mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
39b8ee2960541d14b380f95365deecba6723d9bd
11
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
ffff1fe6e3 |
feat(runner): define package API and verification boundary (#12129)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package now has protocol, transport, provider, catalog, and authorization foundations. > - Its first upstream package boundary should expose only the implemented runtime and test-helper surfaces. > - Rust correctness belongs in the repository existing build verification, without introducing a parallel release process. > - Direct package creation must build the files declared by the package manifest. > - This pull request defines the minimal package API and verifies the optimized runner binaries in the existing PR and release Build jobs. > - The benefit is a production-ready runner package boundary with minimal build-process change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 This pull request replaces one bounded part of the archived large runner change. It follows the package-local authorization change in #12126. ## What Changed - Export only `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner` and `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`. - Keep Node-only fixture loading and semantic conformance helpers out of the runtime root. - Add a provider-neutral semantic conformance kit with stable JSON comparison and fail-closed input checks. - Keep deferred SDK, eval, browser, React, lab, and command surfaces private. - Pin the runner Rust toolchain to 1.97.1 with the minimal profile and `rustfmt`. - Run the Rust workspace tests in release mode. - Launch the optimized `paperclip-runnerd` and fake-harness binaries in process-level integration coverage. - Add one `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` step to each existing PR and release Build job. - Make the existing server `prepack` lifecycle run its existing build after it prepares UI assets. - Document that no production adapter starts runnerd yet. This revision adds no standalone GitHub Actions job. It adds no server runner dependency or runner vendoring. It adds no Docker bootstrap or clean-consumer harness. It does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` - 66 TypeScript tests - 8 protocol contract tests - 56 Rust unit and integration tests - Release-mode integration coverage launches the optimized runnerd and fake-harness binaries. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts` (2 tests) - Clean `pnpm pack` from `server/` rebuilt the server and produced both `package/dist/index.js` and `package/dist/index.d.ts`. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` (8 tests) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` - No `pnpm-lock.yaml` diff. - The diff changes 12 files. ## Risks The runner adds Rust work to the existing Build jobs. These jobs can take longer on a cold cache. The pinned toolchain makes contributor and CI behavior reproducible. Cargo tests use `--release` to verify optimized executables. The server prepack lifecycle now performs the build that its published entry points require. This can make direct server packing slower. This pull request does not wire runnerd into the server. It does not select runnerd for any adapter. Existing application execution and finalization paths remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. Agentic coding mode used repository tools, code execution, and automated tests. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
2ec984502a |
fix(release): stop smoke_beta silently skipping on promote-mode betas (#11582)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release channel system re-smokes every published beta as post-publish verification (`smoke_beta`) > - The candidate-branch beta lane (#11209) added `verify_beta_candidate` to `publish_beta`'s needs; that job is skipped on every normal promote-mode beta > - `smoke_beta`'s condition has no status-check function, so GitHub attaches an implicit `success()` that evaluates the needs chain transitively — a skipped ancestor makes it false > - This pull request makes the condition explicit so promote-mode betas smoke again, and pins the shape in the workflow wiring test > - The benefit is that the post-publish beta gate actually runs instead of silently skipping ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Beta `2026.818.0-beta.0` (run 32082007439) published successfully, but its post-publish `smoke_beta` job was skipped. No configuration or input asked for that: the run was a plain `channel: beta` dispatch with `dry_run` at its default `false`, and the same expression `!inputs.dry_run` evaluated true inside `publish_beta`'s own steps (the Docker dispatch step ran). **Expected behavior** Every non-dry-run beta publish is followed by the release smoke suite against the exact published version, as documented in `doc/RELEASING.md` and `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`. **Steps to reproduce** Dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: beta` promoting a nightly (promote mode). `verify_beta_candidate` is skipped by design; `publish_beta` runs through its explicit `!cancelled()` condition; `smoke_beta` then skips because its implicit `success()` sees the skipped ancestor in the transitive needs chain (actions/runner#2205 semantics). The beta published on 2026-08-11 predated #11209, so this never surfaced before. **Paperclip version or commit** master at `43ab441f0` (workflow file, current head). Related (not duplicates): #11209 introduced the candidate lane whose skipped job triggers this; #11208 covers the adjacent tag-push failure playbooks. ## What Changed - `smoke_beta`'s condition becomes `!cancelled() && needs.publish_beta.result == 'success' && !inputs.dry_run` — an explicit status-check function suppresses the implicit `success()`, and the result check keeps the dependency on a successful publish. - A comment above the job records why the explicit form is load-bearing. - `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` pins the new shape so the implicit form cannot silently return. