3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	6cc765bd81	feat(live): deliver recoverable transcripts to interested views (#17456) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip should show live agent output without repeating presentation work for every view. > - Execution, acknowledgements and durable checkpoints must remain independent of browser interest. > - The server already owns authorization and redaction at delivery. > - A shared browser connection can declare which visible runs need full transcripts. > - Catch-up must handle subscription races, disconnects, terminal output and slow consumers. > - This PR delivers the backend and UI contract together without a database migration. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Visible transcript consumers receive recoverable output through one shared browser connection. **Current behavior** Independent views can create duplicate connections, presentation work and recurring history reads. A subscription race or filtered native history can lose the saved tail. **Proposed behavior** Negotiate run interests, subscribe before catch-up and retain independent canonical recovery cursors. Keep lightweight lifecycle and attention events available without full transcript delivery. PR 4 of #17097 → #17439 → #17455 → #17456. The runtime feature is independent of hot-upgrade recovery; the stack order is for review convenience. ## What Changed - Add additive WebSocket capability negotiation, replacement interests, revision acknowledgement and resynchronization notices. - Reference-count visible consumer interests on one company-scoped browser connection. Preserve older-client/server behavior. - Reuse canonical structural/current-user/registered-secret redaction for plugin run notifications through the same bounded delivery queue. Keep producer and uninterested streams free of recipient lookups. - Refresh application queries after the matching recovery acknowledgement, including one follow-up after an older in-flight read. Ordinary interest acknowledgements add no refresh. - Keep authorization and redaction at delivery. Browser interest cannot change harness execution, PRP ACKs, checkpoints, accounting or canonical logs. - Deduplicate by sequence and log identity. Catch up terminal output and saved tails without recurring reads during healthy negotiated streaming. - Bound delivery to 1,000 items and 1 MiB. Overflow requires resynchronization; persistent congestion closes the connection. - Preserve compact-history expansion from current master across paginated catch-up. Snapshot the original read window before React can defer its update. ## Verification On current source `f6710f0b3c`, Linux [job 122604880503](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40624101891/job/122604880503) executes all five run-read permission cases successfully (2.574 seconds), including grant and revocation on the same connection. Its shard passes all 2,430 cases. Current [server-shard job 122604880416](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40624101891/job/122604880416) has 1,513 passes, one failure and three skips: an unchanged nested-clone expiration/restore test exceeds its 15-second deadline. The preceding `5efc6c48bf` source has identical non-document bytes; [its corresponding job 122601359272](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40623017917/job/122601359272) passes all 21 nested-clone cases, including that case in 9.505 seconds. The exact timing cause is unproven. The single diagnostic [retry job 122609332597](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40624101891/job/122609332597) passes all 21 nested-clone cases (61.316 seconds), including the formerly timed-out case in 7.003 seconds, and all 1,514 shard cases (three skips). The failure remains recorded; no timeout or assertion was changed. After the server squash merge and qualification retarget, all 50 focused server cases and all 91 focused UI cases pass again, with both typechecks and token gates. Runner vendor preparation rebuilds current master inputs before those tests. This source needs fresh CI and reviews; prior CI and browser receipts do not qualify it by inference. Current candidate `f6710f0b3c` now targets master `6987c2f20b`, after merged #17097, #17439 and #17455. Its diff contains only transcript delivery and its documentation. It adds no database migration. Retargeting changes only the evidence document; all production and test code is byte-identical to `5efc6c48bf`. On the eighth integration, all 50 focused server delivery cases and all 91 focused UI cases pass, with both typechecks and token gates. The following 35-case receipt belongs to the earlier delivery correction. Four low-queue authorization/decoration stall variants and the late-rejection case fail before correction. They now verify the five-second read deadline, old and negotiated clients, revisions that cannot reset the deadline, unaffected sibling connections, rejected late results, and timer cleanup. The first combined toast run has four loopback EPERM failures and 31 passes; its permitted repeat passes all 35. Earlier 28-case evidence excluded the toast file. The permission correction requires the current HTTP company-scope transcript permission, plus task access, for both native events and legacy logs. Prior Linux source `49a8783e9b`, job 122549913643, executes all five run-read cases, including grant/revocation on the same connection, successfully. That source placed this file in server shard 11; later shard assignments can differ and must be checked against their actual inventories. The older `405bedd189` receipt retains a separate scheduled-retry teardown race and inherited fixture collision; neither is waived. The new head must pass again in Linux CI. The seven extracted stream-recovery tests preserve their assertions. All 39 related legacy/native cases, UI typecheck and token gates pass after restoring the initially missed fixture helper. Earlier full workspace build/typecheck and Chrome journeys at `445a76563c` cover two views, company switches, reconnect, terminal catch-up, reload and zero recurring healthy transcript reads. Those browser receipts are historical source evidence and do not qualify this new head by inference. The [qualification record](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/f6710f0b3c84c6fdb2021df67206261b446dfc97/doc/plans/2026-10-22-hot-upgrade-qualification.md) retains exact earlier UI/history, source-boundary