PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-11-11 21:59:38 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	ca92f727c5	ci: publish the cloud image in its own parallel job (#10408 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The CI workflow is responsible for producing and publishing the Docker images that power Paperclip deployments > - The cloud image publish was previously coupled to the stock publish job, so a failure or delay in one path could gate the other > - That coupling makes the release pipeline less resilient than it needs to be > - This pull request gives the cloud publish its own top-level job so both publishes can run in parallel without a `needs:` dependency > - The benefit is better failure isolation and less wasted time when one publish path is slow or broken ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this change. Problem statement: - The cloud image publish was implemented as trailing work inside the stock publish job. - That setup meant the cloud publish could be delayed or skipped if the stock job failed early. - The desired behavior is for the cloud publish to run independently so a failure in one publish path does not gate the other. Proposed solution: - Split the cloud publish into its own top-level workflow job. - Keep the same cloud-specific build settings and cache behavior. - Preserve the existing top-level concurrency behavior. Alternatives considered: - Keeping both publishes in one job with conditionals or later steps. Rejected because it still couples success and runtime between the two publish paths. ## What Changed - Split the cloud image publish into a separate top-level Docker workflow job. - Removed the dependency coupling so the cloud job does not need the stock job. - Expanded the drift-guard test to assert the two-job structure and the absence of `needs:` on the cloud job. ## Verification - The workflow YAML was parsed successfully and confirmed to contain two jobs: `build-and-push` and `build-and-push-cloud`. - The cloud job was confirmed to have no `needs:` entry. - The drift-guard assertions were reproduced in a dependency-free harness and passed. - PR #10408 completed GitHub Actions with all required checks green, including the e2e shards. - Greptile review completed at 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - No documentation files changed because this is a workflow/test-only change. ## Risks - The workflow now duplicates the prep steps across two runners, so any shared setup change must be kept in sync between both jobs. - The new job increases workflow surface area slightly, which can make future maintenance more verbose. - Overall risk is low because the change is limited to CI orchestration and test coverage. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-5, tool-using code assistant) ## 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>	2026-07-28 15:38:01 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	db02ca7402	ci: keep in-flight docker builds from being cancelled (#10403 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The repository uses GitHub Actions workflows to build and publish Docker images > - A workflow-level concurrency policy controls whether newer pushes cancel in-flight builds > - The current job-level setting can cancel a running image build before it finishes publishing > - That leaves the Docker image pipeline brittle when a new push arrives during an active publish > - This pull request moves concurrency to the workflow level and disables cancel-in-progress so running builds finish > - The benefit is that only pending work is superseded, while a build already publishing is allowed to complete ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. This PR addresses the Docker workflow concurrency behavior directly: it ensures in-flight image builds are not cancelled by newer pushes, while still serializing builds per ref. ## What Changed - Moved the Docker workflow concurrency block from the job level to the workflow level. - Set `cancel-in-progress: false` so an active build can finish publishing. - Added a drift-guard test that parses `.github/workflows/docker.yml` and asserts the workflow-level concurrency policy remains `false`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cloud-image-bundled-plugins.test.ts` - `python3 -c "import yaml; yaml.safe_load(open('.github/workflows/docker.yml'))"` - Verified the fetched remote branch contains a single commit on top of `origin/master`. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and issues; none found. - Checked `ROADMAP.md` and did not find overlapping planned core work. ## Risks - Low risk: the change is limited to workflow concurrency behavior and a targeted test assertion. - If the workflow concurrency key is changed later, the drift-guard test will fail and require an update. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-5, tool use; context window not surfaced in this environment) ## 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] 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>	2026-07-28 15:08:17 -07:00