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 8 pass, including the new assertion. - `release.yml` re-parsed as YAML. - The exact skip is visible on run 32082007439 (`smoke_beta: skipped` after `publish_beta: success`); the coverage gap for that beta was closed manually by dispatching `release-smoke.yml` with `paperclip_version: beta` (run 32084880767). - Not exercised end-to-end: the corrected condition needs the next real promote-mode beta to demonstrate; the expression change is minimal and the semantics are the documented actions/runner behavior. ## Risks - Low risk: condition-only change on one job plus a test. Dry runs still skip the smoke (`!inputs.dry_run` retained). Candidate-mode betas, where `verify_beta_candidate` actually runs, behave as before. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Claude Code) ## Pre-submission 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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
71e9d6bb0b |
feat(release): candidate-branch beta builds and the release checklist (#11209)
> Follow-up to #11208 (merged): rebased onto master and ready for review. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release channels promote artifacts along canary → nightly → beta → stable, with the happy path being promotion of an existing build > - When one or two targeted fixes are needed before a beta or stable, the only options today are waiting for the next nightly or absorbing a whole day of unrelated master changes > - The channel model was designed with an escape hatch for exactly this: short-lived candidate branches carrying only cherry-picked fixes > - This pull request implements candidate-branch beta builds with full verification, documents the stable fix path through the soak-justification gate, and adds the release captain's checklist > - The benefit is that a surgical fix can ship forward without either delay or blast radius, with its provenance recorded ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11008 — completes the fix-path half of the channel model introduced there. **Subsystem affected** Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`, `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`, new `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md`, tests. **Problem or motivation** Beta promotion only accepts commits that already shipped as a nightly, and stable promotion expects a soaked beta. There is no supported way to ship one or two cherry-picked fixes between lanes: an urgent fix must wait for the nightly cycle or pull in every unrelated master change from the day. The original channel design called for candidate branches to cover this, and they were deferred from the initial implementation. **Proposed solution** Candidate-branch beta builds: cut `candidate/beta-<target>` from a nightly's source commit, cherry-pick the fixes, and dispatch `channel: beta` with the new `candidate_branch` input. Selection enforces the naming convention, rejects heads that already shipped as a beta or predate the candidate tooling, and records the cherry-picked commits in the job summary. Because candidate heads never went through a canary or nightly, publication is gated on a full `release-verify` run (promoted nightlies keep skipping re-verification). The stable fix path (`candidate/release-<target>` as `source_ref`) works through the existing soak gate: the justification requirement is the deliberate, recorded trade-off for shipping unsoaked bits, and is now documented as such. ## What Changed - `scripts/release.sh`: `--from-candidate` flag (beta only) waives the shipped-a-nightly requirement while keeping the duplicate-beta guard - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: `candidate_branch` dispatch input; candidate mode in `select_beta` (naming validation, duplicate and tooling-era rejection, cherry-pick recording); new `verify_beta_candidate` job gating candidate publishes on full verification - `doc/RELEASING.md`: beta fix-path and stable fix-path sections - `doc/RELEASE-CHECKLIST.md` (new): the release captain's checklist for all four lanes as built - Tests: dry-run fixture coverage for `--from-candidate` (waives the nightly guard, keeps the duplicate guard, rejected outside beta) and wiring tests for candidate validation plus the verification gate ## Verification - `node --test` on the four affected suites: 42 pass in total (17 + 25 across the two runs), including the 5 new tests - `bash -n` on `release.sh`; YAML parse of the workflow - After merge: exercise the path end to end the first time a real cherry-picked beta is needed — dispatch with a `candidate/beta-*` branch and confirm the summary records the picks and verification runs ## Risks - Candidate builds bypass the smoke-tested-nightly provenance by design; the compensating controls are full verification before publish, the post-publish beta smoke, the human `npm-beta` gate, and recorded cherry-picks - The stable fix path rides the existing justification mechanism rather than adding a second bypass — one recorded escape hatch, not two ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under human direction. ## 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 (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
2da6a248c3 |
