6 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	c99bcd89fe	fix: preserve Product TestOps evidence and CI readiness (#19000) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through governed product workflows. > - Product E2E tests check those workflows through the app and Runner. > - A trusted reporter sends retained results to TestOps. > - Free-form metadata and a short upload observer can lose safe, valid evidence. > - UUID navigation can also discard task metadata before the canonical query returns. > - Hermetic CI files start child processes that need CPU capacity within their readiness limits. > - This change closes the reporting contract, retains authenticated core aliases, and reserves CI CPU capacity. > - Original case identities, conditions, assertions, verdicts and deadlines remain intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18983. This addresses its late [metadata disclosure finding](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18983#discussion_r4470789114) and [upload readiness finding](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18983#discussion_r4470790366). **What happened?** The reporter accepted model IDs and matcher names through syntax filters. A secret-shaped string could pass those filters. First-task results also use their top-level model field for an observed alias. Treating it as configured metadata can reject valid retained evidence. The upload observer stopped after 22 seconds of waits. [Required CI on the earlier head](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41886885193) also found two real browser title failures and five native package readiness failures. A deterministic control reproduced metadata loss during UUID-to-identifier navigation. A separate fixed-resource control reproduced startup deadline failures with four concurrent hermetic fixtures, while one and two fixtures passed. **Expected behavior** Reject unknown transmitted metadata before creating upload files. Preserve every original matcher verdict and attempt receipt. Observe server processing without rerunning the product. Keep authenticated task metadata visible through canonical navigation. Reserve capacity for hermetic child processes without changing the original readiness deadlines. **Steps to reproduce** Use a secret-shaped model ID or cleanup state in retained evidence, return an observed first-task model alias, or let upload processing settle after 40 seconds of virtual time. Hold the canonical core query pending after an authenticated UUID read. For the CPU control, run the same providerless startup/recovery fixture alone, four times concurrently, and twice concurrently under a fixed 4-vCPU quota and its original 8-second readiness limit. ## What Changed - Bind configured model receipts to each exact declared case model. Four first-task cases use captured agent configuration; their observed aliases and fallback text remain digest-only. A missing capture stays null / Not recorded. The other 16 cells use their configured profile model. Reject wrong or unknown configuration before any upload file exists. - Keep the existing model distribution: 18 Codex cells on `gpt-5.6-sol`, configured-repository case 9 on its existing `gpt-6.1-sol` override, and task-workspaces case 54 on `openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash-0731`. The repository override exists at the [original canary source](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/86814c6550f52e99ede150a883bdc773cbb540e3/tests/runner-e2e/catalog.ts#L1148). No model configuration changes. - Allow only existing Matcher kinds, closed failure classes, and cleanup states `passed`, `failed`, or `not_started`. Publish each matcher's kind, ordinal, original boolean verdict and SHA256 path receipt. Full conditions remain in the linked original workflow artifact; raw dynamic path bytes do not enter TestOps. - Observe the same upload for at most 55 seconds of poll waits. Product scenarios, provider retries and scenario deadlines do not change. - Retain task core data under only the authenticated response's own UUID and identifier core keys. Preserve existing canonical data. Keep arbitrary references and full-detail keys empty until their own reads. - Retain a first-failure trace for the existing Cloud recovery test. Keep its assertions, timeout, retries, mock data and artifact policy unchanged. This adds diagnosis evidence; it does not claim to fix that separate Cloud title timeout. - Reserve half the available CPUs for Runner package CI workers, with the existing upper cap of four. A 4-vCPU host uses two workers; an 8-vCPU host still uses four. Local defaults and test selection do not change. ## Verification - Reporting controls first reproduced the two original gaps. All 14 Node contract tests now pass. Unknown configuration creates neither a result directory nor an export summary. A model valid for a different selected case is also rejected. Original functional failures and earlier accounting receipts survive. - The catalog compatibility test passes for all 20 selected cells, exact model tuples, real pure grader outputs and actual `projectFirstTaskResult` shapes. It covers observed aliases, fallback text, absent evidence and wrong or secret-shaped configured metadata. These are contract controls, not live journey passes. - Virtual-clock controls accept a correct result that settles at 40 seconds and reject a persistently wrong verdict after 55 seconds. They make no product or