2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	ef37203a48	perf(ci): build standalone public packages concurrently (#8567) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - CI runs a Canary Dry Run job that exercises `release.sh`, which builds the standalone sandbox-provider packages for publish > - That step (`scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`) built the 7 provider plugins serially — each doing `rm -rf dist && tsc` — making it the dominant cost (~49s) inside the slowest PR check (~4.9m wall) after the general-server lane was already sharded > - The packages are independent (their own `node_modules` via `--ignore-workspace`, their own `dist`), so the serial build is pure latency with no correctness benefit > - This pull request builds them with a bounded-concurrency pool sized to the runner CPU count (overridable via `STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`), buffering each package's output and flushing it as one block so parallel logs stay readable, and aggregating failures by original index > - The benefit is a faster Canary Dry Run / PR feedback loop without changing what gets built or published ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline feature/perf description: ### Problem or motivation `build-standalone-public-packages.mjs` builds standalone provider packages serially, making it the largest single cost inside the slowest PR check. ### Proposed solution Run independent per-package builds through a bounded-concurrency worker pool sized to runner CPU count, with an env override and readable buffered logs. ### Alternatives considered Keep the serial build for simpler logs, but that preserves the avoidable CI latency. ### Roadmap alignment This is CI maintenance and does not overlap planned core roadmap work. ## What Changed - `scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`: replaced the serial per-package build loop with a bounded-concurrency pool (default = runner CPU count, override via `STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`); per-package stdout/stderr is buffered and flushed as a single block; failures are aggregated by original package index so one failure neither aborts the others mid-flight nor obscures which package broke. - `scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs`: new `node:test` unit suite covering the pool (limit respected, all items run, ordered failure aggregation, env-override resolution). - `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: wired the new unit test into the policy job. ## Verification - `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs` → 6/6 pass - `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` → OK (29 enabled for CI publish) - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` → clean ## Risks - Low risk. Build inputs/outputs are unchanged; only scheduling differs. The concurrency is bounded by CPU count and overridable; output is buffered per package so logs remain attributable. If a package fails, all failures are still reported with their package index. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking with 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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>	2026-06-23 17:52:12 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	2853a9ae69	perf(ci): shard the general-server test lane across 3 runners (#8360) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every PR runs the `PR` GitHub Actions workflow, whose `verify` gate fans out into parallel test lanes (general tests, serialized server route suites, build, typecheck) > - The `General tests (server)` lane had grown into the run's critical path: it executed all ~213 non-route server suites serially in a single job (~7.2m of test time), more than 2x any other job > - It runs serially because `server/vitest.config.ts` pins `maxWorkers: 1`, so server suites cannot parallelize within a single runner — the only lever is spreading them across runners > - This pull request shards that lane into 3 even partitions that run on separate runners, mirroring the 4-way sharding already used for the serialized route suites > - The benefit is the lane drops from ~7.7m to ~2.4m/shard, cutting overall PR wall time roughly in half (~8.5m → ~4.2m) ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the underlying issue is described inline following the feature-request template. ### Problem or motivation PR CI wall time had crept back up to ~8.5m. On a recent fully-green run, the `General tests (server)` job took 7.72m — more than double any other job and the clear critical path. Of that, 7.23m was pure test execution (dependency install was a cached 0.27m). The job ran all server suites that are not route/authz tests (213 files) one after another, because the server vitest project pins `maxWorkers: 1`, making these suites inherently serial within a single runner. ### Proposed solution Shard the general-server lane across 3 parallel runners — the same technique the route/authz suites already use — so the suite set is split into even, deterministic partitions that run concurrently. Add a regression test that proves the shards always cover the full suite set with no gaps or overlap. ### Alternatives considered - **Raise `maxWorkers` for the server project** to parallelize within one runner — rejected: the server suites share process-level state (DB/port), which is exactly why `maxWorkers: 1` is pinned. - **Two shards instead of three** — would leave the lane at ~3.6m, still above the next bottleneck (Canary Dry Run, ~4.1m wouldn't be the gate). Three lands the lane comfortably below it. - **Do nothing / accept the slow lane** — rejected: it gates every PR. ### Roadmap alignment Developer-experience / CI tooling. Not core product roadmap work; does not overlap with planned features in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: the `general-server` general-test group now accepts `--shard-index` / `--shard-count`. It enumerates the full server test set (the whole `server/src` tree, minus the route/authz suites that already run in their own serialized shards) and splits it deterministically by modulo. The non-sharded local invocation (`pnpm test:run:general --group general-server`) is unchanged. - `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: the `general_tests` matrix runs `general-server` as 3 parallel shards (1/3, 2/3, 3/3). Workspace groups are unchanged. The `verify` gate already aggregates the whole matrix result, so the required check name is unaffected. - `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: a `node:test` suite asserting the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition of the general-server set, that no route/authz suite leaks into it, and that shard flags are rejected for the parallel workspace groups. Wired into the `policy` job. ## Verification - New partition test passes locally: `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` (3/3). - Confirmed the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition of all 213 files (71/71/71). - Ran a live thin shard (3 real server suites, including one outside `__tests__`) — 23 tests passed, confirming positional-include execution works end to end. - This PR's own CI is the authoritative check: all three `General tests (server (n/3))` jobs went green on the prior run, collectively covering every suite the old single job ran. ## Risks - Low risk. No product code changes — only test orchestration and CI matrix. Shard partitioning is deterministic and is now covered by an automated test that fails if the partition ever develops a gap or overlap. Modulo-on-sorted-filenames balances duration reasonably, matching the approach already proven by the serialized route shards. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking + tool use (agentic coding via Paperclip). ## 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 - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — no UI change) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (inline comments explain the sharding rationale) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending this PR's run) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending review) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-19 19:22:17 -07:00