PaperClipAI

5,141 Commits 1,209 Branches 1,992 Tags

3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
TonioandClaude Opus 5	e07d605dfc	test(ui): wait for conditions, not durations, in three flaky tests (#11499 ) Three tests yielded a fixed number of macrotasks before asserting - five in one case, one in another - which is ample on an idle machine and not when the suite runs many workers in parallel. The container was still empty, or the state had not landed, and the assertion failed on behaviour that works. `vi.waitFor` retries against a time budget instead, so a loaded worker gets more turns rather than a failure. `DocumentAnnotationPopover` is a different race and is fixed differently. The popover element is in the DOM as soon as React commits, while the effect that registers the document-level keydown and pointerdown listeners runs afterwards. A test dispatching in that gap loses the event outright, and a lost event cannot be recovered by retrying an assertion - so the render is wrapped in `act` to flush passive effects, and the waits only cover the smaller race that remains. Refs #11484. Verified stable over six consecutive runs of the three files, and the full ui suite passes. Other instances of the same class remain: the full suite still shows an occasional failure in a different unrelated test on each run. `App.cases-routing.test.tsx:104-108` is the clearest one - the identical fixed-turn loop this PR replaced in its sibling `App.activity-routing.test.tsx`, three turns instead of five - and takes the same one-line fix. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-17 00:29:42 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	68ea3fcf53	test(ui): stabilize annotation popover submit-shortcut test (#11330 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI lets users add comments to document annotations > - The annotation popover test submits a comment with a keyboard shortcut > - React can delay the controlled textarea update under load > - The test can then send the shortcut before the handler sees the typed value > - This pull request waits for the value update before it sends the shortcut > - The benefit is a stable test that checks the real submit path ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? The annotation popover test typed a comment and sent the submit shortcut in one synchronous step. Under load, React sometimes had not committed the typed value when the handler ran. The mutation then ran zero times. Expected behavior The test should wait for the controlled textarea value before it sends the submit shortcut. The handler should read the comment and call the create mutation. Steps to reproduce 1. Run `npx vitest run src/components/DocumentAnnotationPopover.test.tsx` from `ui/`. 2. Repeat the test under system load. 3. Observe intermittent failures where the create mutation runs zero times. Paperclip version or commit The test runs against commit `9a08def5752bb13e4cbcb304c6295e175c92db3c`. Deployment mode This change affects the UI test suite only. It does not depend on a deployment mode. ## What Changed - Wait for the Comment button to enable after the controlled value updates. - Send the submit shortcut after React commits the typed value. - Keep the test focused on the compose-mode submit path. ## Verification - The author ran `npx vitest run src/components/DocumentAnnotationPopover.test.tsx` from `ui/` with 3 tests passing. - The current handoff worktree could not repeat the test because its installed dependencies lack `react/jsx-runtime`. - GitHub Actions will run the required project checks. ## Risks Low risk. The change updates one UI test file and does not change product code. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The model used tool calls and code execution. The context window size was not provided. ## 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>	2026-08-13 11:44:29 -07:00
scotttong Claude Opus 4.8 Paperclip	0ee0543e5b	feat(ui): refine the chat-style task workflow (#11263 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue detail view is the main place where people read work and guide agents. > - The chat-style task view needs clear messages, controls, properties, and document feedback. > - Dense metadata and disconnected controls make active work harder to scan. > - This pull request refines the existing chat-style task workflow across desktop and mobile layouts. > - The benefit is a clearer issue thread with faster access to the controls that guide work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What existing behavior does this improve? The change improves the chat-style issue detail view that was introduced in [#10606](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10606) and expanded in [#10707](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10707). Current behavior The issue thread spreads task controls across the page. Agent-turn metadata competes with the message content. Document annotation comments use inline placement that limits the document reading area. The mobile composer can overlap the bottom navigation. Proposed behavior The issue view keeps the thread focused on message content. It moves supporting controls into the properties area, adds searchable assignment, restores the sub-task tree, docks document comments in a side gutter, and keeps the mobile composer clear of navigation. Reason and benefit People can scan active work faster and find task controls without leaving the issue. The layout also gives documents and mobile conversations more usable space. Breaking changes None. The change updates presentation and interaction behavior in the existing issue UI. ## What Changed - Refined task-chat message spacing, metadata, agent bubbles, and composer alignment. - Added searchable assignment and restored sub-task navigation in the properties pane. - Moved document annotation comments into a right-side gutter. - Kept the mobile composer above the auto-hiding bottom navigation. - Added and updated focused component tests for the changed interactions. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `TZ=UTC pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/InlineEntitySelector.test.tsx src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - The token gates report 3/3 clean. - The focused test run passes 124 tests in 5 files. - Visual snapshot baselines were not updated. This follows the `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)." ## Risks - The changes affect several related issue-detail layouts. A browser review should cover desktop and mobile widths before merge. - The monitor-row test formats time in the host timezone. The verification command sets `TZ=UTC` to match CI. > 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 with GPT-5. The context-window size is not exposed in this environment. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub tools. ## 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 - [ ] 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-12 11:41:40 -07:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

TonioandClaude Opus 5

e07d605dfc

test(ui): wait for conditions, not durations, in three flaky tests (#11499 )

Three tests yielded a fixed number of macrotasks before asserting - five in one
case, one in another - which is ample on an idle machine and not when the suite
runs many workers in parallel. The container was still empty, or the state had
not landed, and the assertion failed on behaviour that works. `vi.waitFor`
retries against a time budget instead, so a loaded worker gets more turns
rather than a failure.