Devin Foley	965a827ee7	feat(docker): publish a cloud image variant with built bundled plugins (#10157 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Managed (cloud-hosted) deployments configure instances through `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`, including a `plugins.autoInstall` key list that the boot-time installer resolves against the bundled plugin catalog > - The installer requires each bundled plugin's `dist/manifest.js` (`server/src/services/bundled-plugins.ts`), but the published image only ships the sandbox providers' source — they are intentionally excluded from the pnpm workspace, and the Dockerfile never builds them > - Every managed auto-install therefore logs `bundled plugin bundle not present; skipping auto-install` and no sandbox provider can be provisioned through managed config > - Baking built plugins into the single published image would fix it but makes every self-hosted pull carry the providers' `node_modules` for a managed-only mechanism > - This pull request adds a `cloud` Dockerfile target extending `production` with built bundled plugins — parameterized by build arg and currently just `daytona` — published alongside the default image with a `-cloud` tag suffix > - The benefit is working plugin auto-provisioning for managed deployments while the self-hosted image stays byte-identical and the cloud variant only carries what is actually deployed ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10158 (filed for this problem; no prior issue existed — searched for duplicate/related PRs and issues around bundled plugins, docker image variants, and auto-install). Summary: What happened: on a managed instance with `plugins.autoInstall: ["daytona"]` delivered via `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`, boot logs `bundled plugin bundle not present; skipping auto-install` with `pluginPath: /app/packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona`, and the plugin is never installed. Expected: the advertised bundled-catalog keys are installable from the published image. Why: the image ships plugin source without `dist/` — nothing in the Dockerfile builds the workspace-excluded sandbox providers. ## What Changed - `Dockerfile`: new `cloud-plugins` stage (based on `build`, so devDependencies are available for `tsc`) that installs and builds each provider named in the `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS` build arg standalone (`pnpm install --ignore-workspace --no-lockfile && pnpm build`, exactly as the providers' READMEs prescribe), asserting `dist/manifest.js` exists per plugin and failing loudly on unknown names; new `cloud` stage = `production` + the built plugin tree. The arg defaults to `daytona` — the only provider managed deployments auto-install today; every entry adds its `node_modules` to the image, so the list grows only with actual need (a one-line workflow change). - `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: the existing build step is pinned to `target: production` (without this, the new trailing stage would silently become the default build target — this pin is what keeps the self-hosted image identical); new metadata + build-push steps publish the `cloud` target (with `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS=daytona`) under the same tag set with a `-cloud` suffix (`sha-<short>-cloud`, `latest-cloud`, `<version>-cloud`), same schema labels, reusing the GHA layer cache ## Verification - All seven sandbox providers build standalone from a clean checkout with the exact commands the new stage runs, each producing `dist/manifest.js` — so the current `daytona` default works and future list additions are known-good - The stage's shell loop was dry-run against the checkout (directory existence + per-plugin assertion logic) - Workflow YAML lints clean - Not run: a full multi-arch `docker build` (no local docker daemon). The `cloud` stage is additive and the default target is pinned, so the risk is contained to the new build step; the first master build after merge proves it end-to-end ## Risks - Self-hosted behavior: unchanged. The default image build is pinned to the `production` target, which produces the same layers as before this change; the `cloud` stages run only for the new build step. - The plugin installs in the `cloud-plugins` stage use `--no-lockfile` (the providers are workspace-excluded and lockfile-less by design), so plugin dependency resolution is not pinned at image-build time. This mirrors the existing Plugins-page install path, which resolves from npm at install time. - CI cost: one additional build-push per master push. It reuses the layer cache from the production build, so the marginal work is the single plugin's build layers. - An unknown name in `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS`, or a provider that stops producing `dist/manifest.js`, fails the cloud build loudly rather than publishing a broken variant. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5[1m]` via Claude Code CLI — extended thinking and tool use (code edits, standalone plugin build verification, workflow lint). ## Checklist - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] Self-hosted behavior unchanged (default build target pinned to `production`) - [x] One clear change: publish a cloud image variant with built bundled plugins	2026-07-24 08:22:34 -07:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

