3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	0111689d0a	test(ui): cover monitor-only task policies (#15587) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators open tasks to read progress and edit reviewers and approvers. > - Stored execution policies can contain a monitor and omit the stages array. > - These policies previously crashed the task properties panel. > - The policy reader now applies schema defaults through the fix in #15593. > - This pull request adds regression coverage for monitor-only policies with external service metadata. > - The tests check that the panel renders and participant edits keep the existing monitor. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with a monitor-only execution policy could crash with `Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'find')`. The stored policy omitted `stages`. **Expected behavior** The task shows no reviewers or approvers. Adding both kinds of participant keeps the monitor and its external service metadata. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Load a task whose execution policy contains an external service monitor and omits `stages`. 2. Render its properties panel and inspect both participant controls. 3. Add reviewers and approvers. Check that the resulting policy keeps the monitor. Refs #15593, which provides the policy normalization used by these tests. ## What Changed - Test that both stage types return empty participant lists for a monitor-only policy. - Test adding reviewers and approvers while keeping the external service monitor. - Test retaining a monitor when no review or approval stages exist. - Render the properties panel with omitted stages and check its participant and monitor controls. ## Verification - The helper and properties panel suites pass on current master with these tests: 108 tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - All CI gates pass on the updated PR commit, including build, types, Runner verification, full test suites, browser suites, security scans, and canary checks. - Greptile gives commit `2634bd1d` 5/5 with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. - The full local workspace suite was not repeated for this test-only rebase. CI verifies the full suite, build, types, Runner checks, browser suites, security scans, and canary run. ## Risks - Low risk. This change adds tests against the existing policy behavior. - The fixture uses example external references and test participant IDs. - Existing documentation remains accurate for this regression coverage. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window were 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 - [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>	2026-10-08 14:36:46 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	317ed367d4	Handle incomplete task policies and preserve review limits (#15593) ... Apply the reviewed change for Handle incomplete task policies and preserve review limits. Validation: local typecheck/build and focused regression tests, passing exact-head CI, Greptile 5/5, and independent source review. The PR records full-suite evidence and any local environment limitations. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-08 10:20:32 -07:00
3 people	47448721e1	[codex] Clean up issue properties pane (#8941) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue details sidebar is a high-traffic operator surface for scanning task state, ownership, policy, relationships, and external references. > - The previous properties pane mixed too much behavior in one large component and several rows could overflow or become hard to scan with long labels and relation lists. > - The UI needed a narrower, more reusable structure so compact property rows, relation pills, external URL rows, and picker triggers behave consistently. > - This pull request splits the properties pane into focused helper modules and tightens the pane's layout, truncation, popover, and overflow behavior. > - The benefit is a denser, more stable properties pane that stays usable when issues have long titles, many relationships, external URLs, or execution policy IDs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this work. I searched GitHub issues and PRs for `IssueProperties properties pane`; there was no duplicate issue and the matching PRs were unrelated test stabilization or other work. ### Problem or motivation The board issue details properties pane is a frequent operator workflow surface, but it was implemented as one large component and several rows could become hard to scan with long labels, many relationships, external URLs, or execution policy IDs. ### Proposed solution Split the properties pane into focused modules, tighten compact row layout and truncation behavior, add bounded previews with explicit expansion controls for long relation and URL lists, and make execution policy ID generation work on insecure origins as well as normal browser origins. ### Alternatives considered A smaller patch inside the existing monolithic component would fix individual overflow symptoms, but it would keep related primitives, picker behavior, relation controls, and external URL rendering tangled in one file. The split keeps the behavior easier to test and review without changing public APIs. ### Roadmap alignment This is an incremental UI quality improvement to the existing board task details surface. I checked `ROADMAP.md` and did not find overlapping planned core feature work. ## What Changed - Split the issue properties pane into focused modules for helpers, primitives, relation controls, property pickers, and external object rows. - Cleaned up row spacing, truncation, picker trigger alignment, scroll behavior, status color coverage, and long-value titles. - Added bounded previews and expand/collapse controls for blocking, sub-task, related-task, and external URL lists. - Fixed execution policy ID generation so insecure origins fall back to a stable base URL instead of throwing. - Updated Storybook issue-management stories and expanded unit coverage for the new properties pane behavior. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 38 tests passed ## Risks Low to moderate risk. The changes are UI-only, but they touch a frequently used task details surface. The main risk is a subtle layout regression in an untested viewport or issue shape; the branch adds targeted coverage for long relation and external URL lists. > 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 Codex coding agent with repository tool use, shell execution, GitHub CLI access, and local test execution. Context window size was 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 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>	2026-07-03 14:40:50 -05:00