mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-26 10:26:26 +01:00
3ee06e212ecb34222331ffa48d068ec9e02bc9da
4500
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
3ee06e212e |
Keep optional goal probes from disconnecting retained PRP v1 runners
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
a266720d97 |
Merge branch 'codex/work-folders-remote-recovery-refresh' into codex/work-folders-session-compat-refresh
* codex/work-folders-remote-recovery-refresh: Keep native session wiring checks compatible with timing instrumentation |
||
|
Dotta
|
5268ecf85e |
Merge branch 'codex/work-folders-staging-hardening-refresh' into codex/work-folders-remote-recovery-refresh
* codex/work-folders-staging-hardening-refresh: Keep native session wiring checks compatible with timing instrumentation |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
21c0553e99 |
Keep native session wiring checks compatible with timing instrumentation
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
03760f8618 |
Preserve old conversations after metadata-only project edits
Verify the historical session and execution workspace fingerprints against the same successful host-owned run before normalizing the legacy workspace category. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
b218045f3a |
Merge branch 'codex/work-folders-remote-recovery-refresh' into codex/work-folders-session-compat-refresh
* codex/work-folders-remote-recovery-refresh: Preserve upstream local sandbox defaults in environment regression test Align provider selector tests with current configuration controls |
||
|
Dotta
|
1b321c25ac |
Merge branch 'codex/work-folders-staging-hardening-refresh' into codex/work-folders-remote-recovery-refresh
* codex/work-folders-staging-hardening-refresh: Preserve upstream local sandbox defaults in environment regression test Align provider selector tests with current configuration controls |
||
|
Dotta
|
658523a9bb |
Merge branch 'codex/work-folders-runtime-hardening-refresh' into codex/work-folders-staging-hardening-refresh
* codex/work-folders-runtime-hardening-refresh: Preserve upstream local sandbox defaults in environment regression test Align provider selector tests with current configuration controls |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
daf38c67f1 |
Preserve upstream local sandbox defaults in environment regression test
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
c3b7d8f081 |
Merge branch 'codex/work-folders-storybook-refresh' into codex/work-folders-runtime-hardening-refresh
* codex/work-folders-storybook-refresh: Align provider selector tests with current configuration controls |
||
|
Dotta
|
86264465ae |
Merge branch 'codex/work-folders-pi-refresh' into codex/work-folders-storybook-refresh
* codex/work-folders-pi-refresh: Align provider selector tests with current configuration controls |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ec4abc0380 |
Align provider selector tests with current configuration controls
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
0fb4e50bc2 |
Merge branch 'codex/work-folders-remote-recovery-refresh' into codex/work-folders-session-compat-refresh
* codex/work-folders-remote-recovery-refresh: Fix frozen provider graph and retain snapshots across failed launches |
||
|
Dotta
|
140dcc2a59 |
Merge branch 'codex/work-folders-staging-hardening-refresh' into codex/work-folders-remote-recovery-refresh
* codex/work-folders-staging-hardening-refresh: Fix frozen provider graph and retain snapshots across failed launches |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
855aa1b007 |
Fix frozen provider graph and retain snapshots across failed launches
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
bf8c52d0d3 |
Align stack ancestry with verified lower-layer fixes
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> * codex/work-folders-remote-recovery-refresh: Align staging runtime packaging and lifecycle with current master Preserve the retained identity read limit during runtime upgrade |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f4b28e23eb |
Carry verified staging integration fixes into remote recovery
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> * codex/work-folders-staging-hardening-refresh: Align staging runtime packaging and lifecycle with current master Preserve the retained identity read limit during runtime upgrade |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d2ecec3359 |
Align staging runtime packaging and lifecycle with current master
Preserve active ACPX child snapshots through reusable lease close. Align the canonical provider lock and CLI pins with the current qualified profiles, retain local Git fallback, and preserve narrowed heartbeat values across diagnostics. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
df866d59f4 |
Preserve the retained identity read limit during runtime upgrade
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
398a82646e |
Carry retained identity guard into staging hardening
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> * codex/work-folders-runtime-hardening-refresh: Preserve the retained identity read limit during runtime upgrade |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ab832bc023 |
Align staging runtime packaging and lifecycle with current master
Preserve active ACPX child snapshots through reusable lease close. Align the canonical provider lock and CLI pins with the current qualified profiles, retain local Git fallback, and preserve narrowed heartbeat values across diagnostics. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f6a6480075 |
Preserve the retained identity read limit during runtime upgrade
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
53a8deca4e |
Merge current master into session compatibility
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f42cde8bcf |
Merge current master into remote recovery
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
defb3df6f0 |
Merge current master into staging hardening
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cd008e3444 |
Reconcile sandbox runtime hardening with current recovery
Combine task-scoped workspace adoption with chat isolation, bounded shutdown draining, and provider identity handling. Preserve per-run capability rotation evidence and the new master warm-session transition coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
aedc9ad191 |
Reconcile cached-file inspection with current task UI
Keep the experimental cached-file entry in task properties and preserve current gallery, task continuation, and development-setting behavior. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b475b90e9e |
Reconcile qualified sandbox providers with current master
Preserve verified Pi and Codex ACP profiles alongside current Claude installation handling, provider recovery, and native attachment staging. Keep preview lock integrity checks on native-architecture image builds. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f03b8e7097 |
Reconcile work-folder foundation with current master
Keep current task continuation, chat UI, provider security, and multi-architecture build behavior. Regenerate the work-folder schema after the published migration sequence and make it replay-safe for preview databases. Verify preserved file/trash/checkpoint references and company constraints on PostgreSQL. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1f4ac4df15 |
Preserve sandbox sessions across upgrades and intentional resets
Keep stable workspace fingerprints compatible with existing task sessions. Bind legacy conversations to verified physical sandboxes, preserve Codex runtime files during config refresh, and retain failed preparations for retry. Authorize new native conversations separately from sandbox reuse without discarding prior state. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
847d00bdc3 |
fix(ui): use full mobile width for task tree (#13250)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task detail page gives operators a task tree in a mobile side panel. > - The mobile sheet did not set an explicit full width. > - A maximum width rule could make the task tree narrower than the phone viewport. > - This pull request makes the mobile task tree sheet use the full viewport width. > - The benefit is a consistent and readable task tree on phones. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The task tree sheet could use less than the full viewport width on a mobile task page. **Expected behavior** The task tree sheet must use the full available phone width. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task on a phone viewport. 2. Open the task side panel. 3. Select the Tasks tab. 4. Compare the sheet width with the viewport width. **Paperclip version or commit** `7b829efdf` **Deployment mode** Built from source. ## What Changed - Set the mobile task side panel to `w-full` and `max-w-none`. - Add regression assertions for both width classes. ## Verification - `vitest run src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx --config vitest.config.ts` passes 103 tests. - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passes all four token gates. - `git diff --check` passes. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only affects the mobile task side panel width. - The desktop panel and other sheet variants do not change. > 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-5.6, agentic coding with reasoning and 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 (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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.13 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d0b7ba4194 |
