2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	59eee4829c	fix(inbox): stop archived items from resurfacing (#9931) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to coordinate AI-agent companies and review work needing attention. > - The Inbox is the operator-facing surface that aggregates tasks requiring attention across server state and shared client polling. > - Archiving a task optimistically removed it, but ordinary background activity and stale polling responses could make it reappear seconds later. > - The server therefore needs to distinguish genuine user-attention events from routine agent/system activity. > - The client also needs a bounded local archive guard across every Inbox query path while the server mutation and in-flight polls settle. > - This pull request fixes both resurrection paths and adds race-focused regression coverage. > - The benefit is stable archive behavior without hiding a genuine archive failure after reconciliation or reload. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] Searched existing open and closed issues and pull requests; no duplicate implementation was found. - [x] Reproduced on `master` before this branch. - [x] Confirmed this is a Paperclip core bug, not adapter or provider behavior. ### What happened? Archiving an Inbox task hid it optimistically, then background refresh activity could insert it back into the list seconds later. ### Expected behavior A successfully archived task remains hidden during normal polling. A genuine failed archive may become visible again after reconciliation or reload. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open Inbox with a visible task. 2. Archive the task. 3. Wait for shared polling or routine agent activity to refresh task data. 4. Observe the archived task reappear without a hard page refresh. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` before this branch. ### Deployment mode Built from source using the local development application. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core Inbox bug. ### Database mode Not database-mode-specific. ### Access context Board (human operator). ### Additional context The failure had independent server and client causes: routine activity could resurface archived rows server-side, while stale shared-poll responses could bypass optimistic client removal. ## What Changed - Restrict server-side Inbox resurfacing to explicit user-attention events rather than any issue activity write. - Add a bounded client-side archive guard with confirmation, failure restoration, and cache reconciliation behavior. - Apply the guard to Inbox rendering, badge counts, optimistic cache updates, and shared-poll result application. - Classify the generic compact Inbox query so stale shared-poll data cannot bypass the guard. - Add server visibility-matrix tests and UI race-condition regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/hooks/useSharedPolling.test.ts src/lib/inboxArchiveCache.test.ts src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 25 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — 107 passed. - Branch rebased cleanly onto current `origin/master` before push. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: resurfacing is intentionally narrower, so the server tests cover human comments, mentions, interactions, and status transitions that must still regain attention. - The client guard is bounded and cleared on mutation failure, limiting the risk of hiding a task whose archive did not persist. - No schema, migration, public API, workflow, dependency-lock, or visual-token changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude via Claude Code (`claude_local`; prior implementation/review run, exact underlying model ID and context window were not retained in the handoff metadata), with repository tool use and test execution. - OpenAI `gpt-5.5` via Codex CLI for final review repair and PR preparation, with reasoning, repository editing, GitHub tooling, 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/described the result 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 task identifier - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation where needed; no documentation change is required for this bug fix - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip-authored commits include the required co-author trailer --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-21 08:13:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	be1fcb2b46	Fix agent sidebar liveness churn (#9358) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI includes an agents sidebar so operators can see which agents are currently active. > - That sidebar depends on live-run polling, heartbeat events, and cross-tab cache sharing to stay current without overloading the API. > - The sidebar was visually churning because agents could leave the live section immediately after a run ended, while progress events and cross-tab broadcasts kept forcing hot query updates. > - This pull request stabilizes live sidebar membership and makes shared polling broadcasts monotonic/deduplicated. > - The benefit is a calmer operator sidebar that still reflects real live state without flashing between stale and fresh snapshots. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this operator-facing bug. Bug summary: - What happened: the agents sidebar could flash or reshuffle around active agents while live-run and heartbeat data was updating. - Expected behavior: active and recently-active agents should remain visually stable, and cross-tab cache sharing should not overwrite fresher data with older snapshots. - Reproduction context: run Paperclip with multiple tabs or rapid live-run/progress updates and watch the agents sidebar while agents enter/leave live execution. - Deployment mode: local/operator board UI. Related PR: - Supersedes #9357, which carried the same fixes on a branch/title/body that were not suitable for public contribution hygiene. ## What Changed - Restored the maintainer-only warning wording in the developer skill guide so the existing server skill-utils CI gate passes on current master. - Added a 120-second linger window for streamlined sidebar agent rows so an agent does not immediately disappear from the live section as soon as its last run ends. - Deferred the recent-agent fallback until there are no live or lingering agents, while keeping the live badge tied only to actually-live runs. - Stopped broad live-runs/heartbeats/agents-list invalidation on every run progress event, while preserving targeted agent-detail invalidation. - Added producer timestamps to cross-tab shared polling result messages so older-or-equal snapshots are dropped before `setQueryData`. - Added per-resource broadcast dedupe/rate limiting so tabs do not rebroadcast equivalent cached data in a loop. - Added focused coverage for sidebar linger behavior, staggered multi-agent linger expiry, live update invalidation scope, shared polling timestamp handling, and cross-tab broadcast dedupe. ## Verification Run locally on the rebased PR branch: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts` — 44 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/cross-tab-poll.test.ts src/hooks/useSharedPolling.test.ts` — 10 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — exit code 0. ## Risks - Low migration risk: the sidebar/polling changes are UI/client cache behavior only, with no database or API contract changes. - Sidebar visibility now intentionally lingers for 120 seconds after the last live run; stale rows could remain briefly visible, but their live badge is removed when they are no longer actually live. - Cross-tab broadcasts are now more conservative; a missed publish should be corrected by the next normal poll or accepted newer timestamp. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via the Paperclip Codex coding-agent runtime; exact API model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this environment. The agent used terminal/tool execution for repository inspection, focused tests, branch preparation, and PR creation. ## 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>	2026-07-10 11:33:02 -05:00