mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-19 10:36:26 +02:00
30bc9e40ce014ba55f367a3ce81bbbab7442c7fc
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 scotttongandClaude Opus 5
|
8f69e0af9d |
fix(ui): confirm every copy action (#13603)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Much of the work means moving an opaque value somewhere else: an
agent id, a callback URL, a webhook secret, an error payload for a bug
report
> - Copy buttons all over the app do that, and most already say whether
it worked — an icon that flips to a check, a label that reads "Copied"
> - Eleven did not. They passed the promise to `.catch(() => {})` and
showed nothing at all
> - A copy that says nothing looks exactly like a copy the browser
refused, and the only way to tell is to paste somewhere and look
> - The clipboard really does refuse: over plain HTTP on a non-secure
host the async Clipboard API is unavailable, and the fallback can still
fail
> - This pull request gives every copy action an affordance, through two
shared hooks
> - The benefit is that a person can tell a copy from a failure without
leaving the page
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Eleven copy buttons gave no feedback. They called `copyTextToClipboard`
and discarded the result:
```
onClick={() => void copyTextToClipboard(robotEmail).catch(() => {})}
```
Nothing changes on screen, whether the write succeeded or failed. This
is the same surface where most other copy buttons do show a check or a
"Copied" label, so the silent ones read as broken.
**Expected behavior**
Every copy action says whether the clipboard took the value. A rejected
write says so rather than staying silent or claiming success.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the connector setup flow for an app that shows a sharing email
or a callback URL.
2. Press **Copy** next to that value.
3. Before this change nothing on screen changes. Compare with the copy
button on a login panel, which flips to a check.
4. To see the failure case, open Paperclip over plain HTTP on a
non-localhost host, where the async Clipboard API is not available.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`45586170e` on `master`.
**Deployment mode**
Local.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (core bug).
**Additional context**
Commit `1fa36be35` moved every copy through `lib/clipboard.ts`, so the
call sites are findable. Of 62 call sites, 51 already showed feedback
and 11 did not.
## What Changed
- New `ui/src/lib/use-copy-action.ts` with two hooks:
- `useCopyAction` for a control that stays on screen. It returns
`copied` and `failed` for the inline swap the rest of the app already
uses, and resets itself.
- `useCopyToast` for a menu item, which unmounts with its menu before an
inline state could be read, so its confirmation goes to the toast
viewport.
- Both wait for the write to resolve before reporting success, and both
report a rejection as a failure. `AdapterLoginChrome.test.tsx` already
held that line for one button; the helper now makes it the default.
- The eleven silent sites now use one of the two: the connector setup
flow's sharing-email and callback-URL buttons, the runner inspector's
copy-value and copy-path buttons, the agent bubble and skill studio menu
items, annotation "Copy link" on both its hosts, both secret-error
detail buttons, the chat webhook secret, and the motion tweak panel's
export box.
- The chat webhook secret follows its own file's convention: a label
that reads "Webhook secret copied", matching the manifest buttons beside
it.
- The 51 sites that already had feedback are untouched. Converting them
would be a large diff with no visible change.
- `clipboard-usage.test.ts` gains a static check, sibling to the one
that already keeps copies on the shared helper. It fails if a new copy
site ships with no affordance.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run ui/src/lib/use-copy-action.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/clipboard-usage.test.ts ui/src/lib/clipboard.test.ts
ui/src/components/AdapterLoginChrome.test.tsx` — 18 tests pass.
- The new hook tests cover the three cases that matter: no confirmation
while the write is still in flight, a failure state on a rejected write,
and a return to rest after the reset delay. The toast hook is covered
for both tones.
- `npx vitest run ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx
ui/src/components/task-chat ui/src/components/RunnerInspector.test.tsx
ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotation` — the suites over the touched
components pass.
- `npx tsc -b ui` — clean.
## Risks
Low. Each change is additive at its own call site and the copy path
itself is unchanged. The static check is the only part that touches
future contributors: it is one assertion, and its pattern list is easy
to extend or drop.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context, extended thinking, with
tool use and code execution.
## 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
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
|
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> |