ci: route approved master cloud builds to AWS (#13243)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys images built from master commits. > - Cloud image builds share GitHub-hosted capacity with other workflows. > - The organization already operates AWS runners through RunsOn Fleet. > - This pull request allows approved master builds to use a dedicated cloud Fleet. > - The benefit is separate build capacity with a quick operator rollback. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13189, #13192. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Placement of the Docker cloud build after a master merge. **Current behavior** Every Docker cloud build uses a GitHub-hosted runner. Busy periods delay the job. **Proposed behavior** An operator variable enables the approved cloud Fleet for canonical master pushes and manual master builds. Other events, refs, and repositories use GitHub-hosted runners. ## What Changed - Add a guarded AWS runner selector to the Docker cloud job. - Keep the existing image cache, verification, and publication steps. - Test the selector against master, branch, tag, PR, fork, and disabled contexts. - Document provisioning requirements, placement checks, and rollback. ## Verification - 29 focused Node tests pass for routing, readiness, and disk handling. - The full workflow-script Node suite passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes locally. - The pinned PR routing regression suite passes. The first live PR run assigned 21 jobs to the approved AWS PR group. AWS then reclaimed 16 Spot instances. The failed run is being repeated on GitHub-hosted runners while the Fleet moves to On-Demand. - Actionlint passes with existing shellcheck findings excluded (SC2012, SC2016, SC2129). - `git diff --check` passes. - Greptile reports 5/5 on commit `764d505a41dd2023751c3f361906fa9ea35bf0c6`, with no review threads. - All 30 current-head CI checks pass, including typecheck, build, all server/workspace test shards, Runner verification, and browser tests. Two Storybook checks are intentionally skipped for this change. Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34630550799 - The broader local test/build sequence is still running. This Mac has reported failures in unchanged application suites; their complete Linux CI shards pass. Local targeted workflow tests and typecheck pass. - Both On-Demand Fleets are deployed and healthy. Live master cloud-build verification follows the merge. ## Risks - Missing Fleet capacity or runner-group authorization can leave an AWS job queued. Disable `AWS_CLOUD_BUILDS_ENABLED` and rerun the workflow to use GitHub-hosted capacity. - The runner group must restrict access to this repository and the master version of `docker-cloud.yml`. - Docker needs more disk space than the PR Fleet. Provision 120 GiB disks and retain the free-space check. - This changes image build placement only. Source verification and migrator publication remain separate prerequisites. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed by 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] 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>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.12 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
063ba59ae3 |
Fix workspace-ready notice rendering (#12716)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The task thread shows user, agent, and control-plane messages. > - Workspace-ready comments keep agent attribution for audit and authorization. > - These comments also have an explicit system-notice presentation. > - The client used attribution before the presentation contract. > - As a result, workspace-ready comments appeared as agent bubbles. > - This pull request gives the system-notice presentation priority. > - The benefit is a compact workspace notice with expandable details. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The task thread showed a workspace-ready control-plane comment as a normal agent message. The comment kept agent attribution for audit and authorization, so the client did not use its system-notice presentation. **Expected behavior** The task thread must show a comment with the `system_notice` presentation as a compact system notice. The user must be able to expand the notice to inspect its details. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task with a workspace that becomes ready. 2. Wait for the control plane to add the workspace-ready comment. 3. Observe that the task thread shows the comment as an agent bubble instead of a system notice. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `8eaa5caa0`. **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`). **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core UI bug. ## What Changed - Give the `system_notice` presentation priority when the task-chat adapter selects the message kind. - Pass the notice presentation data to the task-chat model. - Improve the compact and expanded workspace notice details. - Add component tests, adapter tests, and Storybook cases for workspace notices. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatSystemNotice.test.tsx` passes 15 tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` passes 5,670 tests and reports four pre-existing workspace-runtime failures. The same four failures reproduce when the two unrelated server test files run alone. They do not use the changed task-chat files. ## Risks - Risk is low. Normal agent messages still use the agent presentation. - A comment with an explicit system-notice presentation now uses the compact notice renderer. - Regression tests cover both paths. > 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 GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) through Codex. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. ## 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
|
7b829efdf6 |
feat: show tasks created from a task by project (#13241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task can cause an agent to create more tasks. > - Those tasks can belong to other projects or have another parent. > - The subtask view does not show all work created from the current task. > - This pull request adds a Tasks tab with separate subtask and creation groups. > - Operators can follow created work without changing its parent or project. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Operators need to see all work that an agent creates while running for a task. Parentage alone does not describe this relationship. Legacy and native runs must follow the same rules. **Proposed solution** Show all subtasks in one section. Separately group tasks created from the source task by their current project, with a No project group when needed. A created subtask appears in both sections. Use saved run context and recorded creation activity to find the source task. **Alternatives considered** Making all created tasks children would change their hierarchy. Removing overlap between sections would hide the creation relationship. This change keeps the two memberships separate. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Activity log & action attribution capability. It does not add a new roadmap area. Related PR: #9727 adds a stored source-task field and inbound attribution UI. This PR adds the outgoing task list using existing run and activity records and does not require that schema change. ## What Changed - Add a company-scoped createdFromIssueId filter to issue lists. - Save the actor run during task creation, including legacy child-helper calls. - Recover historical run attribution from creation activity when the origin run is absent. - Render the production Tasks panel with all subtasks and independently grouped created work. - Keep progress only for subtasks. Add folding, hover fades and project links. - Fetch all result pages and refresh on issue activity. Show load failures with Retry. - Add database, API, UI and pagination tests, design-guide examples and Storybook pages. ## Verification - Before rebase: 158 targeted tests passed. Workspace typecheck, UI/server builds, Storybook build and token gates passed. - After rebase: full workspace typecheck and build passed. The cursor fix passes 26 focused tests and UI/server typechecks. - The full local test command completed its general-server group with 10,563 passing tests and two failures: a missing native-runner fixture and a concurrency-test timeout. Building the fixture and rerunning both affected files passed all 41 tests. The local command stopped before its remaining groups; all corresponding GitHub test shards passed on the submitted head. - GitHub checks on commit |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5545f6d166 |