fix(release): surface recovery commands when a lane tag push is rejected (#11208)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release subsystem's promotion lanes publish to npm, then push a lane tag and dispatch the Docker image build at that tag > - The first nightly of the beta-tooling merge published to npm and then died at the tag push: GITHUB_TOKEN may not create refs pointing at workflow-modifying commits from dispatch or scheduled runs > - The failure was a bare `remote rejected` with no guidance, leaving the release half-finished (npm live, no tag, no images) until an operator reverse-engineered the recovery > - This pull request makes every lane's tag push degrade into exact recovery instructions in the job summary > - The benefit is that a rare platform-permission rejection becomes a two-minute runbook operation instead of a forensic exercise ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11008 — the incident occurred promoting that change's own merge commit, the first workflow-modifying commit to flow through the lanes it introduced. **Subsystem affected** Release automation: `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`, workflow wiring tests. **Problem or motivation** Run 31445344811 published `2026.811.0-nightly.0` to npm, then failed pushing `nightly/v2026.811.0-nightly.0`: `refusing to allow a GitHub App to create or update workflow .github/workflows/release.yml without workflows permission`. The tagged commit modifies workflow files, and GITHUB_TOKEN may not create refs pointing at such commits from dispatch or scheduled runs (push-event runs are exempt, which is why the canary tag on the same commit succeeded). The job failed with no explanation and the Docker dispatch never ran. **Proposed solution** Wrap the nightly, beta, and stable tag pushes: on rejection, write the exact recovery commands into the job summary — create and push the tag with maintainer credentials, dispatch `docker.yml` at the tag, and for stable also run `create-github-release.sh` — then fail the job. Document the cause and recovery in the failure playbooks and pin the three recovery blocks with a wiring test. ## What Changed - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: recovery-summary wrappers on the nightly, beta, and stable tag-push steps - `doc/RELEASING.md`: failure-playbook entry for the workflows-permission rejection - `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test asserting all three lanes carry the recovery summary ## Verification - Wiring tests: 6 pass; YAML parse of the workflow - The recovery commands are exactly the ones used to resolve the real incident (tag push + `docker.yml` dispatch for `nightly/v2026.811.0-nightly.0`) ## Risks - Low. The happy path is unchanged (a successful push skips the wrapper); the failure path trades a bare error for actionable output and still fails the job, since the release state is genuinely incomplete ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under human direction. ## 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 (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d648becb90 |
refactor(ci): split workspaces-a into two Vitest native shards
Split the slow workspaces-a CI lane into two Vitest native shards and keep release verification in parity. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
6601014898 |
fix(release): reject promotion sources that predate their channel tooling (#11197)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release subsystem promotes builds along canary → nightly → beta → stable, and each publish job checks out the promotion's source commit and runs that tree's release tooling > - The first beta dispatch failed with `unexpected argument: beta`: the selected nightly's source predated the beta channel, so its `release.sh` did not know the argument > - The failure was clean (argument parsing, nothing published) but cryptic, and the same trap waits for any promotion of a source older than its target channel's tooling > - This pull request makes the selection jobs reject such sources with an actionable error and documents the property > - The benefit is that a bootstrapping or old-source promotion fails in seconds with instructions, instead of mid-publish with a parser error ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11008 — the guard hardens the beta promotion flow introduced there, after its first dispatch surfaced the gap described below. **Subsystem affected** Release automation: `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `doc/RELEASING.md`, workflow wiring tests. **Problem or motivation** Run 31444045044 (first beta dispatch) failed in `publish_beta` with `unexpected argument: beta`. Promotions deliberately build from the pinned source commit, which means they also run that commit's `scripts/release.sh` — and a source that predates the target channel's introduction cannot publish it. Nothing guards this today; the error surfaces deep in the publish job with no explanation. **Proposed solution** Guard at selection time: `select_nightly` requires the source canary's `release.sh` to know the nightly channel, and `select_beta` requires the source nightly's `release.sh` to know the beta channel. Each guard literally matches the channel case arm and fails closed with a clear message naming the remedy (promote a newer source). Document the tooling-era property in `RELEASING.md` and pin the guards with a wiring test. ## What Changed - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: tooling-era guards in `select_nightly` and `select_beta` - `doc/RELEASING.md`: documents that promotions run the source commit's release tooling - `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test pinning both guards ## Verification - Wiring tests: 5 pass - Guard expressions exercised against real commits: accepts the beta-capable merge commit of the beta-channel change, rejects a pre-beta commit - YAML parse of the workflow - After merge: the next beta dispatch selects a beta-capable nightly and passes the guard ## Risks - Low. Selection-time check only; the guards match the channel case arm literally and fail closed (with the same actionable message) if that line is ever reformatted ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use. All changes model-authored under human direction. ## 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 (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
