3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	cc67d4e1d8	fix: preserve steering and recover stopped task conversations (#15015) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task conversation must let a user guide a running agent and resume stopped work. > - The active run owns its input protocol, even when the user changes the next model or effort. > - Queue delivery waits for a provider receipt, which must be able to persist during the request. > - A stopped startup also needs a clear user action that passes normal task admission. > - This pull request fixes steering delivery, makes queue actions immediate, and restores explicit continuation. > - The benefit is a responsive conversation that can recover without losing saved input. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A queued message could change from Steer to Interrupt while a native run prepared. A steer request could wait on its own database lock and fail to deliver. A stopped startup could then leave the conversation without a working Retry or message continuation. Interrupt also waited for the server and showed a toast. **Expected behavior** The active run keeps its input protocol. Steer delivers input to that run. Steer and Interrupt clear the submitted queue rows and show the input in the conversation immediately. Failed delivery restores the latest queue with an inline error. An eligible stopped run offers Retry, and authenticated user input can start a fresh turn through normal task admission. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task with a native Paperclip Runner. 2. Change the selected model or effort while that run prepares. 3. Queue a message and press Steer. 4. Observe the provider receipt and queue state during the request. 5. Stop a startup before its provider process begins, then try Retry or send a new message. 6. Repeat queued delivery with a legacy runner and press Interrupt. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the parent of this branch, `59c07ede7`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private deployment. The fixes also cover local task conversations. Related work: Refs #12834, Refs #13354, Refs #13275. The open refactor in #13160 moves the same queue route; it does not fix the receipt lock or stopped-run continuation addressed here. ## What Changed - Select queue behavior from the active run's immutable dispatch and runtime resolution. - Leave the run row unlocked during provider acknowledgement, then lock and read it before merging the receipt. - Retain queued input if the target run stops during that wait. Keep inline delivery errors visible after empty queue updates. - Permit exact Retry and authenticated continuation after verified native startup cancellation. Preserve pause, approval, budget, ownership, and process-stop gates. - Carry undelivered native queue input into a fresh turn once the old execution is confirmed stopped. - Show Steer and Interrupt input in the conversation and clear submitted composer rows immediately. Restore the latest queue inline on failure. Remove delivery toasts. - Keep optimistic delivery stable across stale polls, empty queues, and paginated history. Preserve classic Interrupt error handling. - Document recovery and optimistic delivery behavior. Add regression tests across server, shared queue projection, and UI boundaries. ## Verification - Red-green regression tests reproduced the queue protocol, receipt lock, stopped-startup continuation, and optimistic delivery failures. - The focused server route, continuation, queue, and runner boundary suites passed during implementation. - The queue-route suite passes with 78 tests. The three complete conversation UI suites pass with 347 tests. - UI typecheck, production build, and `pnpm check:token-gates` pass. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. The local monolithic `pnpm test:run` is still running; remote CI verifies the complete suite on the latest commit. - All CI gates pass on `bd9031ad56abfcde13d13a13488c1b9217c2fd3a`, including the full test shards, runner verification, browser E2E, typecheck, release registry, and canary dry run. - Greptile reports 5/5 for that commit. Both review threads are resolved. ## Risks This changes queue display and explicit continuation admission. The UI must restore rejected delivery without losing other-session edits. The server must preserve concurrent provider result updates and must not resume a process whose stop is uncertain. Focused tests cover these boundaries. This change has no database migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, 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>	2026-10-02 22:07:14 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	86c2e0ac4a	feat(server): log an activity row for each queued-comment queue mutation (#13159) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server records actions that change issues and their queued comments > - The queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard routes changed queue state without activity rows > - Operators could not inspect these queue mutations in the activity feed > - This pull request adds one identifier-only activity row for each successful queue mutation > - The benefit is a durable audit trail with no comment text in the activity log ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard routes now record their successful mutations in the activity feed. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (server and ui). **Current behavior** The three queue mutation routes change queued comments but do not write an activity row. The activity feed has no label for these actions. **Proposed behavior** Each successful route writes one activity row with the actor fields, entity fields, queue identifiers, and queue revision. The discard row also includes the cancelled run identifier. The activity feed shows a label for each action. **Reason and benefit** Operators need a durable record of queue changes. Identifier-only details support audit and troubleshooting without storing comment text. **Breaking changes** None. The routes keep their existing response and authorization behavior. **Additional context** Each mutation writes its activity row on the same locked transaction that applies the mutation, so the two commit or roll back together. The route publishes the live activity event only after that transaction commits. The separate comment-cancel route opts out of this write and keeps its existing single activity row. ## What Changed - Add activity rows for queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard mutations. - Include queue identifiers, revisions, ordered comment identifiers, and cancelled run identifiers as applicable. - Add activity-feed labels for the three new actions. - Add route and activity-format tests for the new behavior. - Write each activity row on the same transaction as the mutation it records, through a new port method that the adapter implements. - Keep the comment-delete route opted out of that write, so a cancellation does not log two rows. ## Verification - [x] `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` passes. - [x] `npx vitest run ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts` passes. - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` exits 0. - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` exits 0. - [x] `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passes. - [x] The full CI suite is green. ## Risks Low risk. The change adds activity rows after successful mutations and does not change route responses, authorization, or stored comment text. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 Codex. The model used repository inspection, Git operations, and command execution. The context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-10 10:47:17 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	0d8bbf7cf4	refactor(server): move the queued-comment queue mutations into the wake-queue module (#13145) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server coordinates issue execution and agent wake events > - Queued comment mutations belong to the wake queue that owns their state > - Route-local database writes split queue rules across two layers > - This pull request moves those mutations into the wake-queue module and keeps route authorization and response mapping > - The benefit is one transaction boundary with company-scoped writes and a shared checked response contract ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard endpoints write queue state directly from the route layer. **Subsystem affected** server/ — REST API and orchestration services. **Current behavior** The route layer owns database transactions, locks, queue writes, and wake-row writes for queued comments. **Proposed behavior** The wake-queue module owns these operations. The routes keep authorization, input checks, error mapping, and response mapping. **Reason and benefit** The module gives all queued-comment callers one transaction boundary and applies company predicates to every adapter read and write. **Breaking changes** None. The endpoints keep their existing paths and response behavior. ## What Changed - Move queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard operations into the wake-queue module. - Add company predicates to seven queue writes. - Use the shared queue contract type for mutation responses. - Add module tests and route tests for the moved operations. ## Verification - `server/src/modules/wake-queue`: 128 tests pass across 6 files. - `server/src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts`: 19 tests pass. - The server TypeScript check reports the same 141 pre-existing errors before and after this change. - GitHub Actions must pass the required pull-request checks. ## Risks The change moves transaction and lock ownership across module boundaries. The new adapter, use-case, and route tests cover the moved behavior. No database schema changes occur. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, current agent runtime, tool use and code review support. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-10 08:41:59 -07:00