feat: let user messages continue stopped native tasks (#13239)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A failed native run can leave a durable execution hold. > - The hold prevents automatic replay of actions with unknown outcomes. > - It can also prevent the agent from answering a new user message. > - A new user message should authorize a fresh turn after the prior execution stops. > - This pull request adds that admission path and preserves the existing execution gates. > - Users can continue the conversation without certifying every past action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Server task wake admission and native execution recovery. **Problem or motivation** A native task can remain blocked after automatic recovery stops. A new user message is saved, but its run is cancelled before the agent can answer. **Proposed solution** Use a new authenticated user comment to authorize a fresh turn. Check stopped predecessor ownership and available history. Retain uncertain action outcomes. Commit the new run and hold retirement together. **Roadmap alignment** This is a focused improvement to the existing self-healing runs and recovery behavior. Builds on merged #13237, which covers legacy conversation continuation. This PR adds native admission and preserves native automatic-recovery eligibility and budgets. ## What Changed - Admit a fresh native turn for a new user comment after every held predecessor has stopped. - Validate the comment author, task, timing, process ownership, controller, and cleanup leases. - Preserve failed runs, unknown action outcomes, and the failed incident's attempt count. - Record the new comment and run in the existing recovery audit history. - Validate the saved continuation source and discard consumed user-wake authority from later automatic replacements. - Keep pause, approval, budget, ownership, and dependency interaction rules. - Add database and actual wake-path regressions. Update the execution contract. ## Verification - [Full CI run 34626750213](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34626750213) passed on `c58e6c087e0df7530c747d80b27d491da925a9c4`: all 31 reported checks passed, including all server/workspace suites, browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. All review threads are resolved, and security checks passed. - All 218 local targeted tests passed across explicit native continuation, continuation history, safe replacement, durable chat wakeups, wake queue, issue liveness, native session resume, and run dispatch. The native implementation is unchanged by the final rebase onto master. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final head. Complete test coverage is supplied by the green CI suites; local tests used the targeted suites above. - Regressions cover scoped authorization, concurrent delivery, live ownership, later admission gates, retained message receipts, and automatic replacement after terminal-task or reviewer changes. ## Risks - A fresh model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip preserves prior history and does not replay recorded calls. - Missing process identity and remote ownership without a target-aware stop proof retain the hold. A terminal database row alone does not prove that execution stopped. - No schema or dependency changes. Existing historical tasks are not awakened by deployment. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. This session does not expose a more specific model build ID or context-window size. ## 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
|
b1efd65edc |
fix: continue interrupted task conversations with bounded retries (#13237)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A task can outlive a provider process or a server restart. > - Legacy recovery treated unknown tool outcomes as a permanent execution hold. > - That hold could also reject a later user message. > - A conversation turn can use prior history without replaying prior tool calls. > - This pull request lets supported conversation adapters continue within the existing retry budget. > - Users can send a new message after automatic attempts stop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A server restart could interrupt a local ACP run and leave its task behind a permanent recovery hold. A later user message could be cancelled before the provider answered. The immediate recovery path could also create a successor outside the durable failure counter. **Expected behavior** Continue with a bounded new conversation turn. Preserve a compatible provider session or use full task context when it is unavailable. Do not replay recorded tools. When automatic attempts stop, allow a new user request through the normal execution gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task with a local conversation adapter. 2. Restart the server while the provider is working. 3. Let the previous run become interrupted. 4. Send a follow-up message and observe the recovery hold on the old behavior. Related work: Refs #13075 for durable task recovery. Refs #12946 for retry-limit and checkout-lock handling. This change routes conversation recovery through the existing bounded scheduler. ## What Changed - Mark supported local conversation failures for continuation. Keep native-runner and non-conversation recovery rules. - Carry an interruption notice into the next turn. Retain stopped ACP session history even when a write outcome is unknown. - Clear unavailable ACP sessions so the next bounded attempt can use full task context. - Route immediate failure recovery through the same durable scheduler as process-loss recovery. Release only the predecessor checkout when its retry takes ownership. - Retire obsolete conversation holds using immutable run evidence, in bounded batches with an activity record. Preserve outcome evidence and do not wake historical tasks. - Block actual admission and Resume while a predecessor process or environment lease is still active. Keep the original interruption notice after a rejected wake. Preserve the upstream blocked-wake waiting contract: bounded retry planning can happen during cleanup, while deferred messages and execution remain gated. - Add subprocess and database regression tests. Update the execution contract. - Add the current thread-status field to the native recovery provider fixture so its damaged-journal test reaches the intended boundary. Tolerate an already-exited fixture process during test cleanup while still asserting both processes terminate. ## Verification - Workspace typecheck passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Build passed: `pnpm build`. - Module boundaries passed: `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. - Focused tests passed: 293 recovery/session/dispatch tests, 66 retry and response-gate tests, and 37 native-session tests. Some suites overlap. - Tests cover interrupted writes, missing sessions, concurrent retries, restart persistence, pending questions and approvals, execution gates, and historical holds. - Built the Rust test executables with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust` for native-runner verification. - Full Vitest coverage verified locally using the repository’s general and serialized shards, with focused reruns for failures and files not reached after a shard stopped. The ownership-gate regression is fixed and the complete affected server shard passes (1,390 tests). Local parallel runs also hit temporary-directory, resource, and timing failures; those suites pass with canonical temporary paths and sequential reruns. No test timeouts were increased. - Final merged-branch regression run: 577 tests pass across process recovery, retry scheduling, liveness, durable chat, wake-queue application/adapter, dispatch, continuation, native sessions, and task chat. Earlier focused verification also passed 19 native control tests. Token gates and whitespace validation pass. - Browser verification passed all three ACP Stop/continue/pause scenarios, including a rerun after merging the upstream waiting behavior: `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3397 pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. The interrupted-write case verifies that follow-up completes without a repeated write. - Final-head [CI run 34625037394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34625037394) passed on `06ac4bd9d150f8b209a96e5fd609c696958794a0`: all 31 reported checks are green, including server/workspace suites, all browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are resolved. ## Risks - A new model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip does not replay recorded tool calls and does not certify unknown action outcomes. - Conversation adapters now stop after their retry budget instead of requiring action reconciliation. Explicit Stop, pause, dependency, approval, budget, and ownership gates remain in force. - No schema migration or dependency changes. Historical holds are folded without changing task status or waking work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The session does not expose a more specific model build ID or context-window size. ## 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>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.11 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
42a4f5b15b |