provider calls. - Two new core-cache controls failed before repair. The query/cache suites now pass all 8 tests. They hold canonical refresh pending and verify title/company retention, newer canonical data, full-detail enrichment and unrelated keys. UI typecheck and token gates pass. - The unchanged exact UUID cross-company link/upload browser test passed once after repair: 5.8-second scenario, 32.0-second complete command. The unchanged exact Cloud task-entry diagnostic passed once: 5.4-second scenario, 23.3-second complete command. Its original canonical-only timeout remains unexplained. All five Cloud tests still collect after the trace setting. - The providerless Linux control used the retained Runner and compiled controller from source `3a2249dd`, with a fixed 4-vCPU quota and original 8-second readiness limit. Solo passed 1/1; four concurrent fixtures failed 4/4; two concurrent fixtures passed 2/2. At each failure, Rust had accepted command 2 but startup was still pending; checkpoint and published status agreed, one connection was authenticated, no replay backlog existed, and the sidecar had not launched. Passing controls preserved the expected startup failure through controller replacement. No network or credentials were available. - That control uses Linux amd64 emulation and Node 24.21; hosted CI used Node 24.22.1. It supports the worker-cap change, but does not prove that the original `m5n.xlarge` host caused every CI failure. The original red attempts remain recorded. - Actual config-load controls verify 1 CPU → 1 worker, 2 → 1, 4 → 2, 8 → 4 and 16 → 4, with no local, timeout or retry override. The isolated policy change preserves the same 297 test-file inventory; integration of current master `89703c3ff7` retains all 298 current native package files. The original PR package/native command plans remain unchanged. - Final head `877e28da32f2d2f0d12906c89aff085e2c6ea943` passes both required checks, `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`, in [CI run 41897677652, attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41897677652/attempts/2). The native package passes 4,950 tests with 10 existing skips. All eight browser shards pass; the Cloud shard passes all 41 tests, including all four unchanged recovery cases. - Attempt 1 preserved 46 successful jobs but its one-file heartbeat recovery shard hit the original 20-minute job limit without a named assertion or completion verdict. Its cause remains unidentified. One explicitly bounded debug replay retained those 46 successes and ran only that leaf and its dependent rollup. The unchanged file passed all 412 tests (346.91-second file, 371.34-second Vitest command, 7m11s job). Source, cases and deadlines did not change. This establishes intermittency, not a causal repair. The original timeout and debug pass both remain recorded. - Fresh [Greptile 5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/19000#issuecomment-6637604918) and [Ponytail 5/5](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/19000#issuecomment-6637489454) reviews name exact head `877e28`. The single review thread is resolved. Live TestOps bootstrap and complete 20-case acceptance remain held until reviewed delivery. CI and focused controls do not count as product plan passes. ## Risks - Future model or Matcher kind changes require a reviewed reporting-contract update. - TestOps shows a closed Matcher kind and ordinal. The path digest binds the original condition in retained evidence. - Core alias data retains the existing authenticated query-client and server company boundaries. It never becomes full-detail evidence. - Fewer CI workers can increase one job's duration. The full suite must verify the final policy. The paid evaluation matrix and its parallelism do not change. - The original Cloud title timeout and the first-attempt heartbeat CI hang do not have proven causes. Current unchanged assertions pass, but this does not establish repeatability. The Cloud test now retains its first-failure trace. A successful upload or focused control alone cannot establish a complete product pass. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with reasoning, tool use and code execution. The host does not expose the exact model ID or context window to 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 #` 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>	2026-11-04 14:41:28 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip	f554d67377	fix(server): add explicit review verdict policies (#10931) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues use `in_review` to request a final decision from an authorized writer > - The server rejected an assignee agent that tried to close its own review, even when the issue had no independent-review rule > - This rejection stopped the default agent workflow and did not represent the configured execution-stage rules > - Paperclip needs an open default and explicit issue-level constraints for teams that require an independent or human verdict > - This pull request removes the unconditional rejection and adds `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only` review policies > - The benefit is a working default path with opt-in, authenticated verdict controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10635, #4429, and #10671. The related public work covers execution-stage independence, self-approval fallback behavior, and durable review paths. This change is distinct. It controls who can