Adds a ListTree toggle button to the issues list toolbar (matching the
existing Inbox nesting toggle). When enabled (default), issues are
displayed in a parent-child tree hierarchy. When disabled, all issues
are shown in a flat list. The preference is persisted per-company in
localStorage as part of the existing IssueViewState.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
The empty assignee placeholder circle was h-5/w-5 (20px) while the
Identity avatar at size="sm" uses size-6 (24px). Bumped to h-6/w-6
and scaled the inner icon proportionally to h-3.5/w-3.5.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Two issues fixed:
1. Issue page inherited the inbox scroll position — now scrolls to top
on forward (PUSH/REPLACE) navigation, skipped on POP so browser
back restores naturally.
2. Back button used navigate(href) (PUSH) which lost inbox scroll —
now uses navigate(-1) (browser back) to restore inbox scroll
position, with a fallback to PUSH for deep-link edge cases.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
The useEffect that set the mobile toolbar JSX had unstable deps
(useMutation results and non-memoized callbacks) causing setState
on every render. Extract InboxMobileToolbar as a standalone component
with its own popover state, and use a ref to hold callbacks so the
effect dep array contains only stable primitives.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
When viewing an issue from the inbox on mobile, replace the standard
breadcrumb bar with a Gmail-style toolbar: back arrow (left), archive
button, and three-dots menu (copy, properties, hide). The regular
breadcrumb bar continues to show when navigating from the issues list.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Board users and agents collaborate on issue-scoped documents such as
plans and revisions need to be trustworthy because they are the audit
trail for those artifacts.
> - The issue document UI now supports revision history and restore, so
the UI has to distinguish the current revision from historical revisions
correctly even while multiple queries are refreshing.
> - In `PAPA-72`, the newest content could appear under an older
revision label because the current document snapshot and the
revision-history query could temporarily disagree after an edit.
> - That made the UI treat the newest revision like a historical restore
target, which is the opposite of the intended behavior.
> - This pull request derives one authoritative revision view from both
sources, sorts revisions newest-first, and keeps the freshest revision
marked current.
> - The benefit is that revision history stays stable and trustworthy
immediately after edits instead of briefly presenting the newest content
as an older revision.
## What Changed
- Added a `document-revisions` helper that merges the current document
snapshot with fetched revision history into one normalized revision
state.
- Updated `IssueDocumentsSection` to render from that normalized state
instead of trusting either query in isolation.
- Added focused tests covering the current-revision selection and
ordering behavior.
## Verification
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- Targeted revision tests passed locally.
- Manual reviewer check:
- Open an issue document with revision history.
- Edit and save the document.
- Immediately open the revision selector.
- Confirm the newest revision remains marked current and older revisions
remain the restore targets.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is isolated to issue document revision
presentation in the UI.
- Main risk is merging the current snapshot with fetched history
incorrectly for edge cases, which is why the helper has focused unit
coverage.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] 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
Dotta