feat(ui): advance single-choice questions on selection (#13234)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents ask structured questions in task threads and the composer. > - The shared form shows one question at a time. > - A single choice already completes an answer, but the form requires another click on Next. > - This pull request moves to the next question when the user selects one option. > - Multi-select and custom answers keep their Next step. The last page keeps explicit submission. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The paged question form in the task composer and task interaction cards. **Subsystem affected** ui/ — React board UI. **Current behavior** The user clicks a single choice, then clicks Next to reach the next question. **Proposed behavior** A single choice shows its checked state for 160 ms, then opens the next question with an 80 ms fade. Reduced-motion mode skips the animation. Multi-select stays on the current page until Next. Other stays open for typing. The last question waits for Submit answers. **Reason and benefit** Remove an extra click from each single-choice question while preserving explicit submission. **Breaking changes** Single-choice selection now changes the page. Answer payloads and APIs do not change. The user can return to earlier answers with the previous arrow. **Additional context** Related work: #12640 introduced the task workspace. No duplicate auto-advance change was found. ## What Changed - Confirm a single-choice answer with a brief radio animation and row highlight, then fade into the next page and focus the new question. - Use motion tokens for the 160 ms confirmation and 80 ms page fade. Honor reduced motion and cancel pending advances when the user changes direction or closes the form. - Lightly highlight every selected row with a foreground tint that remains visible against the composer in both themes, for single-select and multi-select answers. - Preserve multi-select, custom answers, back navigation, and final submission. - Ignore repeated number-key events and selection during an upload or submission. - Update composer and card tests. Add interactive and verified composer stories to the existing interaction Storybook group. - Document the Storybook scenario in the developer guide. ## Verification - Focused composer, card, and motion-catalog tests: 121 passed, including animation timing and cancellation. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. Browser interaction story: passed with the selection animation enabled. - Selected-row refinement: 121 focused tests, token gates, and Storybook build passed. Browser inspection confirmed row highlighting for single-select and multiple selected checkboxes, plus light-theme contrast. - Manual browser check: select SQLite, select two features, click Next, select Now, then submit. The summary contains every answer. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - All 31 remote checks passed on the latest commit (`04a3f3983`), including typecheck, general and serialized tests, production build/native-runner verification, canary validation, and browser tests. Two optional Storybook deployment/visual jobs were skipped. Greptile reviewed the same commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. The selected-row highlight refinement is included in that verification. - Animation refinement: UI typecheck, UI build, token gates, and 121 focused tests passed. - The broader UI run had 5,940 passing tests and three failures in unchanged Inbox/IssuesList tests. Both affected suites passed in isolation (73/73), including all three previously failing cases. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after reproducing the native-runner failure below and after the full remote suite passed. It is not a clean local full-suite result. - Local runner limitation: `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-resume.test.ts` has one reproducible failure in unchanged code. The damaged-epoch recovery test expects `run.attach requires a settled Codex provider session`; the runner instead reports `semantic tool input content digest does not match its transmitted input` at line 1019. After building the missing fake provider with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust`, the isolated suite has 36 passing tests and this one failure. No server or runner files changed in this PR. ## Risks - Selecting a single choice changes the visible question after a brief checked-state confirmation. Back navigation preserves the choice so it can be edited. - The final page still requires Submit answers. Selecting Other still requires text and explicit progress. - No database, server, API, or dependency changes. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, code editing, terminal tools, and browser verification. Exact serving revision and context window size are 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 `#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 - [ ] 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
|
eb640ec129 |
fix(execution): keep blocked wakes waiting without repeated runs (#13236)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Wake admission decides when a task can create an execution run. > - Recovery can prohibit replay while the previous execution needs review. > - Dependency reconciliation kept creating runs before dispatch rejected that same hold. > - Each rejected run added another startup notice without doing useful work. > - This change checks the hold during admission and records repeated automatic waits once. > - Tasks keep their messages and can resume when the current gates permit execution. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related changes: Refs #13173 (stale completed-task continuations). Refs #12651 (dependency waits during recovery). **What happened?** A blocked task with completed dependencies can remain under a durable execution reconciliation hold. Each scheduler pass created a queued run. Dispatch then cancelled it before the adapter started. The skipped wake did not satisfy dependency wake deduplication, so this repeated and filled the conversation with “Couldn't start” notices. **Expected behavior** A known execution hold creates a waiting diagnostic without a run. Repeated automatic observations share that diagnostic. Clearing the hold permits a new wake only after the other gates pass. New comments remain available for the next eligible execution. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a blocked task with a completed blocker. 2. Give the task an active reconciliation action, or a resolved action whose automatic recovery evidence still prohibits replay. 3. Run dependency reconciliation repeatedly. 4. Observe repeated cancelled pre-start runs on the base branch. This branch creates no runs while held and admits work after the effective hold clears. ## What Changed - Check effective execution holds under the issue admission lock before inserting runs. Keep the final dispatch check for races. - Share automatic wait diagnostics across producers, wake keys, and service restarts. Apply the helper to reconciliation, dependencies, pause holds, availability, budgets, and disabled heartbeats. - Preserve ordinary comment and interaction receipts during execution holds. Prevent release from draining them while replay is blocked. Keep external-chat receipt authorization intact. - Group empty pre-start reconciliation cancellations into a neutral waiting notice. Keep started runs and the full run history. - Document the waiting contract and add database-backed, UI, and browser regressions. - Stabilize two existing verification tests: allow the asynchronous chat lease transition a bounded five-second wait, and accept either legitimate damaged-session refusal while retaining exact archive-evidence assertions. ## Verification Passed targeted tests: - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts server/src/modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts` — 28 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx` — covered in the initial combined test run; UI suite passed. - Run-dispatch adapter tests passed in the combined gate regression run. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/durable-chat-wakeup.test.ts` — 41 tests, including held receipt replay, promotion, and revoked access. - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3294 pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` — all 3 browser scenarios pass. Repeated held messages create no additional runs or provider prompts and do not replay writes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm check:module-boundaries` - `git diff --check` `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. The full local `pnpm test:run` invocation did not finish green: it encountered exhausted local PostgreSQL shared-memory slots, a missing fresh-worktree runner test binary, and tests loaded across in-flight edits. The affected chat/database suites passed on rerun (81 tests), and the targeted lifecycle/recovery verification passed (3 tests). After building the runner test binary, the full native session suite also passed (37 tests). Final-head [CI run 34621288475](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34621288475) passed on `8659618b0ed2b98df002a28f4c1bd97321b0db04`, including all server/workspace test shards, all three browser shards, runner verification, typecheck, build, release dry run, and the aggregate verification gates. All 31 reported checks passed; the two conditional Storybook checks were skipped as intended. Greptile reviewed that exact commit at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks The wait record is diagnostic only. It must never count as a delivered wake or bypass a current gate. Tests cover repeated and concurrent admission, resolved no-replay evidence, a remaining dependency after hold clearance, deferred comments, and release gating. Explicit user requests and authorized chat receipts do not share automatic diagnostics. No migration or historical data deletion is required. Existing provider retry budgets remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The runtime does not expose the exact hosted snapshot ID or context-window size. Used repository inspection, code editing, command execution, tests, and review 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1d26ae965e |
fix(ui): keep active runner status current and say Working (#13238)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task transcript shows a running agent's progress.