8f7b8b3fda |
feat(release): add human-gated beta channel with stable soak enforcement (#11008)
> Follow-up to #11006 (merged): rebased onto master and ready for review. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release subsystem now publishes canary (every master push), nightly (scheduled, smoke-gated, added in #11006), and stable (manual) > - There is still no human-approved release-candidate lane between nightly and stable, and nothing enforces that a stable actually soaked anywhere before shipping > - Betas need a real approval gate, and stables need a soak policy that is data, not prose > - This pull request adds the beta channel: a manual promotion of a chosen nightly behind the `npm-beta` environment gate, re-smoked after publish, plus a stable preflight that enforces a 3-day beta soak with a written-justification bypass > - The benefit is a complete canary → nightly → beta → stable train where every stable shipped as a beta first, and emergencies leave a written trace ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Release automation: `scripts/release.sh`, `scripts/release-lib.sh`, `.github/workflows/release.yml`, `.github/workflows/docker.yml`, `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`. **Problem or motivation** After #11006 the project has canary and nightly prerelease lanes, but no release-candidate lane. Stable promotion has no enforced soak: any ref can ship as stable directly. There is no approval boundary for a broader-audience prerelease, and no structured way to record why an emergency release skipped validation. **Proposed solution** Add a `beta` channel: a manual dispatch that promotes a chosen nightly's source commit, publishes behind the `npm-beta` GitHub environment (required reviewers are the gate), re-smokes the published beta, and tags `beta/vX`. Enforce in the stable path that the source commit shipped as a beta at least 3 days earlier (measured from the beta's npm publish time), with a `skip_soak_justification` input as the recorded emergency bypass. **Alternatives considered** Codifying the soak policy in docs only. Rejected: an unenforced policy decays; the preflight makes the policy executable while the justification input keeps the emergency path usable and auditable. ## What Changed - `scripts/release.sh` + `scripts/release-lib.sh`: `beta` channel — requires HEAD to carry a `nightly/v*` tag, publishes the package set as `YYYY.MDD.P-beta.N` under dist-tag `beta`, tags `beta/vYYYY.MDD.P-beta.N` - `.github/workflows/release.yml`: - `channel: beta` dispatch path: `select_beta` resolves the newest (or an explicit `source_version`) nightly and fails loudly on selection problems; `publish_beta` runs behind the `npm-beta` environment, pushes the tag, and dispatches `docker.yml`; `smoke_beta` re-runs the release smoke suite against the exact published beta version - stable path: new `preflight_stable` job enforces the 3-day beta soak from the beta's npm publish time; `skip_soak_justification` bypasses with the reason echoed into the job summary; dry runs report without blocking - `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: `beta/v*` tags publish `:beta` on both images, with exact version stamping - `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: `beta` added to the dispatch choice list - Docs: `CHANNELS.md` beta entries; `RELEASING.md` beta lane, soak gate, and failure playbook; `RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md` `npm-beta` environment setup, including the warning to create the environment before the first beta dispatch (GitHub auto-creates unprotected environments on first reference) - Tests: beta version-counting coverage in `scripts/release-registry-versions.test.mjs`; beta identity and nightly-tag guard coverage in `scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs` ## Verification - `node --test` on the two touched suites: 17 pass, including the 3 new beta tests - `bash -n` on both shell scripts and YAML parse of all three workflows - After merge, in order: create the `npm-beta` environment, dispatch `channel: beta` with `dry_run: true` to preview, then a real promotion of a published nightly through the approval gate, then a stable dry-run against a young beta to see the soak gate report ## Risks - If the `npm-beta` environment does not exist when the first beta dispatch runs, GitHub creates it with no protection rules and the beta publishes without approval. Mitigated by documentation and by creating the environment before merge (operator step) - Until the first beta exists, every stable dispatch requires `skip_soak_justification`. This is deliberate — the first beta ships immediately after this merges — but it is a behavior change to the stable dispatch - The soak clock reads the beta's npm publish time from the registry; a registry outage makes the preflight fall back to requiring justification (fail-closed) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use (repository exploration, local test execution, live registry and git verification). All code, tests, and docs in this PR were model-authored under human direction. ## 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 (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
f94f6003c6 |
