mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
39b94d0e7ab2e64ffda525c92c592b10fe40b5a2
9
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
1944c86153 |
fix(ci): preserve required e2e check for sharded runs (#9923)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The pull request workflow is the main merge gate for changes to that app. > - The Playwright e2e lane is expensive because every spec shares one isolated server and runs serially. > - Splitting that lane across runners shortens the critical path, but the public required-check contract still needs a check named exactly `e2e`. > - This pull request shards the real e2e work while preserving a fast aggregate `e2e` job for branch protection. > - The benefit is a faster PR workflow without making otherwise-good PRs unmergeable because a legacy required check disappeared. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this CI follow-up. Related prior CI work: - Refs #8360 - Refs #9168 - Refs #9516 Bug report: ### What happened? Sharding the PR e2e lane directly at the workflow job level changes the emitted check names to shard-specific names, while existing branch protection expects a check named exactly `e2e`. ### Expected behavior The PR workflow should be able to run e2e specs across multiple runners while still emitting a stable aggregate check named `e2e`. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open a PR against `master`. 2. Run the PR workflow with the e2e lane split only as a matrix job. 3. Observe that the shard checks complete, but a required check named exactly `e2e` never appears. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master`. ### Deployment mode GitHub Actions pull request workflow. ## What Changed - Added `scripts/e2e-shard.mjs`, which partitions default Playwright e2e specs by recorded per-spec duration. - Added `scripts/e2e-shard-durations.json` with measured e2e spec durations so the slow smoke-lab spec does not dominate one runner. - Split the PR workflow e2e lane into two `e2e_shards` matrix jobs and added a fast aggregate job named exactly `e2e`. - Added `scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` to lock the shard partition, ignored-spec sync, manifest coverage, and aggregate required-check contract. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` - `git diff --check upstream/master..HEAD` - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related e2e-shard / required-check PRs and issues before opening this PR; no direct duplicate was found. ## Risks Low risk. The main risk is that the duration manifest can drift as specs are added or runtimes change; missing specs fall back to the median known duration, and the focused shard test catches empty, overlapping, or badly imbalanced partitions. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex CLI coding agent, with shell/tool execution and repository inspection. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6a36ae47fe |
Fix stable release dry-run notes gate (#9334)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The release subsystem uses GitHub Actions dry-run previews so maintainers can validate stable and canary release behavior before publishing. > - Stable release publishing needs a release notes gate so real `latest` publishes never happen without authored notes. > - The same gate was also blocking stable dry-run previews, which made release QA fail before publish-sensitive work could be previewed. > - This pull request narrows the notes requirement to real non-dry-run stable publishes. > - The benefit is that stable dry-run dispatches can preview the release without same-day notes, while real stable publishes remain protected. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this release-QA blocker, so the bug is described inline below. ### What happened? Stable dry-run release previews fail when the same-day release notes file is absent. The release script runs the stable notes-file gate before release preview work even when `--dry-run` is set. ### Expected behavior `./scripts/release.sh stable --dry-run` should preview the stable release without requiring `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`. Real non-dry-run stable publishes must still fail before build/publish work starts when the notes file is missing. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Check out current `master` before this fix. 2. Ensure the computed same-day stable release notes file does not exist under `releases/`. 3. Run `./scripts/release.sh stable --skip-verify --dry-run`. 4. Observe that the script exits with `stable release notes file is required` instead of reaching the release preview plan. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` at `9a1d4b7983dfd50e8eb40ee9770e44999d405f60`. ### Deployment mode Built from source / GitHub Actions release workflow. ## What Changed - Narrowed the stable release notes gate to `channel=stable` and `dry_run=false`. - Updated the release script usage note to say the notes file is required for non-dry-run stable releases. - Added a targeted Node test covering dry-run allowed behavior and non-dry-run blocked behavior. - Stubbed release fixture registry-version checks so the test isolates the notes gate without hitting npm. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-dry-run-notes.test.mjs` passed with 2/2 subtests. - `bash -n scripts/release.sh` exited 0. ## Risks Low risk. The behavior change only relaxes the notes-file gate for stable dry-runs. The new test verifies real non-dry-run stable publish still fails before build/publish work starts when notes are missing. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with shell/tool execution in a local repository workspace. ## 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 FoleyandClaude