> - The active-run query stops polling when the live-run list has data.
> - The transcript still preferred that initial snapshot, so an old
execution-confirmation state could remain after work resumed.
> - This pull request uses the refreshed snapshot for the same run and
keeps active status text at Working.
> - Operators can see current activity without connection-state jargon.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The task transcript said Reconnecting while the runner continued sending
messages and calling tools. The stale projection could also hide the
Thinking tail or stop the status spinner and timer.
**Expected behavior**
The selected run uses its current live snapshot. Active transcripts say
Working and show current activity. Completed and failed runs say Worked
and Stopped.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a running task before its execution confirmation arrives.
2. Let the active-run query stop polling when the live-run list returns
the run.
3. Let the list refresh to working while the cached active-run snapshot
still says reconnecting.
4. Inspect the transcript status and activity tail.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Base commit:
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4fde92107e |
fix(ci): reuse cloud source verification for npm canaries (#13233)
Reuse the exact master source-verification result before npm canary publication, removing a duplicate verification matrix while preserving fail-closed release checks. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
52811c6ce6 |
fix(tasks): require resume before sending to paused tasks (#13232)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task execution controls let board users pause a task or its subtree. > - The composer still accepted messages while a pause hold was active. > - A paused task must require an explicit resume before the user can send another message. > - This pull request replaces the composer with an amber pause card and checks board comment writes on the server. > - The user keeps their draft and resumes through the existing task controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13104. Refs #13119. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The task composer and existing task/subtree pause controls. **Current behavior** A paused task can still receive a board message. The pause notice sits outside the composer, which leaves the send action available. **Proposed behavior** Show an amber takeover in both task chat and the classic composer. Preserve the draft. Require the user to resume the task or the ancestor subtree before sending. Reject board comment writes through either supported write route while the pause hold is active. **Breaking changes** Board comment writes to a paused task now return HTTP 409. Agent run reports remain supported during a pause. There is no schema migration. ## What Changed - Add a shared amber composer takeover with task, subtree, saved draft, pending, and error states. - Use effective ancestor pause state in both composer interfaces. Refresh it after pause events, task updates, and rejected sends. - Preserve draft text and attachments. Hide editor, send, queued edit, and pending question controls while paused. - Check active pause holds before board comment writes can mutate tasks, store comments, or wake agents. - Connect the approved Storybook examples to the production component and update the design and behavior docs. - Add browser coverage for both composers, draft persistence, resume, inherited holds, and rejected writes. Update ACP continuation coverage for the explicit resume requirement. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - Passed: `pnpm build-storybook`. - Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check`. - Passed: focused UI tests (398 tests) and server route tests (127 tests). - Passed: `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/paused-composer.spec.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` (5 tests). - Passed: manual browser walkthrough in a disposable local instance. Pause with a draft, refresh while paused, resume, send, and reopen. The draft returned, and one message persisted. The amber card and resume dialog were readable with no clipping. - Full local `pnpm test:run` did not pass: the general-server stage recorded 9,072 passing tests, 6 database setup failures from macOS shared-memory exhaustion, and 4 failed tests. This stopped the script before its later groups. Latest-head CI runs those groups independently. - Local follow-up: the Git file-resource load test passed on rerun (4 tests); native finalization migration passed after clearing the abandoned browser-test database allocation. Building the native debug fixtures fixed the missing fake provider. The remaining native-session recovery assertion also reproduces on untouched base commit `87b3e5fc6` (36 pass, 1 fail on both base and PR). It expects a settled-session error but receives a semantic-input-digest error. - The final UI build, UI typecheck, token gates, both thread suites (182 tests), and all five browser tests passed after the queued-action review fix. All 31 latest-head CI checks passed, including all server, workspace, browser, build, release, and security gates. Two optional Storybook jobs were skipped by workflow policy. Greptile reviewed `32d8fb5f5` at 5/5 with no open findings. - Review the Paused Composer and Tasks / Execution Controls stories. Pause a task with a draft, verify the amber card, resume, and verify the draft can be sent once. ## Risks - Clients that used board comments to continue paused work must resume first. The response is an explicit HTTP 409. - Pause state can change while a page is open. Live updates refresh the composer, and the server rejects stale sends before their side effects. - Resume keeps the existing dialog and optional agent wake behavior. Agent reports from interrupted runs remain allowed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with design, implementation, code execution, and browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning and tool calls. ## 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 the relevant tests locally and they pass; the full local-suite limits are documented 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>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.10 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
96bba78fba |
feat: add readable Storybook branch bookmarks (#13231)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Maintainers use Storybook previews to review the board UI. > - Branch previews need stable bookmarks that people can read. > - The current publisher only provides a hashed branch path. > - This pull request adds a readable branch bookmark after each successful upload. > - Existing branch and build links keep working. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13226. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Manual Storybook publication for repository branches. **Current behavior** The stable branch path contains a hash. The expected `/storybook/branches/master/` URL does not exist. **Proposed behavior** Each publication updates a readable bookmark. The action summary and Markdown artifact link it. Master uses `/storybook/branches/master/`. Other names use a safe path segment that preserves case and escapes special characters. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can save and share a readable URL that opens the latest published branch build. **Breaking changes** None. Existing hashed branch entries still update. Existing build URLs remain valid. **Additional context** This follows the publisher in #13226. A duplicate search found no related bookmark change. It does not overlap planned core work in ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Generate readable branch bookmarks without collisions with existing build directories. - Upload the bookmark only after the full build and compatibility entry uploads succeed. - Link the bookmark in the existing summary and Markdown artifact. - Document branch-name escaping and test path isolation, stable links, and upload order. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 20 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - `git diff --check`: passes. - [Master bookmark publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613344758): passed. Opened `/storybook/branches/master/` in the browser and confirmed a story renders. Downloaded the Markdown report and verified its bookmark link. - [Feature branch bookmark publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613449034): passed. Its separate bookmark uses `codex~2Fstorybook-bookmarks`. - Greptile: 5/5 on `dccaf10413ecf447cb34e622b6b3c505791abb51`, with no unresolved review threads. All current-head Paperclip CI gates pass, including typecheck, tests, build, browser suites, and the canary dry run. - Full local repository checks were not repeated for this focused publisher change. The preceding run passed typecheck but encountered unrelated native-session test failures. ## Risks - Special characters in branch names use `~HH` byte escapes. For example, `feature/foo` becomes `feature~2Ffoo`. - Names that could overlap an existing hashed build directory escape the final hyphen. Very long names retain a hash suffix. - The two branch entries update separately. If the final upload fails, the workflow fails and a rerun can repair the bookmark. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and live deployment verification. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are 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 `#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
|
3b03c4b9eb |
perf(ui): keep long task chat responsive during streaming (#13229)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets operators manage agent work through tasks. > - Task chat keeps responses and run history together. > - A live update rendered every historical bubble and hidden tool row again. > - New image callbacks also forced unchanged markdown to parse again. > - Long conversations saturated the browser main thread. > - This change reuses unchanged history and mounts folded tools on first inspection. > - Operators can read and reply while work continues. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Chat-style tasks with substantial scrollback became almost unusable. A deterministic browser reproduction with 200 long responses and 4,000 tools consumed 97.8% of the main thread during live updates. It delivered only 8 updates during the sample. **Expected behavior** The task should remain responsive during streaming. Historical markdown and unopened run details should not repeat expensive render work. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install dependencies with `pnpm install`. 2. Run `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/perf/task-chat/playwright.config.ts`. 3. Compare the attached performance JSON. The new test fails against the original rendering code. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced at `a05b828bc`. The branch is rebased on current master. **Deployment mode** Local Chromium and Vite with deterministic fixtures. No database or agent credentials are required. Related work: #10463 reduces the issue-page bundle. This change addresses repeated rendering after the page loads. No duplicate scrollback fix was found. ## What Changed - Keep the bubble image callback stable so unchanged markdown can skip parsing. - Memoize the settled history separately from the header and streaming tail. Keep the brief renderer and default attachment array stable. - Mount folded tool history on first expansion. Keep it mounted afterward to preserve child state and closing motion. Runtime request receipts remain visible. - Add deterministic rendering tests to the normal Vitest suite and an opt-in Chromium regression fixture. - Document the reproduction, commands, scope, and local measurements. ## Verification - Browser reproduction: 97.8% main-thread utilization before; 11.6% after for tail-only updates; 31.5% after when projection recreates history objects. Both fixed cases delivered 32 updates. - Browser checks pass for scroll-position retention, typing, return to latest, tool inspection, and retained expansion state. - Focused component suite: 155 tests passed. Post-rebase thread/performance rerun: 101 tests passed. - Recursive typecheck, build, Storybook build, and token gates passed. UI typecheck passed after the final edits. - Local UI/CLI lane: 5,910 tests passed; ten files hit worker-start timeouts, then all ten passed with two workers (20 tests). Shared/adapter lane: 3,128 tests passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and is **not green**: its server lane recorded 10,517 passes and 11 failures plus fixture/setup errors. Queue (31 tests), Cursor/Git-load (9 tests), and missing-binary failures cleared on isolated reruns / building the runner test binaries. Two native suites still cannot initialize embedded PostgreSQL on this host. - The remaining native-session recovery assertion was reproduced in a clean worktree at base `a20ecce40` (1 failed, 67 passed across the native/queue suites). It expects a settled-session error but receives a semantic-tool-input digest error. No server or runner files changed in this PR. - All substantive CI jobs have passed, including build, typecheck, all server/workspace test shards, all three e2e shards, and the canary dry run. The unchanged Slack ordering test exhausted its one-second wait on the first run; its shard passed on rerun. Final aggregate verification passed: **31 passing checks**, no failures or pending checks; two optional Storybook deployment/visual checks were skipped. Greptile is **5/5**, with no unresolved review threads. - The supplemental local serialized route run was stopped after CI passed all five serialized shards; it had reported no failures. - The browser fixture uses the real chat rendering components with a plain textarea. It does not test the full composer or server transport. Timing results are local samples; deterministic render-count tests provide normal CI coverage. ## Risks - Closed tool content becomes available to DOM search only after first expansion. Visible run summaries and runtime request receipts remain available immediately. - Opened run history remains mounted to preserve child state. The first full markdown render still scales with conversation size. - Memo dependencies must stay current when adding render inputs. Tests check content edits and replacement gallery callbacks. - No API, database, or permission changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. No sub-agents were used. ## 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — targeted/UI/workspace checks pass; the full local server suite has the baseline/host failures documented 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1616046c24 |
fix(runner): prevent trace scans from delaying live events (#13228)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The native runner sends events that keep task state and steering
controls current.
> - Debug trace correlation reread and parsed the full trace for each
pending event.
> - Repeated scans blocked event delivery and left task state minutes
behind the provider.
> - This pull request indexes appended trace records once and reuses
those correlations.
> - Operators get current run state while native trace evidence remains
available.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Native runs appeared live after their provider turn ended. Steering was
unavailable while the board still showed an active run. A CPU profile
attributed 93% of sampled time to trace lookup and file reads.
**Expected behavior**
Debug trace correlation must not delay run events or task state by
minutes.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable native provider trace capture for a Codex run.
2. Produce a long event stream with pending correlations.
3. Compare provider event times with persisted run event times.
**Paperclip version**
Reproduced on source build
canary/v2026.911.0-canary.9
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
87b3e5fc61 |
fix(adapter-utils): stage selected skills into the sandbox for a remote Claude ACP run (#13196)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A user selects skills for an agent, and the host materializes those skills into a bundle the agent reads > - An agent can run in a remote sandbox, where the host must stage every file the agent needs > - On the Agent Client Protocol lane the host built that bundle and then named its host path in the prompt, but it never staged the bundle into the sandbox > - The agent therefore read a path that does not exist inside the sandbox, and the run failed on the missing skill file > - The command-line lane of the same adapter already stages a `skills` asset and reads the in-sandbox directory back from the staged runtime > - This pull request carries that proven pattern to the Agent Client Protocol lane, so a selected skill reaches the agent in a remote run ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this change. The description follows. **What happened?** A remote run of the Claude adapter on the Agent Client Protocol lane could not read any selected skill. The host builds the skill bundle in its own state directory, then writes that host path into the prompt as `Skill root: <path>`. The remote seam of that lane staged one asset only, the configuration seed. It staged no skills asset, so no skill file crossed into the sandbox. The agent then tried to read the skill file at the host path, and the read failed with a missing-file error. **Expected behavior** A remote run receives the skills the user selected, and the prompt names the directory that holds those skills inside the sandbox. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Select one or more skills for an agent that uses the Claude adapter. 2. Start a run for that agent in a remote sandbox on the Agent Client Protocol lane. 3. Ask the agent to read the skill file at the path the prompt names. The file is not there. **Agent adapter(s) involved** The Claude local adapter, on its Agent Client Protocol lane. The shared engine in `packages/adapter-utils` carries the prompt rewrite. **Additional context** The command-line lane of the same adapter already stages a `skills` asset and remaps onto the staged directory. This change reuses that mechanism instead of adding a new transport. One other adapter shows the same host-path shape on its own Agent Client Protocol lane. That lane is tracked separately and this pull request does not change it. ## What Changed - Return the host skill bundle directory from the Claude skill runtime step, and carry it through the remote managed-home context to the staging seam. The value is null for a non-Claude agent, for a run that selects no skill, and for a run whose selected skills all fail to materialize. - Stage that bundle as a `skills` asset on the Claude Agent Client Protocol remote seam, and only when the run selected a skill. - **Stage that asset with `followSymlinks: false`.** The bundle holds an owned copy of each selected skill, and the copy step never copies a symbolic link at the root or at any depth. So the bundle contains no symbolic link, and staging has none to follow. Refusing to follow one also stops a link planted in the bundle directory after the copy from pulling an unrelated host file into the sandbox. A regression test walks the real adapter sources and pins the reviewed `followSymlinks` value at every skills staging site, so a new or changed site fails the test. - **Drop a skill whose staged copy has no usable `SKILL.md`** from the prompt, the skill identity, the command notes, and the bundle, and log which skill was dropped and why. Without this, a skill whose copy failed, or whose `SKILL.md` is a symbolic link the copy step skips, stayed advertised in the prompt while its file was absent — the same missing-file symptom this change exists to fix. - Rewrite the `Skill root:` prompt line, the skill identity, and the command notes onto the in-sandbox directory. The rewrite runs in the engine, after the workspace placement returns the staged runtime. A compatible session resume reuses the cached staged runtime, so the rewrite runs on that path too. - Keep the session fingerprint on the host-independent skill identity. A change to the selected skill set still invalidates a warm session, and the volatile sandbox path stays out of the hash. - A local run, and a run with no selected skill, keep their current behaviour. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local src/server/acp.test.ts` — 28 of 28 pass. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts src/skills-staging-follow-symlinks.test.ts` — the new engine tests and the staging-site tests pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit`, and the same check on the adapter package — both exit 0. - The end-to-end test drives the lane against a local sandbox stand-in. It reads the skill root out of the prompt the runtime received, and then opens the skill file at that path. That is the reported symptom, proved closed. - The new tests carry a sensitivity control. Restoring only the production files to their previous content fails 7 of the 9 new tests. The other 2 do not depend on production code: one is a parser unit test for the source scanner. ## Risks Low risk, and the change is a two-way door. A revert restores the previous behaviour exactly. - **Scope.** The change touches one adapter lane. It does not change the local lane, and it does not change any other adapter. No existing staging site changes its `followSymlinks` value. - **The staged bundle and the workspace.** The staged skills land under the runtime directory inside the workspace. The workspace restore excludes that whole runtime directory, so the staged skills never return to the host worktree. A test proves the exclusion end to end. - **Session reuse.** The rewritten path never enters the session fingerprint, so it cannot invalidate a warm session, and a compatible resume applies the same staged path. - **Direction of data.** Files move from the host into the sandbox only. The change adds no path that writes sandbox content onto the host. - **A dropped skill.** A skill with no usable `SKILL.md` is now absent from the prompt instead of named but unreadable. The run logs the skill and the reason, so the cause is visible. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), with extended thinking and tool use, through Paperclip agents. ## Test plan - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local src/server/acp.test.ts` passes — 28 tests. - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts src/skills-staging-follow-symlinks.test.ts` passes. - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit` exits 0. - [x] All continuous-integration gates are green. - [x] The automated review reports no open finding against the current head. ## Required 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 described the issue in-PR following the relevant bug report template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run the targeted tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect this change - [x] I have considered and documented the risks above - [x] All continuous-integration gates are green - [x] The automated review score is 5/5 with no open current-head findings - [x] I have addressed every reviewer comment that applies to the current head **Note on the branch history.** This branch first carried a different change: a filename-based admission filter that refused to stage files such as `.env` from a skill directory, together with a switch from symbolic-link bundles to copied bundles. That approach was rejected and **reverted** on this branch. It does not match the documented trust boundary, because the host already delivers credentials into the sandbox on purpose, and replacing the symbolic-link bundles broke live editing of a skill. The revert is in this branch's history. The file that work changed, `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`, is byte-for-byte identical to `master` here and is not part of this diff. Earlier review findings that name that file target the reverted code. All of them are resolved, and the automated review passes on the current head. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
974949a39b |