Nicky LeachandPaperclip

ca92f727c5

ci: publish the cloud image in its own parallel job (#10408 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The CI workflow is responsible for producing and publishing the
Docker images that power Paperclip deployments
> - The cloud image publish was previously coupled to the stock publish
job, so a failure or delay in one path could gate the other
> - That coupling makes the release pipeline less resilient than it
needs to be
> - This pull request gives the cloud publish its own top-level job so
both publishes can run in parallel without a `needs:` dependency
> - The benefit is better failure isolation and less wasted time when
one publish path is slow or broken

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No public GitHub issue was found for this change.

Problem statement:
- The cloud image publish was implemented as trailing work inside the
stock publish job.
- That setup meant the cloud publish could be delayed or skipped if the
stock job failed early.
- The desired behavior is for the cloud publish to run independently so
a failure in one publish path does not gate the other.

Proposed solution:
- Split the cloud publish into its own top-level workflow job.
- Keep the same cloud-specific build settings and cache behavior.
- Preserve the existing top-level concurrency behavior.

Alternatives considered:
- Keeping both publishes in one job with conditionals or later steps.
Rejected because it still couples success and runtime between the two
publish paths.

## What Changed

- Split the cloud image publish into a separate top-level Docker
workflow job.
- Removed the dependency coupling so the cloud job does not need the
stock job.
- Expanded the drift-guard test to assert the two-job structure and the
absence of `needs:` on the cloud job.

## Verification

- The workflow YAML was parsed successfully and confirmed to contain two
jobs: `build-and-push` and `build-and-push-cloud`.
- The cloud job was confirmed to have no `needs:` entry.
- The drift-guard assertions were reproduced in a dependency-free
harness and passed.
- PR #10408 completed GitHub Actions with all required checks green,
including the e2e shards.
- Greptile review completed at 5/5 with no unresolved comments.
- No documentation files changed because this is a workflow/test-only
change.

## Risks

- The workflow now duplicates the prep steps across two runners, so any
shared setup change must be kept in sync between both jobs.
- The new job increases workflow surface area slightly, which can make
future maintenance more verbose.
- Overall risk is low because the change is limited to CI orchestration
and test coverage.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex (GPT-5, tool-using code assistant)

## 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>

2026-07-28 15:38:01 -07:00

Nicky LeachandPaperclip

db02ca7402

ci: keep in-flight docker builds from being cancelled (#10403 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The repository uses GitHub Actions workflows to build and publish
Docker images
> - A workflow-level concurrency policy controls whether newer pushes
cancel in-flight builds
> - The current job-level setting can cancel a running image build
before it finishes publishing
> - That leaves the Docker image pipeline brittle when a new push
arrives during an active publish
> - This pull request moves concurrency to the workflow level and
disables cancel-in-progress so running builds finish
> - The benefit is that only pending work is superseded, while a build
already publishing is allowed to complete

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No public GitHub issue exists for this change. This PR addresses the
Docker workflow concurrency behavior directly: it ensures in-flight
image builds are not cancelled by newer pushes, while still serializing
builds per ref.

## What Changed

- Moved the Docker workflow concurrency block from the job level to the
workflow level.
- Set `cancel-in-progress: false` so an active build can finish
publishing.
- Added a drift-guard test that parses `.github/workflows/docker.yml`
and asserts the workflow-level concurrency policy remains `false`.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cloud-image-bundled-plugins.test.ts`
- `python3 -c "import yaml;
yaml.safe_load(open('.github/workflows/docker.yml'))"`
- Verified the fetched remote branch contains a single commit on top of
`origin/master`.
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and issues; none found.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md` and did not find overlapping planned core work.

## Risks

- Low risk: the change is limited to workflow concurrency behavior and a
targeted test assertion.
- If the workflow concurrency key is changed later, the drift-guard test
will fail and require an update.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex (GPT-5, tool use; context window not surfaced in this
environment)