|
ce7dedf33d |
perf(ci): balance general-server test shards by recorded suite duration (#9516)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its PR CI runs the general-server vitest lane pinned to `maxWorkers=1` and sharded across 3 runners (introduced in #8360) > - Suites were assigned to shards round-robin by sorted file index, so shard test time was unbalanced: a recent PR run split 73s / 153s / 115s, and the heaviest shard made "General tests (server 2/3)" the slowest check in the whole workflow at 314s wall > - The slowest shard sets the lane's wall time, so unbalanced partitions waste the other two runners and stretch the PR critical path > - This pull request replaces the round-robin assignment with a deterministic longest-processing-time partition weighted by a checked-in per-suite duration manifest > - The benefit is near-even shard weights (projected 113s / 113s / 113s with the current manifest), taking roughly 40s off the PR critical path with no reduction in coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8360 (introduced the 3-way general-server sharding this PR rebalances) - No public issue exists. Problem: the general-server test lane's round-robin shard assignment ignores per-suite duration, so one shard can carry multiple 30s+ suites while another finishes in half the time; the slowest shard alone determines the check's wall time. ## What Changed - `scripts/general-server-shard.mjs` (new): manifest loader and deterministic LPT (longest-processing-time) partitioner; suites missing from the manifest get the median recorded weight, and a missing or malformed manifest degrades to uniform weights so the lane never fails on stale data - `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` (new): per-suite duration manifest sampled from a real PR run (240 suites); the `$comment` field documents how to regenerate it - `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: both shard-selection sites (run and `--dry-run`) now use the balanced partition instead of index round-robin - `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 6 new tests covering skew-balance vs round-robin, determinism, median fallback for unlisted suites, malformed-manifest degradation, manifest coverage of the current suite set, and real-partition balance - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts`: hardened the `afterEach` sweep — post-run bookkeeping (run-event records, follow-up wake scheduling) can still insert rows briefly after a run reaches a terminal status, and a late insert landing between the `agent_wakeup_requests` and `agents` deletes failed teardown with a foreign-key violation on the first CI attempt of this PR; the sweep now retries so a late background write cannot take down the shard - `release-verify.yml` shares the same runner script and inherits the balancing with no workflow change ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9 pass (run against current master) - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts` — 6/6 pass against embedded Postgres with the hardened teardown - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2 pass - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --dry-run` with each shard flag shows every suite assigned exactly once across the 3 shards, with projected weights ~113s each ## Risks - Low risk: partition changes which runner executes which suite, not what runs; a completeness test asserts every suite is assigned to exactly one shard - The duration manifest will drift as suites are added/changed; unlisted suites get the median weight and a coverage test flags when the manifest covers less than half the suite set, so drift degrades balance gracefully rather than breaking the lane > 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 - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file edits, shell, test execution) via Claude Code ## 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: Claude (Paperclip SWE) <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
8775bde4ce |
Add runtime asset build-gap guard
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server package ships runtime asset trees used by built-in agents
and onboarding templates.
> - A prior server build omitted those source asset trees from `dist`,
allowing a built artifact to differ from runtime expectations.
> - The copy step is now present, but the existing build-gap gate only
checked TypeScript coverage for packages whose build skips `tsc`.
> - This pull request extends that standing gate so source asset files
under the server runtime asset trees must exist at the matching `dist`
paths after build.
> - The benefit is that future server asset additions fail loudly in CI
instead of silently shipping an incomplete `dist`.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
### What happened?
After a server build, runtime asset files under
`server/src/built-ins/**` and `server/src/onboarding-assets/**` could be
missing from `dist/` with no build failure. The existing build-gap gate
only checked TypeScript coverage for packages that skip `tsc`; it did
not verify that non-TypeScript source assets were copied to `dist`. A
server build that forgot the `cp -R` step, or that added a new asset
tree without updating the copy command, would produce an incomplete
`dist` without any CI signal.