resolve an issue review verdict. It keeps configured execution stages active. ## What Changed - Added a nullable `review_policy` issue column. Null has the same meaning as `anyone`. The migration does not backfill existing issues. - Added shared create, update, response, and compact issue contracts for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Removed the unconditional agent self-approval rejection for `in_review` issues. - Added one reusable verdict-actor check for terminal status changes and pending interaction accept or reject actions. - Used the authenticated principal type for `human_only`. Agent keys and run tokens remain agent principals. - Used the latest transition into `in_review` to identify the requester for `not_creator`. - Added actionable 403 responses that name the policy, the allowed actor, and the next step. - Kept the configured execution-stage transition and signoff behavior. - Added focused contract, helper, status-route, interaction-route, and execution-stage regression tests. - Updated the implementation specification for the new issue field. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stalled-review-decision-routes.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 42 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` passed across server, CLI, plugin SDK/examples, plugin wiki, and UI. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - SecurityEngineer review approved the authenticated-principal checks and accepted policy-relaxation tradeoff with no required changes. - Greptile reviewed the latest head at 5/5 with zero inline comments or follow-ups. - The latest-head GitHub rollup passed build, typecheck, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, canary, e2e, and external security checks. ## Risks - The migration adds one nullable text column. It has no default and no backfill. - `not_creator` reads the latest recorded transition into `in_review`. It denies the verdict when it cannot identify the requester. - Agents can change or relax `reviewPolicy` when they have issue write access. This is intentional for this issue-level control. - Null and `anyone` do not add a database query to the verdict path. - Configured execution-stage checks still run after the issue-level policy check. > This work aligns with the completed "Agent Reviews and Approvals" and "Enforced Outcomes" roadmap items. It does not add a new roadmap capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. ## 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>	2026-08-05 23:12:41 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	176645187c	Fix request storm polling and issue-list coalescing (#9190) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI keeps issue, agent, activity, and run state fresh through polling across several pages and sidebar surfaces > - When multiple components or browser tabs poll the same company data at the same time, the API can receive bursts of duplicate issue-list requests > - Those duplicate requests increase database and server load without returning meaningfully different data > - This pull request adds server-side compression/coalescing plus client-side visibility-aware and cross-tab shared polling > - The benefit is lower request volume during normal board usage while preserving fresh UI data for active users ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found for this request. Problem: - The board can issue redundant polling requests for the same issue-list data from multiple UI surfaces and tabs. - In busy operator sessions, those bursts can trigger request-storm behavior and unnecessary issue-list load. - Expected behavior is to reuse identical in-flight work server-side and reduce hidden-tab or duplicate-tab polling client-side while preserving normal refresh behavior. Related public context found during duplicate search: - #8206 covers a different board UI 404-storm scope. - #5165 covers separate issue-list behavior around page-size truncation. ## What Changed - Added API compression middleware foundation and a company/created-at index for heartbeat run access. - Added server-side issue-list request storm detection and identical in-flight request coalescing. - Added UI fetch metadata, visibility-aware polling, and request deduplication for issue/activity/client calls. - Added cross-tab shared polling primitives and wired them into the sidebar, inbox, dashboard, issue, project, routine, and agent surfaces. - Resolved the latest `master` migration collision by keeping upstream `0140_built_in_managed_resources.sql` and renumbering this branch's heartbeat-run index migration to `0141_heartbeat_runs_company_created_at_index.sql`; the SQL uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` for idempotency. - Stabilized server heartbeat cleanup tests exposed by the PR check matrix. - Fixed the Greptile compression follow-up by weakening strong ETags on encoded JSON responses and bypassing compression for streamed/download responses. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — passed after resolving the latest `master` conflict in `IssuesList.tsx` and updating the 200-result cap expectations. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after the UI conflict resolution. - `jq -e '.entries | length as $n | (map(.idx) | unique | length == $n) and (map(.tag) | unique | length == $n)' packages/db/src/migrations/meta/_journal.json` — passed after renumbering the migration to `0141`. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts` - passed after the compression follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts` - passed after the compression follow-up. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed after the compression follow-up. - Greptile Review for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b` - passed after the latest conflict/migration fix; all Greptile review threads are resolved. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/client.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts ui/src/lib/polling.test.ts ui/src/lib/cross-tab-poll.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/api/client.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-worktree-suppression.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - GitHub PR checks for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b`: all GitHub Actions/status checks passed; Greptile, Superagent, Socket, Snyk, build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, and commitperclip review are green; Storybook visual regression and security-review were skipped/neutral by policy. - Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Medium risk: issue-list coalescing changes request timing and cache semantics for a hot API path. - Medium risk: cross-tab polling uses browser coordination primitives, so older or unusual browser environments need fallback behavior to stay correct. - Low migration risk: the new index migration is ordered after current `master` and uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS`. > 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 Codex coding agent, GPT-5-based model, tool-enabled with shell/git execution. Exact hosted deployment identifier and context-window size were not surfaced in the agent 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>	2026-07-09 17:38:34 -05:00
3 people	ad961227f5	feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > 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 Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-07-05 05:58:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	a1b30c9f35	Add planning mode for issue work (#5353) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail:  Desktop planning row:  Desktop staged standard toggle:  Mobile planning detail:  Mobile planning row:  ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle behavior. > 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 Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 07:01:28 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	32a9165ddf	[codex] harden authenticated routes and issue editor reliability (#3741) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The control plane depends on authenticated routes enforcing company boundaries and role permissions correctly > - This branch also touches the issue detail and markdown editing flows operators use while handling advisory and triage work > - Partial issue cache seeds and fragile rich-editor parsing could leave important issue content missing or blank at the moment an operator needed it > - Blocked issues becoming actionable again should wake their assignee automatically instead of silently staying idle > - This pull request rebases the advisory follow-up branch onto current `master`, hardens authenticated route authorization, and carries the issue-detail/editor reliability fixes forward with regression tests > - The benefit is tighter authz on sensitive routes plus more reliable issue/advisory editing and wakeup behavior on top of the latest base ## What Changed - Hardened authenticated route authorization across agent, activity, approval, access, project, plugin, health, execution-workspace, portability, and related server paths, with new cross-tenant and runtime-authz regression coverage. - Switched issue detail queries from `initialData` to placeholder-based hydration so list/quicklook seeds still refetch full issue bodies. - Normalized advisory-style HTML images before mounting the markdown editor and strengthened fallback behavior when the rich editor silently fails or rejects the content. - Woke assigned agents when blocked issues move back to `todo`, with route coverage for reopen and unblock transitions. - Rebasing note: this branch now sits cleanly on top of the latest `master` tip used for the PR base. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issueDetailQuery.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts` - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not part of the PR diff. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` before publishing. ## Risks - Broad authz tightening may expose existing flows that were relying on permissive board or agent access and now need explicit grants. - Markdown editor fallback changes could affect focus or rendering in edge-case content that mixes HTML-like advisory markup with normal markdown. - This verification was intentionally scoped to touched regressions and did not run the full repository suite. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment with tool use for terminal, git, and GitHub operations. The exact runtime model identifier is not exposed inside 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, it is behavior-only and does not need before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes, or no documentation changes were needed for these internal fixes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-15 08:41:15 -05:00