## 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] 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>

2026-07-28 15:08:17 -07:00

Devin Foley

965a827ee7

feat(docker): publish a cloud image variant with built bundled plugins (#10157 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Managed (cloud-hosted) deployments configure instances through
`PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`, including a `plugins.autoInstall` key list
that the boot-time installer resolves against the bundled plugin catalog
> - The installer requires each bundled plugin's `dist/manifest.js`
(`server/src/services/bundled-plugins.ts`), but the published image only
ships the sandbox providers' *source* — they are intentionally excluded
from the pnpm workspace, and the Dockerfile never builds them
> - Every managed auto-install therefore logs `bundled plugin bundle not
present; skipping auto-install` and no sandbox provider can be
provisioned through managed config
> - Baking built plugins into the single published image would fix it
but makes every self-hosted pull carry the providers' `node_modules` for
a managed-only mechanism
> - This pull request adds a `cloud` Dockerfile target extending
`production` with built bundled plugins — parameterized by build arg and
currently just `daytona` — published alongside the default image with a
`-cloud` tag suffix
> - The benefit is working plugin auto-provisioning for managed
deployments while the self-hosted image stays byte-identical and the
cloud variant only carries what is actually deployed

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Fixes #10158 (filed for this problem; no prior issue existed — searched
for duplicate/related PRs and issues around bundled plugins, docker
image variants, and auto-install). Summary: **What happened:** on a
managed instance with `plugins.autoInstall: ["daytona"]` delivered via
`PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`, boot logs `bundled plugin bundle not
present; skipping auto-install` with `pluginPath:
/app/packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona`, and the plugin is
never installed. **Expected:** the advertised bundled-catalog keys are
installable from the published image. **Why:** the image ships plugin
source without `dist/` — nothing in the Dockerfile builds the
workspace-excluded sandbox providers.

## What Changed

- `Dockerfile`: new `cloud-plugins` stage (based on `build`, so
devDependencies are available for `tsc`) that installs and builds each
provider named in the `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS` build arg standalone
(`pnpm install --ignore-workspace --no-lockfile && pnpm build`, exactly
as the providers' READMEs prescribe), asserting `dist/manifest.js`
exists per plugin and failing loudly on unknown names; new `cloud` stage
= `production` + the built plugin tree. The arg defaults to `daytona` —
the only provider managed deployments auto-install today; every entry
adds its `node_modules` to the image, so the list grows only with actual
need (a one-line workflow change).
- `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: the existing build step is pinned to
`target: production` (without this, the new trailing stage would
silently become the default build target — this pin is what keeps the
self-hosted image identical); new metadata + build-push steps publish
the `cloud` target (with `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS=daytona`) under the same
tag set with a `-cloud` suffix (`sha-<short>-cloud`, `latest-cloud`,
`<version>-cloud`), same schema labels, reusing the GHA layer cache

## Verification

- All seven sandbox providers build standalone from a clean checkout
with the exact commands the new stage runs, each producing
`dist/manifest.js` — so the current `daytona` default works and future
list additions are known-good
- The stage's shell loop was dry-run against the checkout (directory
existence + per-plugin assertion logic)
- Workflow YAML lints clean
- **Not run:** a full multi-arch `docker build` (no local docker
daemon). The `cloud` stage is additive and the default target is pinned,
so the risk is contained to the new build step; the first master build
after merge proves it end-to-end

## Risks

- Self-hosted behavior: unchanged. The default image build is pinned to
the `production` target, which produces the same layers as before this
change; the `cloud` stages run only for the new build step.
- The plugin installs in the `cloud-plugins` stage use `--no-lockfile`
(the providers are workspace-excluded and lockfile-less by design), so
plugin dependency resolution is not pinned at image-build time. This
mirrors the existing Plugins-page install path, which resolves from npm
at install time.
- CI cost: one additional build-push per master push. It reuses the
layer cache from the production build, so the marginal work is the
single plugin's build layers.
- An unknown name in `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS`, or a provider that stops
producing `dist/manifest.js`, fails the cloud build loudly rather than
publishing a broken variant.

## Model Used

Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5[1m]` via Claude Code CLI —
extended thinking and tool use (code edits, standalone plugin build
verification, workflow lint).

## Checklist

- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] Self-hosted behavior unchanged (default build target pinned to
`production`)
- [x] One clear change: publish a cloud image variant with built bundled
plugins

2026-07-24 08:22:34 -07:00