### Expected behavior
After `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`, every
non-TypeScript/non-JavaScript source file under `server/src/built-ins/`
and `server/src/onboarding-assets/` must exist at the matching path
under `server/dist/`. If any file is missing, the build-gap gate must
exit non-zero with a diagnostic listing the missing files and the
command to fix them.
### Steps to reproduce
1. Remove a copied runtime asset: `rm
server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md`
2. Run the guard: `node scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs
--runtime-assets-only`
3. Before this fix: the command exits 0 and the missing file goes
undetected.
### Paperclip version or commit
Reproduced on `master` at `c36f1a4af` (`@paperclipai/server` 0.3.1).
### Deployment mode
Not deployment-specific — the build-gap check runs in CI on any
checkout.
## What Changed
- Extended `scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs` with a source-derived
server runtime asset parity check for non-`.ts`/non-`.js` files under
`server/src/built-ins/**` and `server/src/onboarding-assets/**`.
- Added a guard-only mode, `--runtime-assets-only`, for focused
pass/fail verification after a server build.
- Wired `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` to prepare plugin SDK build
deps, build the server package, then run the existing build-gap gate
plus the new asset check.
## Verification
Pass path:
```text
$ pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps
> @paperclipai/plugin-sdk@1.0.0 ensure-build-deps .../packages/plugins/sdk
> node ../../../scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs
$ pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build
> @paperclipai/server@0.3.1 build .../server
> tsc && mkdir -p dist/onboarding-assets dist/built-ins && cp -R src/onboarding-assets/. dist/onboarding-assets/ && cp -R src/built-ins/. dist/built-ins/
$ node scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs --runtime-assets-only
[typecheck:build-gaps] server runtime assets present in dist: 7 file(s)
```
Regression simulation (guard catches the missing file):
```text
$ rm server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md
$ node scripts/run-typecheck-build-gaps.mjs --runtime-assets-only
[typecheck:build-gaps] Missing server runtime asset(s) in dist:
- source: server/src/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md
expected dist: server/dist/built-ins/agents/reflection-coach/AGENTS.md
Run pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build and ensure source runtime asset trees are copied into dist.
```
Standing gate (full end-to-end):
```text
$ pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps
[typecheck:build-gaps] typechecking 4 workspace(s): paperclipai, @paperclipai/plugin-authoring-smoke-example, @paperclipai/plugin-llm-wiki, @paperclipai/ui
[typecheck:build-gaps] server runtime assets present in dist: 7 file(s)
```
## Risks
Low risk. The check only reads source and dist files during the
build-gap gate. The main tradeoff is that the gate now builds
`@paperclipai/server` so a clean checkout has generated `dist` content
to validate.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 based coding agent with repository tool use and
shell 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d3919713bc |
[codex] Document Storybook visual baseline platform lock (#9216)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Storybook visual baselines protect UI surfaces from unintended visual drift. > - Pixel-perfect screenshot baselines are sensitive to OS, font rasterization, and browser environment. > - The suite already stores external baseline artifacts and has an opt-in CI path. > - Local runs on non-matching platforms can report false-positive diffs unless the platform lock is explicit. > - This pull request documents the Linux/Ubuntu baseline constraint and makes the local static server port explicit. > - The benefit is clearer visual-review guidance and more predictable Playwright web server startup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. ### What happened? The Storybook visual baseline suite requires a matching Linux capture environment for pixel-exact comparisons, but the docs did not clearly warn local users that non-Linux environments can produce false-positive diffs. The Playwright web server command also relied on the static server's default port instead of passing the configured port explicitly. ### Expected behavior Developers should see clear Linux/Ubuntu baseline guidance before running the visual suite locally, and Playwright should start the Storybook static server on the same explicit port that the test config expects. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Review the Storybook visual docs before this PR. 2. Run or inspect the Storybook visual Playwright config. 3. Notice the missing platform guidance and implicit static server port coupling. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproducible on `master` before this branch. ### Deployment mode Local dev (pnpm dev) / built from source. ## What Changed - Documents the Linux/Ubuntu-only baseline limitation in the developer docs and visual-suite README. - Adds `--port` parsing and validation to the Storybook static server helper. - Adds regression coverage for `--port` followed by another flag. - Passes the Playwright web server port explicitly from the Storybook visual config. ## Verification - Passed: `node --check scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs` - Passed: `node --test scripts/__tests__/serve-storybook-static.test.mjs` - Passed: `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` - Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads after commit `94a649755a2ae7c4a34a3e8a1f16ec4d26d738fd`. - Not run: full `pnpm test:storybook-visual`, because it builds Storybook and runs the browser visual suite; this PR only changes docs plus server port plumbing. ## Risks Low risk. The server still defaults to port 6106 when no explicit port is provided, and invalid port values now fail fast with a clear error before the Playwright server waits for an unreachable URL. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex coding agent with local command execution and repository editing 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 - [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> |
||
|
|
c07e650cd7 |
feat(ui): single-source design tokens, visual regression suite, and theme retune (#9134)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its UI is the operator's daily surface: task lists, boards, budgets, agent status — all built on shadcn components and Tailwind > - Visual values (colors, spacing, type sizes, radii) were hardcoded at ~1,600 call sites: the same "small gray label" was 9/10/11px depending on the file, charts disagreed with chips about status colors, two toggle-switch implementations coexisted in two greens, and there was no visual regression coverage > - This made the UI drift-prone and made any restyle a hundreds-of-files project, which discourages design iteration > - This pull request extracts visual values into a single token layer in `ui/src/index.css`, adds a Storybook visual regression suite backed by external immutable baseline archives, and then applies a deliberate retune reviewed change-by-change on screenshot diffs > - The benefit is that Paperclip's look becomes a config surface: retheming is a token edit reviewed as a snapshot diff, drift is blocked by a token gate, and future UI PRs can prove exactly what changed visually without committing hundreds of PNGs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue covers this work (searched "design tokens", "visual regression", "design system" across issues and PRs). Related in spirit: Refs #8982 (theming a hardcoded panel — a one-off instance of the same problem class this PR addresses systematically). **Problem (feature-request form):** UI visual values are hardcoded per call site with no source of truth and no regression coverage; consistency depends on reviewer memory, and restyling requires mass file edits. **Proposed solution (this PR):** a single token layer + enforcement gate + externally stored visual snapshot suite, then an intentional restyle on top of that foundation. ## What Changed - **Token extraction (zero visual change, machine-verified during development):** committed codemods (`scripts/codemod-*.mjs`) moved ~1,600 hardcoded color/type/spacing/radius/shadow/misc values into named tokens in a non-inline `:root` block of `ui/src/index.css`. - **Visual regression suite:** `pnpm test:storybook-visual` covers 255 stories × light/dark = 510 Playwright screenshots at `maxDiffPixels: 0`, plus new primitive-coverage stories and deterministic-render fixes. - **External visual baselines:** committed PNG snapshots were removed. `tests/storybook-visual/baseline-manifest.json` pins an immutable archive URL/hash/size/count, and `scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs` handles `download`, `verify`, `pack`, and trusted maintainer `upload` flows. - **Opt-in visual CI artifacts:** added a `Storybook Visual` workflow that runs on manual dispatch or PRs labeled `storybook-visual`, downloads/verifies the baseline, runs Playwright, and uploads Playwright report/test-result artifacts for review. Normal PR runs do not mutate baseline objects. - **Token gate:** `pnpm check:token-gates` — zero hex literals, zero arbitrary bracket values, zero raw font-sizes in `ui/src/components/**` and `ui/src/pages/**`, with a documented inline allowlist for legitimate opt-outs. - **Theme retune (intentional, snapshot-reviewed):** new base theme values; radius ladder derived from a single `--radius` knob; micro-type cluster collapsed to a named ladder (`--text-nano/micro/compact` + Tailwind `text-xs`/`text-sm`); letter-spacing collapsed to named steps. - **One status-color vocabulary:** charts, quota/budget bar fills, RUNNING/live chips, and liveness indicators all use the canonical `--status-*` hues. Light-mode legibility fixes for red alert surfaces that used dark-tuned text classes. - **One switch:** `ToggleSwitch` restyled to the registry capsule form, second hand-rolled implementation removed, and all call sites unified. - **Docs:** `DESIGN.md` is the design contract; `doc/design/` holds audit reports, decision logs, and updated guidance for external baseline review/update workflows. - Dead code removed (`agentStatusBadge` duplicate map), byte-identical contrast constants consolidated, semantic renames (`--project-seed`/`--project-none`, `--liveness-blue`). ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN during the design-system run - `pnpm typecheck` && `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — green during the design-system run - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` — pass after external-baseline rework - `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --pretty false --module NodeNext --moduleResolution NodeNext --target ES2022 --types node,@playwright/test tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts` — pass after external-baseline rework - `git diff --check origin/pr/9134..HEAD` — pass after external-baseline rework - `find tests/storybook-visual -type f -name '*.png' -print | wc -l` — `0` - `node scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs verify` — intentionally fails closed until the first trusted maintainer publishes the baseline archive and updates `baseline-manifest.json` ## Risks - **Large but shallow:** the PR still touches many UI files due to mechanical token extraction and retune work, but committed PNG snapshot churn has been removed from the branch. - **Baseline publication required before the visual suite can pass in clean clones:** the manifest currently has placeholder archive metadata. A trusted maintainer must publish the first immutable archive, then update `baseline-manifest.json`. - **Rendering platform variance:** the external baseline should be captured in the documented Linux/Chromium environment. Future CI runs verify against the pinned archive and fail closed on checksum/count mismatch. - **Visual CI is opt-in while stabilizing:** add the `storybook-visual` label or dispatch the workflow manually to produce downloadable Playwright report/test-result artifacts. - **Scheduled follow-ups, deliberately out of scope:** Tailwind palette classes map to semantic tokens in a dedicated pass; card/pill component consolidation; ESLint ratchet. Tracked in `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking, running in Claude Code with tool use; mechanical phases delegated to Claude Sonnet subagents. Follow-up external-baseline rework assisted by OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5` coding agent with repository, terminal, and GitHub tool use). All bulk rewrites executed via deterministic, idempotent scripts committed in `scripts/`; intentional visual changes were human-reviewed on screenshot contact sheets. ## 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 targeted local verification and documented the intentional baseline-publication failure above - [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 new CI run after this rework)* - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups *(pending review)* - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) and OpenAI Codex --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
ef37203a48 |
perf(ci): build standalone public packages concurrently (#8567)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - CI runs a Canary Dry Run job that exercises `release.sh`, which builds the standalone sandbox-provider packages for publish > - That step (`scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`) built the 7 provider plugins serially — each doing `rm -rf dist && tsc` — making it the dominant cost (~49s) inside the slowest PR check (~4.9m wall) after the general-server lane was already sharded > - The packages are independent (their own `node_modules` via `--ignore-workspace`, their own `dist`), so the serial build is pure latency with no correctness benefit > - This pull request builds them with a bounded-concurrency pool sized to the runner CPU count (overridable via `STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`), buffering each package's output and flushing it as one block so parallel logs stay readable, and aggregating failures by original index > - The benefit is a faster Canary Dry Run / PR feedback loop without changing what gets built or published ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline feature/perf description: ### Problem or motivation `build-standalone-public-packages.mjs` builds standalone provider packages serially, making it the largest single cost inside the slowest PR check. ### Proposed solution Run independent per-package builds through a bounded-concurrency worker pool sized to runner CPU count, with an env override and readable buffered logs. ### Alternatives considered Keep the serial build for simpler logs, but that preserves the avoidable CI latency. ### Roadmap alignment This is CI maintenance and does not overlap planned core roadmap work. ## What Changed - `scripts/build-standalone-public-packages.mjs`: replaced the serial per-package build loop with a bounded-concurrency pool (default = runner CPU count, override via `STANDALONE_BUILD_CONCURRENCY`); per-package stdout/stderr is buffered and flushed as a single block; failures are aggregated by original package index so one failure neither aborts the others mid-flight nor obscures which package broke. - `scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs`: new `node:test` unit suite covering the pool (limit respected, all items run, ordered failure aggregation, env-override resolution). - `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: wired the new unit test into the policy job. ## Verification - `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/build-standalone-concurrency.test.mjs` → 6/6 pass - `node ./scripts/release-package-map.mjs check` → OK (29 enabled for CI publish) - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` → clean ## Risks - Low risk. Build inputs/outputs are unchanged; only scheduling differs. The concurrency is bounded by CPU count and overridable; output is buffered per package so logs remain attributable. If a package fails, all failures are still reported with their package index. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking with tool use. ## 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 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 - [ ] 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