fix(release-smoke): pin the smoke container to the lan bind preset (#11189)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release subsystem's nightly lane gates every nightly on the release smoke suite, which boots the published artifact in a Docker container and drives real onboarding > - The gate kept failing even after the readiness budget fix (#11187), and the new container-log dump revealed the server was healthy but listening on 127.0.0.1 inside the container, unreachable through Docker's port mapping > - `onboard --yes` without an explicit `--bind` prefers trusted-local quickstart defaults: it writes a loopback bind into the instance config and ignores the deployment env vars the harness passes, and that config outranks `HOST` at runtime > - This pull request pins the smoke container to the `lan` bind preset and adds a wiring test for it > - The benefit is a working nightly gate, verified end to end against a real published canary ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Release smoke testing: `docker/Dockerfile.onboard-smoke`, `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. **Problem or motivation** Nightly run 31428558684 failed in smoke with the server unreachable at the mapped port for the full 420 second budget. The container logs (captured thanks to #11187) show a fully booted server with `Bind loopback (127.0.0.1)`. The harness sets `HOST=0.0.0.0` and the deployment env vars, but `onboard --yes` without `--bind` deliberately prefers trusted-local defaults, writes `bind: loopback` into the instance config, and the config outranks `HOST` at runtime. A loopback listener inside a container is invisible to the port mapping, so the health check can never pass. This behavior predates the current stable, so the harness was silently broken against every recent version — it only surfaced now because the nightly lane is the suite's first CI consumer. **Proposed solution** Pass `--bind lan` in the smoke container command (the flag is supported by `latest` and canary alike; it selects the all-interfaces preset and keeps the env-driven authenticated deployment), and pin the flag with a wiring test so it cannot regress silently. ## What Changed - `docker/Dockerfile.onboard-smoke`: the onboard command is now `onboard --yes --bind lan --data-dir ...`, with a comment explaining why the flag is load-bearing - `scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: wiring test asserting the smoke Dockerfile pins a non-loopback bind preset ## Verification - Full local harness run against the real nightly candidate `2026.810.0-canary.1`: container healthy, bind banner shows `lan (0.0.0.0)`, authenticated bootstrap completed (admin created, bootstrap invite accepted, board session verified), `/api/health` returns `bootstrapStatus: ready` - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: 4 pass - After merge: dispatch `release.yml` with `channel: nightly` to run the gate end to end in CI ## Risks - Low. The change only affects the smoke container. `--bind lan` inside a container exposes the port to the container network only; reachability from outside still goes through Docker's explicit port mapping ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use (CI log forensics, upstream source tracing, local Docker reproduction and verification). All changes model-authored under human direction. ## 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 (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
30f6999cbe |
fix(release-smoke): configurable readiness timeout and diagnostics for slow containers (#11187)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release subsystem's nightly lane (#11006) gates every nightly publish on the release smoke suite, which boots the published artifact in a Docker container > - The suite's first CI execution failed at the health readiness check: the harness hard-codes a 90 second budget, but a CI container cold-installs paperclipai from npm and initializes embedded postgres with no warm caches > - When the timeout expired with the container still running, the harness printed no container logs, so the failure gave no diagnostics > - This pull request makes the readiness budget configurable, raises it for CI, and dumps container logs on timeout > - The benefit is that the nightly gate measures the artifact, not the runner's cold caches, and a red smoke run is diagnosable from its logs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Release smoke testing: `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`, `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`. **Problem or motivation** Run 31426044332 (first forced nightly after #11006) failed in `smoke_nightly` with `server did not become ready at http://localhost:3232/api/health` after exactly 90 seconds. The harness's readiness window is hard-coded to 90 attempts at 1 second. Locally that works because the npm cache is warm; in CI the container downloads the full package set and embedded postgres first. The timeout path also printed no container logs when the container was still running, so there was no way to see how far boot had progressed. **Proposed solution** Make the readiness budget an environment variable (`SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS`, default unchanged at 90 for local use), set it to 420 in the CI workflow, and dump the last 150 container log lines when the readiness check times out on a still-running container. ## What Changed - `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`: `SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS` env var (default 90) replaces the hard-coded readiness budget; timeout with a still-running container now prints the tail of `docker logs` - `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`: sets `SMOKE_READY_TIMEOUT_SECONDS=420` for CI runs ## Verification - `bash -n` on the harness and YAML parse of the workflow - The real proof is the next `channel: nightly` dispatch of `release.yml`, which re-runs this suite in CI with the new budget ## Risks - Low. The local default is unchanged; CI runs simply wait longer before declaring failure, and a genuinely broken artifact still fails (with logs now) ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) in Claude Code, with extended thinking and full tool use. Diagnosis from CI run logs; patch model-authored under human direction. ## 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 (pending — will confirm before merge) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending — will confirm before merge) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin FoleyandDevin Foley