`DocumentAnnotationPopover` is a different race and is fixed differently. The
popover element is in the DOM as soon as React commits, while the effect that
registers the document-level keydown and pointerdown listeners runs afterwards.
A test dispatching in that gap loses the event outright, and a lost event
cannot be recovered by retrying an assertion - so the render is wrapped in
`act` to flush passive effects, and the waits only cover the smaller race that
remains.

Refs #11484.

Verified stable over six consecutive runs of the three files, and the full ui
suite passes. Other instances of the same class remain: the full suite still
shows an occasional failure in a different unrelated test on each run.
`App.cases-routing.test.tsx:104-108` is the clearest one - the identical
fixed-turn loop this PR replaced in its sibling `App.activity-routing.test.tsx`,
three turns instead of five - and takes the same one-line fix.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

2026-08-17 00:29:42 -07:00

Nicky LeachandPaperclip

68ea3fcf53

test(ui): stabilize annotation popover submit-shortcut test (#11330 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The board UI lets users add comments to document annotations
> - The annotation popover test submits a comment with a keyboard
shortcut
> - React can delay the controlled textarea update under load
> - The test can then send the shortcut before the handler sees the
typed value
> - This pull request waits for the value update before it sends the
shortcut
> - The benefit is a stable test that checks the real submit path

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

The annotation popover test typed a comment and sent the submit shortcut
in one synchronous step. Under load, React sometimes had not committed
the typed value when the handler ran. The mutation then ran zero times.

**Expected behavior**

The test should wait for the controlled textarea value before it sends
the submit shortcut. The handler should read the comment and call the
create mutation.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Run `npx vitest run
src/components/DocumentAnnotationPopover.test.tsx` from `ui/`.
2. Repeat the test under system load.
3. Observe intermittent failures where the create mutation runs zero
times.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The test runs against commit `9a08def5752bb13e4cbcb304c6295e175c92db3c`.

**Deployment mode**

This change affects the UI test suite only. It does not depend on a
deployment mode.

## What Changed

- Wait for the Comment button to enable after the controlled value
updates.
- Send the submit shortcut after React commits the typed value.
- Keep the test focused on the compose-mode submit path.

## Verification

- The author ran `npx vitest run
src/components/DocumentAnnotationPopover.test.tsx` from `ui/` with 3
tests passing.
- The current handoff worktree could not repeat the test because its
installed dependencies lack `react/jsx-runtime`.
- GitHub Actions will run the required project checks.

## Risks

Low risk. The change updates one UI test file and does not change
product code.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The model used tool calls and code execution. The
context window size was not provided.

## 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>

2026-08-13 11:44:29 -07:00

0ee0543e5b

feat(ui): refine the chat-style task workflow (#11263 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue detail view is the main place where people read work and
guide agents.
> - The chat-style task view needs clear messages, controls, properties,
and document feedback.
> - Dense metadata and disconnected controls make active work harder to
scan.
> - This pull request refines the existing chat-style task workflow
across desktop and mobile layouts.
> - The benefit is a clearer issue thread with faster access to the
controls that guide work.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

The change improves the chat-style issue detail view that was introduced
in [#10606](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10606) and
expanded in
[#10707](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/10707).

**Current behavior**

The issue thread spreads task controls across the page. Agent-turn
metadata competes with the message content. Document annotation comments
use inline placement that limits the document reading area. The mobile
composer can overlap the bottom navigation.

**Proposed behavior**

The issue view keeps the thread focused on message content. It moves
supporting controls into the properties area, adds searchable
assignment, restores the sub-task tree, docks document comments in a
side gutter, and keeps the mobile composer clear of navigation.

**Reason and benefit**

People can scan active work faster and find task controls without
leaving the issue. The layout also gives documents and mobile
conversations more usable space.

**Breaking changes**

None. The change updates presentation and interaction behavior in the
existing issue UI.

## What Changed

- Refined task-chat message spacing, metadata, agent bubbles, and
composer alignment.
- Added searchable assignment and restored sub-task navigation in the
properties pane.
- Moved document annotation comments into a right-side gutter.
- Kept the mobile composer above the auto-hiding bottom navigation.
- Added and updated focused component tests for the changed
interactions.

## Verification

- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `TZ=UTC pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/InlineEntitySelector.test.tsx
src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx
src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- The token gates report 3/3 clean.
- The focused test run passes 124 tests in 5 files.
- Visual snapshot baselines were not updated. This follows the
`doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification
demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)."

## Risks

- The changes affect several related issue-detail layouts. A browser
review should cover desktop and mobile widths before merge.
- The monitor-row test formats time in the host timezone. The
verification command sets `TZ=UTC` to match CI.

> 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 with GPT-5. The context-window size is not exposed in
this environment. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and GitHub tools.

## 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
- [ ] 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-08-12 11:41:40 -07:00