and cleanup failures with their fixes and limits. The workload-cost test preserves bounds and authorization callback counts for zero interests, one viewer, multiple browsers and a slow viewer. Its socket congestion is simulated. It measures neither SQL nor network costs. Current permission checks and the final hosted active-agent/viewer matrix remain unmeasured; no production savings are claimed. Fresh exact-head CI, legacy status, completed Greptile 5/5, resolved feedback and ordinary merge eligibility remain required. The earlier recipient corrections pass all 47 registry/plugin/delivery/WebSocket/toast cases and all 174 UI provider/recovery/interest cases, both typechecks and token gates on source `b202e59a25`. A real bus/host-service test registers a synthetic run secret through the production registry and reproduces its raw notification before the fix; native/legacy/final notifications now redact it, disposal prevents late worker notification. A later P1 review reproduces lost final notifications on settings-read and secret-resolution failure. Both cases fail before correction. Any delivery failure or subscription timeout now sends one content-free stream error and removes the plugin subscription. It never changes the agent execution or run status. Later events start no new redaction reads. The final integrated six-file server lane passes all 50 cases, with server typecheck and token gates. Existing browser delivery behavior is unchanged. Storage and secret-provider seams are scripted. Two real React Query/provider regressions first miss a run during resync; both now refresh after the valid replacement ACK, including pending-read and stale-scope cases. The prerequisite qualification batch passes all 118 cases and E2E typecheck after master integration. Fresh CI, security scan and reviews remain pending on this head. The contribution-rule review correction removes 104 explanatory comments introduced by this slice and keeps the ordering, deadline and plugin-delivery explanations in the delivery document. Existing comments and functional test/lint directives remain. All edited source files have identical parsed non-comment tokens before and after the change. All 50 server delivery cases and all 91 cases in six affected UI suites pass, along with token gates. The new head requires fresh CI, security and review. ## Risks A slow or disconnected viewer must resynchronize from authorized canonical history. It may see a display gap until catch-up completes. Company changes and revoked access must remove delivery interests. This slice adds no database migration and cannot change execution or recovery authority. Full transcript delivery evaluates current company-scope permission per delivery. Active plugin recipients also perform canonical redaction reads; viewer-load database costs on this final source remain unmeasured. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific 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 - [ ] 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>	2026-10-27 22:23:30 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a05b828bcd	Reduce run polling and workspace inspection amplification (#13174) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and shows run progress to operators. > - Run lists, live events, transcripts, and workspace details must remain responsive as usage grows. > - Run-list redaction rereads the full context for every run. Hidden tabs can still trigger requests through live events and manual timers. > - Workspace detail reads repeat Git inspection even when concurrent callers request the same state. > - This pull request batches registry reads, pauses hidden-tab refreshes, and caches Git inspection for display. > - Cleanup keeps fresh Git checks, and redaction keeps company and run boundaries. ## Linked Issues **What happened?** Run-list responses perform one extra database read per run and parse full context JSON to obtain small secret registries. Hidden tabs continue transcript reads and event-triggered refetches. Workspace detail requests repeat Git scans. **Expected behavior** A run list reads registries once. Hidden tabs stop recurring run reads and reconcile when visible. Concurrent workspace detail reads share a short-lived Git result. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open run lists and task transcripts in several tabs while agents run. 2. Hide some tabs and observe transcript and event-triggered requests. 3. Request a 200-run list and count redaction database queries. 4. Request the same workspace detail concurrently and count Git inspections. Related: #5255 adjusts polling cadence. This change addresses hidden-tab lifecycle, batched registry reads, and workspace inspection reuse. No duplicate with this scope was found. ## What Changed - Batch heartbeat and live-run redaction into one company-scoped registry query. Select only registry JSON for run and issue redaction. - Resolve duplicate secret values once per request. Preserve each run's registry and remove registry material from responses. - Suspend company event sockets and transcript reads while hidden. Refresh active queries and resume transcript offsets on return. - Prevent queued event invalidations and developer health polling from fetching in hidden tabs. Gate legacy run-log readers in both UI variants. - Exclude legacy plugin placeholder connections from remote health probes. Select only due connection IDs in SQL before the sweep limit. Preserve existing plugin records. - Cache concurrent Git display inspections for five seconds, with at most 256 entries. Leave close-readiness and cleanup checks uncached. - Add regression coverage and document the performance behavior. - Stabilize the existing Rust descendant-lineage fixture: allow a bounded 30 seconds for 300 durable notifications under concurrent test load, retaining every correctness assertion and adding timeout diagnostics. ## Verification - Regression coverage verifies one registry query for 200 runs, per-run isolation, request-local secret resolution, decryption failures, Git cache expiry/bounds, hidden-tab pause, and visibility recovery. - Real PostgreSQL redaction/run-route suites passed all 57 tests; workspace-service coverage passed. The health-sweep regression verifies plugin placeholders and chat connections remain untouched and do not consume the sweep limit. - Both legacy transcript viewers retain history and resume their byte offset after visibility changes. The related visibility/progress/chunk suites passed all 29 tests. Other focused UI suites and token gates passed. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. Affected-package typechecks/builds passed after review fixes. The concurrent Rust provider suite passed 84 tests (two ignored), and Rust formatting passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` stopped after the general-server group: 10,538 passed, 65 skipped, four failed. Fresh chat-delivery and health-sweep reruns passed; building the debug runner fixture cleared the native-event test. One unchanged native-session recovery assertion still fails locally with a semantic-digest error instead of the expected settled-session message. The full local command is therefore not green. CI runs the later groups separately and skips the two native-session tests requiring a prebuilt runner binary (confirmed in its 37-test native-session suite). - All CI gates pass on final head `ee610e737`: typechecking, general and serialized tests, browser tests, runner verification, build, and canary dry run. One server shard passed on its single retry after exposure fixtures encountered port 42001 where they assumed 42000; that suite also passed locally (25 passed, three platform-specific skips). - Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5 with no actionable findings. ## Risks - Workspace delivery display can lag local Git changes by five seconds. Destructive operations still inspect current state. - Hidden tabs do not receive company live-event notifications until visible. Active queries refresh on return. - This change preserves legacy plugin records and does not repair instance-specific workspace rows. There is no database migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact model identifier 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 (targeted regressions; full-suite limitation 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>	2026-09-11 08:34:24 -05:00
3 people	1f1f545238	feat: add built-in summarizer and summary slots (#9713) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize, govern, and understand AI-agent work > - Operators need concise, current status views across projects and execution workspaces without manually reading every issue and run > - Paperclip already has auditable issues, documents, built-in agents, routines, and live run events, but no first-class summary-slot workflow connecting those systems > - A built-in Summarizer can generate status prose through ordinary governed tasks while summary slots provide stable, revisioned destinations for that output > - The UI needs to show current summaries, generation progress, failures, revisions, and streaming draft status in the places operators already work > - This pull request adds the end-to-end summary-slot data, API, agent, orchestration, and UI surfaces behind an experimental setting > - The benefit is decision-oriented status context that remains company-scoped, auditable, retryable, and inexpensive by default ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. **Problem** Operators currently have to reconstruct project and workspace status by reading many issues, runs, and comments. This makes it hard to identify decisions, review queues, recent work, and the next event worth watching. **Proposed capability** Add an experimental summary system with revisioned summary slots for projects and workspaces, a paused-by-default built-in Summarizer agent, governed generation tasks, live draft status, and reusable UI cards. **Expected behavior** - Summary data remains company-scoped and revisions remain auditable. - Generation runs through normal issue/agent orchestration and deduplicates active requests. - Only the linked built-in Summarizer generation task can author a slot revision. - Operators can generate, retry, inspect revisions, and follow draft progress from project and workspace views. - The feature remains opt-in and background generation remains paused by default. ## What Changed - Added summary-slot schema, idempotent migrations, shared contracts, validators, API paths, and service tests. - Added company-scoped summary-slot routes for reading revisions, requesting generation, and guarded Summarizer writes with activity logging. - Added terminal generation finalization, failure reasons, assignment wakeups, and orchestration integration. - Added the paused-by-default built-in Summarizer bundle, low-cost runtime defaults, status-summarization skill, and stale-summary routine. - Added summary cards, revision selection, retry/configuration states, live draft streaming, transcript chunk handling, and project/workspace integrations. - Updated Claude local parsing for streamed status output and expanded server, adapter, shared, database, catalog, and UI coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/summary-slots-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slot-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.status.test.tsx ui/src/components/useSummaryDraftStream.test.tsx ui/src/lib/summary-draft-stream.test.ts ui/src/lib/run-log-chunks.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.hook.test.tsx` — 113 tests passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI suites passed; one CLI AWS doctor test was affected by inherited `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, and passed when those host credentials were removed - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` with inherited AWS credential variables removed — 8 tests passed - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports nine `#9627` comment references introduced by current `master`; none are in this PR diff ## Risks - Database risk is limited by incrementally ordered, idempotent migrations and migration safety checks. - Summary generation creates normal issues/runs, so misconfiguration can produce failed slots; the UI exposes retryable failure reasons and agent configuration entry points. - Streaming draft parsing depends on the documented `STATUS:` protocol; final persisted revisions remain the source of truth. - The feature is experimental, opt-in, and its built-in routine is paused with no background token spend by default. > 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-5.3 Codex with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Earlier branch commits also record Claude model co-authorship where applicable. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-17 11:03:07 -05:00