|
b6e58019f2 |
ci: split serialized tests into five shards (#10923)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses CI to keep control-plane changes safe and mergeable. > - The PR workflow splits serialized server tests across isolated runners. > - A recent successful run spent 305 seconds in serialized shard 2/4. > - That job was the slowest check in the run. > - The four shards reported about 739 seconds of Vitest suite time. > - This pull request adds a fifth serialized shard and keeps release verification aligned. > - The benefit is a shorter PR critical path with no loss of test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The PR and release verification workflows run serialized server tests in four shards. **Current behavior** Successful PR run 30876682788 spent 305 seconds in `Verify serialized server suites (2/4)`. The test step used 256 seconds and made this job the slowest check. **Proposed behavior** Run the same serialized suite set in five complete and non-overlapping shards. **Reason and benefit** The measured suites reported about 739 seconds of total Vitest time. Five runners reduce the expected average suite time from about 185 seconds to about 148 seconds before setup overhead. **Breaking changes** None. The change only alters CI partition size. ## What Changed - Split serialized server tests into five shards in the PR workflow. - Apply the same five-shard layout to release verification. - Add a partition test that proves complete and non-overlapping serialized coverage. - Update release workflow coverage tests for five shards. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk. CI uses one additional runner for the serialized lane. - Round-robin partition weights can still vary as suite timings change. > This change does not overlap with planned core work in `ROADMAP.md`. Related PR #10663 optimized the separate general-server lane. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, agentic coding with reasoning, 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) - [ ] 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: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cec0fc249a |
[codex] Parallelize release verify workflow (#9168)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Releases publish the same app and package set that operators install, so release verification should keep full release-strength coverage. > - The release workflow currently verifies stable and canary releases with one serial job that typechecks, runs all tests, and builds. > - The PR workflow already proves the test surface can be split into grouped general suites and serialized shards without changing coverage. > - This pull request extracts the release verify work into a reusable workflow and fans out the independent lanes. > - The benefit is faster stable and canary release verification while preserving the existing publish and preview gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this CI improvement. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Problem or motivation** Release verification spends most of its wall time in a single serial test step even though the same stable test surface is already partitioned for PR CI. Stable dispatches and master-push canaries therefore wait on one long runner after setup, typecheck, tests, and build run sequentially. **Proposed solution** Add a reusable release verification workflow with parallel typecheck, grouped general tests, serialized test shards, and build lanes. Have both stable and canary release verification call it with the ref they need to verify. **Alternatives considered** Keeping the serial `pnpm test:run` job preserves the old shape but keeps stable and canary releases waiting on one long runner. Skipping verification when a source SHA already has green CI would be faster, but adds stale-check and lookup risk beyond this change. **Roadmap alignment** No overlapping item found in `ROADMAP.md`; this is release CI maintenance. **Additional context** The new workflow keeps the release-strength full `pnpm -r typecheck`, uses the existing stable test grouping/sharding entry points, and leaves publish/preview jobs unchanged. ## What Changed - Added `.github/workflows/release-verify.yml` as a `workflow_call` workflow accepting a `ref` input. - Split release verification into parallel `typecheck`, `general_tests`, `serialized_tests`, and `build` jobs with 20-minute lane timeouts. - Mirrored the PR workflow's stable test partition: `general-server` shards 1-3, `general-workspaces-a`, `general-workspaces-b`, and four serialized shards. - Replaced `release.yml` `verify_canary` and `verify_stable` job bodies with calls to the reusable workflow while leaving publish and preview jobs unchanged. - Added a Node test that guards the release workflow delegation and split verify surface. ## Verification - `actionlint 1.7.12 .github/workflows/release.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml` - `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` - `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Release verification now starts more jobs per release event, increasing total runner setup/install minutes. This matches the existing PR CI tradeoff and should reduce release wall time substantially. - The called workflow checks out the requested ref shallowly. That is intentional for verify lanes; publish and preview jobs still retain their existing full-history checkouts. > 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-class coding agent in local tool-use mode with shell execution, repository editing, GitHub connector access, and medium reasoning. ## 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> |