2853a9ae69 |
perf(ci): shard the general-server test lane across 3 runners (#8360)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every PR runs the `PR` GitHub Actions workflow, whose `verify` gate fans out into parallel test lanes (general tests, serialized server route suites, build, typecheck) > - The `General tests (server)` lane had grown into the run's critical path: it executed all ~213 non-route server suites serially in a single job (~7.2m of test time), more than 2x any other job > - It runs serially because `server/vitest.config.ts` pins `maxWorkers: 1`, so server suites cannot parallelize within a single runner — the only lever is spreading them across runners > - This pull request shards that lane into 3 even partitions that run on separate runners, mirroring the 4-way sharding already used for the serialized route suites > - The benefit is the lane drops from ~7.7m to ~2.4m/shard, cutting overall PR wall time roughly in half (~8.5m → ~4.2m) ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the underlying issue is described inline following the feature-request template. ### Problem or motivation PR CI wall time had crept back up to ~8.5m. On a recent fully-green run, the `General tests (server)` job took 7.72m — more than double any other job and the clear critical path. Of that, 7.23m was pure test execution (dependency install was a cached 0.27m). The job ran all server suites that are not route/authz tests (213 files) one after another, because the server vitest project pins `maxWorkers: 1`, making these suites inherently serial within a single runner. ### Proposed solution Shard the general-server lane across 3 parallel runners — the same technique the route/authz suites already use — so the suite set is split into even, deterministic partitions that run concurrently. Add a regression test that proves the shards always cover the full suite set with no gaps or overlap. ### Alternatives considered - **Raise `maxWorkers` for the server project** to parallelize within one runner — rejected: the server suites share process-level state (DB/port), which is exactly why `maxWorkers: 1` is pinned. - **Two shards instead of three** — would leave the lane at ~3.6m, still above the next bottleneck (Canary Dry Run, ~4.1m wouldn't be the gate). Three lands the lane comfortably below it. - **Do nothing / accept the slow lane** — rejected: it gates every PR. ### Roadmap alignment Developer-experience / CI tooling. Not core product roadmap work; does not overlap with planned features in `ROADMAP.md`. ## What Changed - `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: the `general-server` general-test group now accepts `--shard-index` / `--shard-count`. It enumerates the full server test set (the whole `server/src` tree, minus the route/authz suites that already run in their own serialized shards) and splits it deterministically by modulo. The non-sharded local invocation (`pnpm test:run:general --group general-server`) is unchanged. - `.github/workflows/pr.yml`: the `general_tests` matrix runs `general-server` as 3 parallel shards (1/3, 2/3, 3/3). Workspace groups are unchanged. The `verify` gate already aggregates the whole matrix result, so the required check name is unaffected. - `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: a `node:test` suite asserting the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition of the general-server set, that no route/authz suite leaks into it, and that shard flags are rejected for the parallel workspace groups. Wired into the `policy` job. ## Verification - New partition test passes locally: `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` (3/3). - Confirmed the 3 shards form a complete, non-overlapping partition of all 213 files (71/71/71). - Ran a live thin shard (3 real server suites, including one outside `__tests__`) — 23 tests passed, confirming positional-include execution works end to end. - This PR's own CI is the authoritative check: all three `General tests (server (n/3))` jobs went green on the prior run, collectively covering every suite the old single job ran. ## Risks - Low risk. No product code changes — only test orchestration and CI matrix. Shard partitioning is deterministic and is now covered by an automated test that fails if the partition ever develops a gap or overlap. Modulo-on-sorted-filenames balances duration reasonably, matching the approach already proven by the serialized route shards. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking + tool use (agentic coding via Paperclip). ## 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 - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — no UI change) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (inline comments explain the sharding rationale) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending this PR's run) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending review) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |