2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	2f35eb1080	feat(dev): add incremental local verification and pass reuse (#19345) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agents that make and verify repository changes. > - Local verification currently defaults to the complete Vitest suite. > - Contributor instructions also require broad local checks at each PR handoff. > - CI already owns conservative affected-test selection and broad final-revision checks. > - This pull request adds local selection and pass reuse from those existing contracts. > - Agents can get focused feedback and use CI to close the remaining coverage gaps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Developer verification scripts and contributor guidance. Related selection work: #18398 and #18464. **Problem or motivation** An agent that repeats an unchanged local verification step starts the complete suite again. The handoff guidance also duplicates broad CI coverage locally. **Proposed solution** Add `pnpm verify` for the actual working tree. Select affected Vitest specifications with the CI task policy and dependency graph. Reuse successful checks whose inputs are modeled. Run opaque checks fresh. Report exit 2 when broader verification is required. Update the contributor contract to accept applicable final-revision CI coverage. **Alternatives considered** Plain `vitest related` omits filesystem and opaque dependencies. Commit-only cache keys miss dirty files. Running full local suites at every handoff repeats CI work. **Roadmap alignment** This is repository development tooling. It does not change the product roadmap. ## What Changed - Add `pnpm verify`, `--explain`, `--base`, `--full`, and `--no-cache`. - Reuse CI selection and exact runner ownership for dirty, staged, committed, deleted, renamed, and untracked inputs. - Keep native server suites and serialized suites in their local owners. Keep six sequential chat shards. - Cache selected passes within one worktree. Hash source, fixtures, installed package contents, dependency bindings and installation metadata, dotenv files, child environment, toolchains, platform, and selection. - Run opaque consumers fresh. Preserve failed, interrupted, mutated-input, and partial-coverage outcomes. - Update AGENTS.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, and DEVELOPING.md guidance. Record the shared `verify` command as the sole exception to the package-script rule. Register the new tests in the existing CI contract-test command. - Add optional root/environment inputs to shared graph helpers. Existing CI defaults stay the same. ## Verification - Fourteen new integration tests pass locally across focused runs with real Vitest selection and execution; CI colors are covered. - 51 existing targeted selector/input, project-isolation, and stable-runner checks passed. Four relevant runner contracts also pass after the workspace change. - Repeated unchanged execution skips reusable tests. Source, environment, installed code, dependency bindings, and new untracked tests invalidate results. - Installed-code mutation with a restored modification time still invalidates a cached pass. Internal skill-directory links preserve reuse. - Workspace B/C tests prove discovery, reusable/fresh partition execution, pass reuse, and external-input failure. Chat selection produces exactly six single-worker partitions. - A deliberate unrelated failing test is omitted by narrow selection and caught by `--full`. - Red/green regressions prove fingerprints preserve file boundaries and reject edits made between diff discovery and snapshotting. - Opaque external-file changes still fail on a subsequent run. Source mutation and process interruption cannot publish reusable passes. - `pnpm verify --explain` works in the checkout and requests broad CI coverage for this tooling change. No duplicate full local suite was started. - [Final-revision CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42117291789) passed on `ed85d96ddff82c05c325948680b593b0f48c473d` (attempt 2). The scoped Canary retry preserved all passing test/build results. - [Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/19345#issuecomment-6670050175) is 5/5; all four review threads are resolved. - The additional Paperclip review concluded neutral because its execution stopped; it produced no assessment. ## Risks - Pass reuse depends on conservative dependency classification. Opaque consumers, external database/live settings, and non-isolated projects retain fresh or broad coverage. - Local passes cover selected Vitest checks. Required CI, build/typecheck, release, browser, and platform acceptance remain separate obligations. - Cross-worktree caching and cross-agent scheduling are outside this change. - The initial installation scan reads dependency contents; stat-validated, worktree-local digest memoization avoids rereading unchanged contents. Subsequent scans still inspect file identity and nanosecond change/modification times. - No dependency lockfile or workflow changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, max reasoning, with local shell and file tools. Context window size is not exposed by this host. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-11-06 07:29:10 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip	e40de0c9e8	perf(ci): refresh test weights and narrow graph dependencies (#18464) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors need fast, reliable CI feedback. > - Diff-aware CI selects test files and partitions them into runner jobs. > - Stale cost estimates put several slow suites on the same runner. Broad imports also couple small tests to large modules. > - This PR refreshes test costs, runs independent graph discovery in parallel, and narrows three dependency boundaries. > - Selection safeguards and CODEOWNER-only AWS routing stay in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18398. This follows the audit of [PR #18427's verification run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41169978784). The audit found 403 selected general-server files without timing weights. Three suites measured at 232s, 122s and 116s shared one shard because each received a roughly 2s fallback weight. Local graph discovery across four projects took 43.7s serially and 21.7s with two workers. A reverse-order repeat took 37.7s serially and 22.6s with two workers. Both comparisons produced identical selection results. This is a local measurement, not a claim about production CI speed. ## What Changed - Refresh general-server costs for 1,285 of 1,309 current files and serialized costs for all 163 files from two successful protected-master Cloud readiness runs. Retain prior costs for unmeasured files, including dedicated chat and native-runner suites. - Record passing server file costs, including collection, setup and environment preparation. A weekly hosted workflow validates trusted source runs and opens a timing-only PR. It tests shard coverage, pauses while a refresh PR is open, and never merges automatically. - Discover at most two project graphs concurrently in isolated, heap-limited Node processes. Cache repeated inventory reads within one selection. Worker errors and timeouts retain the full task plan. - Fetch only the merge commit and parents for the selector. A real shallow-clone regression proves the complete diff still includes more than 300 files, renames and deletions. - Share the identical log viewer and run details between both AgentDetail pages. The viewer test imports the shared implementation and runs each of its 13 distinct cases once. - Extract the pure API error class while preserving the API client's public exports. Import delivery work signals through their existing narrow DB export. ## Verification - PASS: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. - PASS: 284 CI selection, timing, shallow-diff, sharding and routing tests. - PASS: 74 further cache, routing and graph-proof tests. - PASS: 94 targeted UI assertions across the viewer, run invocation, API errors/client and progress helpers. All 76 assertions in the 12 server suites made independently selectable also pass. - PASS: `pnpm check:token-gates`, module-boundary checks, YAML parsing and `git diff --check`. - PASS: [Full PR CI and required `ci / verify` aggregate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41206683345), including all 12 general-server shards, all nine serialized shards, workspace groups, chat suites, Runner lanes and build checks. - PASS: [GitHub hosted real-workspace selector and cache/routing qualification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41206683205). - PASS: Both Greptile and Paperclip reviews are 5/5 with no actionable findings or inline comments on `7dc65c51b8`. The PR has no merge conflicts. - PASS: The production refresh parser accepted all 107 structured file-cost records from a real successful server CI job, including setup/loading cost. - Local `pnpm test:run` completed all six chat shards successfully. The duplicate monolithic local run was stopped after the complete remote suite passed; it was not completed locally. The focused log-viewer command improved from 18.84s (26 duplicate variant cases) to 8.49s (all 13 distinct behavior cases). The dependency audit confirms 12 server files and the API-error test no longer need conservative always-run retention. Repartitioning the audited PR with the new costs changes the slowest shard from 810s to 591s of summed historical test execution (1,124 of 1,142 files measured). This is a workload simulation, not measured new CI wall time. ## Risks - Two graph processes use more peak memory. Each has a 2 GiB heap limit and a three-minute timeout. Any failure preserves the original task plan. Real workspace qualification runs in GitHub CI. - Historical logs contain test/hook costs only. New reporter records add loading/setup costs after merge. The manifests identify measurement coverage and source runs. These weights change placement, never permission to skip tests. - Runner load adds timing noise. The refresh uses medians and requires at least 90% measurement coverage in each lane. - GitHub may require approval to run checks on a PR created with `GITHUB_TOKEN`. Refreshes remain reviewable and do not merge themselves. - The shared viewer is a mechanical extraction. Both pages retain their existing exports, and the behavior assertions remain covered. AWS runner authorization is unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, reasoning, code execution and GitHub tools. The exact deployment ID and context-window size were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub references) - [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 (focused checks and six chat shards; complete suite passed in CI as detailed 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 - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-31 11:05:12 -05:00