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - GitHub PR checks for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b`: all GitHub Actions/status checks passed; Greptile, Superagent, Socket, Snyk, build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, and commitperclip review are green; Storybook visual regression and security-review were skipped/neutral by policy. - Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Medium risk: issue-list coalescing changes request timing and cache semantics for a hot API path. - Medium risk: cross-tab polling uses browser coordination primitives, so older or unusual browser environments need fallback behavior to stay correct. - Low migration risk: the new index migration is ordered after current `master` and uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS`. > 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, GPT-5-based model, tool-enabled with shell/git execution. Exact hosted deployment identifier and context-window size were not surfaced in the agent 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
2f94a66ba1 |
Show live descendant status in inbox rows (#8876)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The inbox is where operators quickly scan which issues are active, blocked, or waiting for attention > - A blocked parent can still have active descendant work, but the inbox previously depended on only loaded rows to infer that state > - That made collapsed or partially loaded issue trees look more stuck than they really were > - This pull request carries live descendant summary data through the issue list API and inbox UI > - The benefit is a more accurate blocked-inbox signal, so operators can distinguish truly stalled work from blocked parents that still have live child activity ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this exact inbox descendant-status polish. Feature request fields: **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `server/`, `packages/shared`, plugin/MCP API surfaces, and `ui/` inbox rendering. **Problem or motivation** Inbox rows need to show when blocked or collapsed parents still have live descendant work, even when the live child row is not loaded in the current client tree. Without a server-provided descendant summary, a parent can look stalled even though active work continues below it. **Proposed solution** Expose an optional live descendant count on issue list results, request it from inbox views, and use it to render covered blocked status and live-below indicators. Keep the field opt-in so other issue list callers keep their existing payload shape and query cost. **Alternatives considered** Relying only on client-loaded subtree state was ruled out because it misses collapsed or unloaded descendants. Always returning the count was also avoided because most list callers do not need this extra summary. **Roadmap alignment** This is scoped operator-visibility polish for the existing inbox. It does not duplicate a named `ROADMAP.md` milestone. **Additional context** The recursive summary query is guarded against parent cycles, and the UI still falls back to loaded subtree live counts when server summary data is absent or stale. ## What Changed - Added optional `includeLiveDescendantSummary` support to issue list contracts, SDK surfaces, MCP tools, routes, services, and tests. - Added `liveDescendantCount` to issue list results when requested. - Updated inbox and blocked-inbox queries to request live descendant summaries. - Updated inbox row status rendering so blocked parents with live descendants show covered blocker treatment without duplicating the live-below chip. - Hardened live descendant summary traversal against parent cycles and preserved the loaded-subtree fallback path for blocked inbox rows. - Added focused tests for the API parameter, service behavior, helper logic, cycle handling, and inbox UI query/rendering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox-live-descendants.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueColumns.test.tsx ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Rebased cleanly onto current upstream `master` before pushing. - Confirmed the branch diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. The new descendant count is opt-in on list requests, but it adds query work when the inbox asks for it. The recursive traversal now tracks visited ancestors to avoid cycle failures. The UI uses the server count as a supplement to existing loaded-tree state, so stale or absent counts fall back to the prior behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled with local shell and git access. Reasoning mode and context window are managed by the Paperclip/Codex 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 |
||
|
|
a71c4b6782 |
[codex] feat(watchdog): add task watchdog control plane (#8339)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task lifecycle and recovery subsystems decide when agent work is still productive, stalled, or ready for review. > - Existing recovery paths can observe stopped or incomplete work, but there was no first-class per-task watchdog model with scoped review permissions. > - Watchdog follow-ups also need strict boundaries so recovery/status-only runs cannot mutate approvals or perform deliverable work. > - This pull request adds the task watchdog data model, API/service layer, scheduler/review flow, adapter wake context, UI configuration surfaces, and docs. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip` `master`; the watchdog migration is now ordered after master's latest migrations as `0104_issue_watchdogs`. > - The benefit is a more explicit task-review loop that preserves Paperclip's single-assignee and governance invariants while making stalled work easier to route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No linked GitHub issue. Paperclip task: [PAP-11275](/PAP/issues/PAP-11275). ## Problem or motivation Task recovery needs a first-class watchdog path that can inspect stopped work and create scoped follow-ups without bypassing normal task ownership. Board/UI users need a way to configure watchdogs on tasks and see watchdog-related live work. Recovery/status-only runs must remain limited to status reporting and must not create approvals, link approvals, or submit approval comments. ## Proposed solution Add a task-watchdog data model, scheduler/classifier, scoped mutation guard, adapter wake context, API/UI configuration surfaces, and documentation so watchdog agents can review stopped task subtrees under explicit boundaries. ## Alternatives considered Reuse the existing recovery-action flow only. That would keep stopped-work detection implicit, make per-task watchdog assignment harder to expose in the UI, and would not provide a durable scoped-review issue for stalled task trees. ## Roadmap alignment This is Paperclip control-plane lifecycle infrastructure for task execution and recovery. I checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core item. ## What Changed - Added issue watchdog schema, migration, shared contracts, validators, CRUD API, and service support. - Added task watchdog scheduler/classifier behavior, scoped mutation enforcement, adapter wake context, and default watchdog mandate guidance. - Added UI surfaces for configuring watchdogs on new/existing tasks, viewing watchdog activity, and exposing the experimental setting. - Added docs for the user-facing task watchdog workflow and implementation semantics. - Gated new-task watchdog setup behind `enableTaskWatchdogs` and blocked cheap status-only recovery runs from approval mutations. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the idempotent watchdog migration from the branch-local `0102_issue_watchdogs` slot to `0104_issue_watchdogs`. - Addressed Greptile feedback by loading watchdog classifier input with a recursive subtree query and centralizing the watchdog origin-kind constant. - Added and updated focused server/UI tests for watchdog routes, scheduler/classifier behavior, scope boundaries, live task visibility, settings, and new issue dialog behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/task-watchdogs-classifier.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/approval-routes-idempotency.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check` - Verified the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows`. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new task lifecycle surface touching DB schema, server routes/services, adapter wake context, and UI task configuration. - Watchdog scheduling behavior depends on the new experimental setting and runtime context checks behaving consistently across local and production agents. - The watchdog migration is idempotent (`IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards) so users who tried the previous branch-local migration number should not get duplicate-object failures. - CI and the second Greptile pass are pending after the latest review-fix push. > 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-class coding agent in the Paperclip workspace. Exact runtime model id and context window were not exposed to the agent; tool use and local command execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots — N/A per Paperclip task instruction: do not add screenshots/images to this PR unless they are specifically part of the work. - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d5322c821 |
[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > 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 based on GPT-5, with repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
3657854e5e |
Merge pull request #7554 from paperclipai/codex/pap-10343-comment-redaction
[codex] Redact deleted issue comments |
||
|
Dotta
|
39e0fba65f | Filter issues by plan document | ||
|
Dotta
|
7f70759e61 | Redact deleted issue comments | ||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d9f91576a0 |
Add accepted-plan decomposition exact-once guards and UI state (#6831)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core control-plane loop. > - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse isolated workspaces. > - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition. > - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first: accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable claim state, and retry-safe child creation. > - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to reconstruct child creation from raw activity. > - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive, hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and easier to inspect. ## What Changed - Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to `doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint, durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior. - Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend, including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue routes for creating and listing decomposition state. - Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee. - Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial child recreation under the same fingerprint. - Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the UI. - Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "accepted plan decomposition" server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links. - Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope. ## Risks - This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update; reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match the intended decomposition table. - The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle retries if the claim state machine is wrong. - The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section automatically. - `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize` accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature itself. > Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent; exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context), with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities. <img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05 48 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28" /> ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c91a062326 |
[codex] Runtime control-plane fixes (#6380)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a server-side control plane > - That control plane depends on reliable issue state transitions, plugin lifecycle behavior, import limits, and startup/shutdown handling > - Several small runtime fixes had accumulated on the working branch and were mixed with larger feature work > - Keeping them separate makes the correctness fixes reviewable and mergeable without waiting for cloud-sync UI work > - This pull request groups the server/runtime control-plane fixes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a tighter, safer runtime baseline for retries, imports, plugin migrations, feedback flushing, and trusted cloud import handling ## What Changed - Fixed updated issue list pagination sorting and scheduled retry comment handling. - Re-applied pending plugin migrations during hot reload and fixed plugin-schema worktree seed restore. - Hardened public tenant DB startup, portable import body limits, trusted cloud import errors, and trusted cloud tenant import mutation access. - Expired stale request confirmations after user comments. - Added feedback export shutdown hardening so database-unavailable flush loops stop cleanly. - Guarded plugin worker `error` event emission when no listener is registered. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `npm run install --prefix node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-lifecycle-restart.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/body-limits.test.ts server/src/__tests__/feedback-flush-controller.test.ts server/src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/board-mutation-guard.test.ts packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts` initially exposed local setup issues and two 5s test timeouts. - Rerun after local prereq build: `pnpm exec vitest run --testTimeout 15000 server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/feedback-flush-controller.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` passed. - Some embedded Postgres-backed tests skipped on this host because local Postgres init was unavailable. ## Risks - Runtime-touching branch: startup/shutdown and issue interaction behavior should be reviewed carefully. - The feedback export change disables repeated flush attempts only for database connection-refused failures; other upload failures still log normally. - The plugin worker error guard avoids process crashes from unhandled EventEmitter errors but may hide errors from code paths that expected an emitted listener. > 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 with local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d734bd43d1 |
[codex] Roll up May 17 branch changes (#6210)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so agent work needs visible ownership, recovery, and operator controls. > - This local branch had accumulated several related control-plane reliability and operator-experience fixes across recovery actions, watchdog folding, model-profile defaults, mentions, markdown editing, plugin launchers, and small UI polish. > - The branch needed to be converted into a PR against the current `origin/master` without losing dirty work or including lockfile/workflow churn. > - The safest standalone shape is a single rollup PR because the recovery/server/UI files overlap heavily across the local commits and splitting would create avoidable conflicts. > - This pull request replays the local branch onto latest `origin/master`, preserves the uncommitted work as logical commits, and adds a Zod 4 validator compatibility fix found during verification. > - The benefit is that the May 17 local branch can be reviewed and merged as one coherent, conflict-free branch under the 100-file Greptile limit. ## What Changed - Rebased the local May 17 branch work onto current `origin/master` in a dedicated worktree. - Preserved and committed previously dirty changes for recovery retry handling, plugin/sidebar launcher polish, and `.herenow` ignores. - Added recovery-action behavior for returning source issues to `todo` when retrying source-scoped recovery. - Included the existing local recovery/liveness/watchdog fold, Codex cheap-profile, markdown/mention, duplicate-agent, and UI polish commits from the branch. - Normalized shared validator `z.record(...)` schemas to explicit string-key records for Zod 4 compatibility. - Confirmed the PR has no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes and stays below the 100-file Greptile limit. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `npm run install` in `node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` to build the local native sqlite3 binding after installing with scripts disabled - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/project-mentions.test.ts packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/lib/duplicate-agent-payload.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - First pass: 13 files passed with 201 passing tests; 3 server files failed before sqlite3 native binding was built. - After rebuilding sqlite3: `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-model-profile.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` passed/loaded; embedded Postgres tests were skipped by the local host guard. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ## Risks - Medium risk: this is a broad rollup PR across recovery semantics, server tests, shared validators, and UI surfaces. - Some embedded Postgres tests skipped locally due the host guard, so CI should provide the stronger database-backed signal. - UI changes were covered by component tests, but no browser screenshot was captured in this PR creation pass. - This branch may overlap with existing recovery/liveness PR work; merge this PR independently or restack/close overlapping branches rather than merging duplicate implementations together. > 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, tool-enabled local repository and GitHub workflow, medium reasoning effort. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
03ad5c5bea |
[codex] Add issue document locking (#6009)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped issues, comments, and issue documents. > - Issue documents are the durable place where plans, handoffs, and other work artifacts are revised over time. > - Some documents need to be preserved as operator-approved snapshots while agents continue working on the same issue. > - Without document locking, a later board or agent write can overwrite the document key that reviewers expected to remain stable. > - This pull request adds board-managed issue document locks and makes agent writes to locked keys create a derived document instead of mutating the locked document. > - The benefit is safer document handoffs: approved or frozen issue documents stay immutable until the board explicitly unlocks them. ## What Changed - Added `locked_at`, `locked_by_agent_id`, and `locked_by_user_id` document fields plus migration `0085_tranquil_the_executioner.sql`. - Added document lock/unlock service behavior, route endpoints, activity events, and locked-document write protections. - Made agent document writes to locked keys create a new derived key such as `plan-2` rather than overwriting the locked document. - Surfaced lock state through shared issue document types, UI API methods, document header lock controls, and activity formatting. - Added server and UI tests for lock/unlock behavior, locked document immutability, and UI action visibility. - Updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` with the V1 document lock contract and endpoints. ## Verification - `git rebase public-gh/master` completed cleanly after committing the branch changes. - `git diff --check` passed before commit. - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx ui/src/lib/document-revisions.test.ts` passed: 5 files, 32 tests. ## Risks - Medium risk because this changes the document persistence contract and adds a migration. - The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` and guarded foreign-key creation so it remains safe for users who may have already applied an earlier copy of the migration. - Locked documents intentionally reject board edits/deletes/restores until unlocked; any existing workflows that expected direct overwrite need to unlock first. - Agent writes to locked keys now create derived documents, which may create extra issue documents when agents retry locked writes. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with tool use and local code execution in the Paperclip worktree. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4142559c37 |
[codex] Add blocked inbox attention view (#5603)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies through company-scoped issues, comments, approvals, and execution workspaces. > - Operators need the Inbox to show not only active work, but also blocked work that may need human or agent attention. > - The existing inbox experience did not have a dedicated blocked-work surface, so blocked tasks were harder to triage and resume deliberately. > - Backend consumers also needed a compact attention signal that distinguishes actionable blockers from covered or waiting blocker states. > - This pull request adds a Blocked Inbox tab backed by issue blocker-attention metadata, shared validators, and UI helpers. > - The benefit is a clearer triage path for stalled or blocked Paperclip work without exposing external wait internals in the operator-facing UI. ## What Changed - Added shared issue blocker-attention types, validators, and exports for the API/UI contract. - Added backend blocker-attention computation and issue route support for blocked inbox data. - Added the Blocked Inbox tab, blocked reason chips, filtering/search UI, responsive layouts, and Storybook stories. - Updated inbox helpers and page behavior so toolbar controls only appear where they apply. - Added coverage for shared validators, server blocker-attention behavior, blocked inbox UI helpers/components, and the Inbox page. - Added a screenshot helper script for the blocked inbox Storybook stories. - Addressed Greptile feedback by making urgency sorting deterministic for null stop times, avoiding full blocked-inbox list enrichment for counts, and hardening the screenshot helper. ## Verification - Rebased the branch cleanly onto `public-gh/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the diff does not include database migration files. - Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts ui/src/components/BlockedInboxView.test.tsx ui/src/components/BlockedReasonChip.test.tsx ui/src/lib/blockedInbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx`. - Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`. - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is scoped inbox/operator triage work and does not duplicate a listed roadmap feature. - Greptile Review is green on the latest head and all four Greptile review threads are resolved. - GitHub PR checks are green on the latest head: policy, security/snyk, e2e, verify, Canary Dry Run, Greptile Review, and serialized server suites 1/4 through 4/4. ## Risks - Medium review surface because this touches the shared issue contract, server issue services, and the Inbox UI together. - Blocker-attention classification may need product tuning after operators use it on real blocked queues. - UI screenshots were not attached in this PR-opening pass; the branch includes `scripts/screenshot-blocked-inbox.mjs` and Storybook stories for visual capture. > 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 with shell, git, GitHub CLI, GitHub connector, and Paperclip API tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Context window: 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0808b388ee |
[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > 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 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
772fc92619 |
Add issue controls and retry-now recovery (#5426)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Issue operators need clear controls for execution settings, model overrides, and recovery retries > - Existing issue properties hid useful adapter override state and did not expose a board-triggered retry for scheduled heartbeat recovery > - Scheduled retries also need to respect the same safety gates as normal execution instead of bypassing budget, review, pause, dependency, or terminal-state checks > - This pull request adds the issue property controls and retry-now surfaces together because they share the issue details/properties UI > - The benefit is that operators can inspect and adjust issue execution settings and safely trigger pending scheduled recovery without hidden control-plane behavior ## What Changed - Adds editable issue assignee model override controls in `IssueProperties`, with focused coverage. - Removes the stale workspace tasks link from issue properties. - Adds a scheduled retry `retry-now` backend path and shared response types. - Adds main-pane and properties-pane scheduled retry UI, backed by a shared `useRetryNowMutation` hook. - Adds suppression coverage for budget hard stops, review participant changes, subtree pause holds, unresolved blockers, terminal issues, and company scoping. - Updates the `IssueProperties` test harness with toast actions required by the retry-now hook. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueScheduledRetryCard.test.tsx` — 31 passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-scheduled-retry-routes.test.ts` — exited 0, but this host skipped the embedded Postgres route tests with: `Postgres init script exited with code null. Please check the logs for extra info. The data directory might already exist.` - Pairwise merge check against the assigned-backlog PR branch completed without conflicts via `git merge --no-commit --no-ff` in a temporary worktree. ### Visual verification screenshots Storybook story: `Product/Issue Scheduled retry surfaces / ScheduledRetrySurfaces`.   ## Risks - Medium: this touches issue execution/retry behavior, so CI should run the embedded Postgres route tests on a host that can initialize Postgres. - Low-to-medium UI risk around duplicated retry-now entry points; both surfaces share one mutation hook to keep behavior consistent. > 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, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled Paperclip heartbeat environment. 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
424e81d087 |
Improve operator workflow QoL (#5291)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane operators use repeatedly to supervise agent companies. > - Common operator workflows depend on fast scanning of inboxes, issue sidebars, workspaces, cost totals, and runtime services. > - Several small UI and service gaps made those workflows slower or less clear. > - This pull request groups the operator-facing QoL changes that can stand alone from recovery and adapter work. > - The benefit is a denser, clearer board experience for issue triage and workspace operation. ## What Changed - Added inbox assignee/project grouping and issue list token/runtime totals. - Improved issue properties with removable blocker chips and workspace task links. - Improved execution workspace layout, runtime controls, issues tab default, and stopped-port reuse behavior. - Added mobile markdown/routine dialog fixes, page title company names, sidebar polish, and dashboard run task label cleanup. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium UI risk because this touches several operator surfaces. The branch is intentionally grouped around workflow/QoL files and keeps the file count below the Greptile limit. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3c73ed26b5 |
