1 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	6d46851920	test(e2e): add attended GitHub review bot journey (#17457) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and the work they perform. > - Product E2E checks verify real user paths through those agents. > - A recorded GitHub review-bot walkthrough had no repeatable registered case. > - App setup, automatic triggering, publication, and task completion need separate evidence. > - This pull request adds an explicit attended journey to the existing catalog and report tools. > - Reusable setup profiles and independent assertions preserve the same outcome across compatible targets. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17262. This case remains an explicit attended attached-target flow. It does not replace the shared deployment-target or paid-operations framework. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Product E2E catalog can now select and retain evidence for GitHub review-bot setup and its first automatic review. **Current behavior** Recorded walkthroughs cannot be rerun as a fixed registered case. A published review alone can hide a failed run or unfinished task. **Proposed behavior** Create and install an owned App, save automatic new-PR settings, create a defective PR, and require correlated review delivery, an inline finding, a consistent check, a successful run, and a Done task. Retain failures and confirm owned-resource cleanup. **Reason and benefit** The case makes a useful external integration reproducible without treating setup, unit checks, or report rendering as proof of a completed live journey. ## What Changed - Add two explicit attended cells for an existing configured agent in local or Daytona execution. - Declare hosting, account, connection, and credential prerequisites through private setup bindings. - Add fixed browser controls, ownership checks, independent grading, and cleanup. - Package declared screenshots through the existing sanitizer, manifest, validator, and dashboard. - Reject operations-managed execution until budgeted routing is qualified. - Document hosted QA credential setup and evidence limits. ## Verification - Focused catalog, oracle, report, connection, and ownership checks: 127 tests passed. - Inherited-environment preflight regression failed against the previous commit and passed after the fix. Actual-run environment verification remains required. - Harness TypeScript check and full workspace typecheck passed. Full build passed. The local full-test attempt was interrupted after repeated embedded PostgreSQL startup failures; its exit code of zero does not establish a pass; Exact-head Linux CI passed the full test, typecheck, build, Runner, serialized, browser, and canary gates on `abbddeade848edefc8de75f11cc9008b2cd52764`. - A real hosted attempt published a rated review and inline finding. It failed when its native session timed out before the task reached Done. Cleanup passed. Full live qualification remains open. - Credential scan found no known credential values in the authored files or retained report corpus. ## Risks - The full case creates external test resources and uses the configured provider. It requires an explicit selection and current task authority. It is excluded from default and CI matrices. - Time and run limits are not a hard dollar cap. Missing dollar cost stays unknown. Fixture setup does not weaken budget policy. - Fresh personal OAuth, unattended authentication, runtime skill-read proof, and cross-host qualification are separate claims. - The selected live fixture needs environment/lifecycle recovery before it can adopt a longer provider deadline. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 family through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. The exact deployment model ID 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, including the available 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 described the issue in-PR following the enhancement 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 ticket ID - [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-24 12:16:26 -07:00