Expand plugin host surface (#5205)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The plugin system is the extension boundary for optional product capabilities > - Rich plugins need more than a worker entrypoint: they need scoped database storage, local project folders, managed agents/routines, host navigation, and reusable UI components > - The LLM Wiki work exposed those missing host surfaces while keeping plugin code outside the core control plane > - This pull request expands the core plugin host, SDK, server APIs, and UI bridge so plugins can declare and use those surfaces > - The benefit is that future plugins can integrate with Paperclip through documented, validated contracts instead of bespoke server or UI imports ## What Changed - Added plugin-managed database namespaces and migration tracking, including Drizzle schema/migration files and SQL validation for namespace isolation. - Added server support for plugin local folders, managed agents, managed routines, scoped plugin APIs, and plugin operation visibility. - Expanded shared plugin manifest/types/validators and SDK host/testing/UI exports for richer plugin surfaces. - Added reusable UI pieces for file trees, managed routines, resizable sidebars, route sidebars, and plugin bridge initialization. - Updated plugin docs and example plugins to use the expanded host and SDK surface. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts ui/src/api/plugins.test.ts ui/src/components/FileTree.test.tsx ui/src/components/ResizableSidebarPane.test.tsx ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` passed: 11 files, 67 tests. - Confirmed this PR changes 89 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. ## Risks - Medium: this expands plugin host contracts across db/shared/server/ui and includes a new core migration (`0076_useful_elektra.sql`). - The plugin database namespace validator is intentionally restrictive; plugin authors may need follow-up affordances for SQL patterns that remain blocked. - Merge this before the LLM Wiki plugin PR so the plugin can resolve the new SDK and host APIs. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub workflow. Context window size was 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
57229d0f24 |
[codex] Add issue monitor liveness controls (#4988)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work must stay observable, governable, and recoverable. > - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue state transitions, and visible recovery behavior. > - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when the assignee still owns a future check. > - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad hoc comments. > - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior. > - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when to use monitors versus `blocked`. > - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits without weakening single-assignee task ownership. ## What Changed - Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state. - Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds, activity logging, and external-ref redaction. - Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child monitor scheduling. - Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces. - Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy: "board"`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts` - First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency. - After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites successfully. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot captured from `http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces` with Playwright. ## Screenshots  ## Risks - Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or recovery issue creation. - Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue monitor columns and index. - External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads. > 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 coding agent with repository tool use and terminal 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots or Storybook review surfaces - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c4269bab59 |
Add workflow interaction cancellation and issue cost summaries (#4862)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates work through issue-thread interactions, run history, and cost telemetry. > - Operators need workflow prompts to be cancellable and costs to be visible at the issue level. > - The earlier rollup mixed this workflow/cost work with database backups, reliability recovery, thread scaling, and settings polish. > - This pull request isolates the interaction and cost surfaces into a reviewable slice. > - The backend now supports cancelling pending question interactions and summarizing issue-tree costs. > - The UI component layer can render cancelled questions and interleave activity with run ledger rows. ## What Changed - Added `cancelled` as an issue-thread interaction status and result shape for question interactions. - Added the board-only `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/cancel` route and service implementation. - Added issue-tree cost summary support in the cost service and `/issues/:id/cost-summary` API route. - Extended shared cost exports and UI API/query keys for issue cost summaries. - Updated `IssueThreadInteractionCard` and `IssueRunLedger` components for cancelled questions, issue cost surfaces, and activity/run interleaving. - Added focused server and component regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - Result: 4 test files passed, 45 tests passed. - UI screenshots not included because this PR updates reusable components and API surfaces without wiring a new page-level layout. ## Risks - Adds a new interaction terminal status; clients that switch exhaustively on interaction status may need to handle `cancelled`. - Issue-tree cost summaries use recursive issue traversal and should be watched on unusually large issue trees. - Page-level issue detail wiring is intentionally left to the board QoL/issue-detail branch to keep this PR narrow. > 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-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium reasoning effort. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