ci: spread cloud server verification across ten runners (#13227)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud waits for source verification before deploying a new image. > - The slowest server verification job spends about ten minutes running tests. > - Each job uses one test worker to preserve test isolation. > - This pull request distributes those suites across ten standard hosted runners. > - The benefit is a shorter verification path with the same test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Current behavior** In [readiness run 34572340764](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34572340764), the slowest server job ran for 638 seconds. Test execution used 594 seconds. This held readiness behind the image job. **Proposed behavior** Use ten general server jobs in the reusable release verification workflow. Keep the three chat jobs and every existing prerequisite. The complete partition test verifies that no server suite is omitted or duplicated. **Reason and benefit** Reduce merge-to-deployable time on the existing runner type. The next longest prerequisite was Runner verification at 526 seconds, so the initial expected total gain is about two minutes rather than a halving of readiness time. Measure actual queue and execution time before claiming a result. Related: #13198 introduced the separate chat lane. #12577 refreshes duration estimates; this change leaves that manifest alone. ## What Changed - Increase the general server matrix from five jobs to ten. - Verify the ten-way partition covers the complete server suite when combined with the chat lane. - Document runner demand and the unchanged local and PR grouping. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 29 passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`: passed. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed, including the complete Linux test partition, build, typecheck, and browser gates. Greptile: 5/5 with zero open findings. - [Ten-shard timing probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34606772388): all 16 jobs passed; slowest server job 6m 23s versus 10m 38s in the earlier five-shard sample. This compares the server lane, not total readiness, and is not a controlled same-source A/B. - The full local `pnpm test:run` is also running. It has reproduced previously observed macOS-only failures in unchanged skill-cache and native-session suites; the corresponding Linux CI suites passed. Final local results will be attached separately. No affected-workflow test failed. ## Risks Five additional concurrent jobs per release verification run increase runner demand and repeated setup work. Queueing can offset the gain. Test workers, timeouts, permissions, and readiness requirements stay unchanged. Revert the matrix and its partition test to restore the previous split. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed by 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 `#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 the affected workflow tests locally and they pass; full-suite macOS limitations are disclosed 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a20ecce409 |
feat: publish CODEOWNER-approved Storybook branch previews (#13226)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Maintainers use Storybook to review the board UI. > - Reviews need public previews of selected repository branches. > - Each branch needs its own URL so previews do not replace each other. > - This pull request adds manual, CODEOWNER-controlled publishing to S3 and CloudFront. > - The action returns stable branch links and permanent build links in its summary and a Markdown artifact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The existing Storybook build and manual visual-review workflow. **Current behavior** The repository has no manual branch-preview publisher. A single GitHub Pages site cannot support independent publishers without combining their output. **Proposed behavior** A CODEOWNER selects a source branch and approves publication. Each branch has a stable CloudFront URL. A completed build becomes the branch target only after its upload succeeds. The action attaches `storybook-deployment.md` with the preview links and source commit. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can share multiple branch previews at the same time. Branch builds have no repository token permissions or AWS credentials. Dependency caching and install hooks are disabled. The publisher cannot write runner dashboard files or delete objects. **Breaking changes** None. Normal visual checks keep their existing behavior. This does not change application code or GitHub Pages settings. **Additional context** Searched public issues and PRs for Storybook deployment work. No duplicate deployment proposal was found. This is maintainer infrastructure, not a roadmap-level core feature. ## What Changed - Add `Storybook Deploy` with a source-branch input and a manual entry through `Storybook Visual`. - Check the original actor and rerunner against default-branch CODEOWNERS. Require a protected deployment environment with CODEOWNER reviewers. - Separate public-source builds with no repository permissions from an OIDC publisher restricted to the Storybook S3 prefix. - Publish distinct branch URLs and retain build URLs. Preserve Storybook deep links across the branch redirect. - Add the run summary, a downloadable Markdown deployment report, focused tests, and operator setup docs and IAM policies. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 19 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - [Feature branch live publication and deployment-only rerun](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533202273): passed. - [Master branch live publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533204743): passed. - Both public branch URLs render a component story without browser errors. A deployment-only rerun updates only the selected branch entry and preserves the previous build URL. - AWS policy simulation allows Storybook uploads and denies dashboard writes and object deletion. - Full local typechecking passes. Full local tests, build, and current-head PR checks are running. - [Revised build and Markdown artifact validation](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34605623088): passed. Downloaded the report and verified its branch URL, build URL, and source commit. - The public verifier also checks that the stable branch URL points to this build and rejects stale targets. ## Risks - Storybook previews are public. Maintainers must publish only public UI fixtures. - Retained builds accumulate until an operator prunes them. - Environment reviewers must stay synchronized with CODEOWNERS. The workflow fails closed if its environment loses required protection. - The existing CloudFront distribution is shared with runner reports. Separate S3 prefixes and a dedicated role prevent the publisher from overwriting those reports. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are 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 `#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 - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d10cbde815 |
fix(recovery): reject stale productive continuation wakes (#13173)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and runs. > - Recovery continues assigned work when no live execution path remains. > - A recovery sweep can read an in-progress task before its run completes. > - The sweep can then observe the successful run after completion has changed the task status. > - This pull request checks current status and assignment under the existing enqueue lock. > - A stale continuation leaves a skipped wake receipt and creates no run. > - Task chat also omits an empty continuation cancelled before it started because its task had become terminal. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related public work: #10779 and #8419. Those older open changes address terminal disposition across other recovery paths. This change uses the existing scheduler guard for productive successful-run continuation and adds real database lock contention coverage. **What happened?** Recovery could combine an old in-progress task snapshot with a newer successful run. It queued an automatic continuation after the task was done. Dispatch cancelled that run before it started, but task chat displayed “Couldn't start” below the successful answer. This can happen after the native runner's finish result has already been accepted. It does not require a missing comment. **Expected behavior** Productive continuation must remain eligible when enqueueing acquires the task lock. Completion, cancellation, reassignment, or a move away from in-progress must prevent creation of the run. Actual execution stops must remain visible. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let recovery select an assigned in-progress task whose latest run succeeded with productive progress. 2. Hold the task row lock in another transaction and change the task to done. 3. Let recovery attempt to enqueue while that transaction holds the lock. 4. Commit completion. Before this fix, recovery creates a redundant run from the stale snapshot. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master at `4042eb1c4` with deterministic integration tests. **Deployment mode** Built from source with PostgreSQL. The bug is in core recovery and is not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Pass the existing status-and-assignee guard for productive terminal continuation recovery. - Preserve a skipped wake receipt with the expected and actual task state, without creating a run. - Test actual PostgreSQL lock contention for native and legacy completion, cancellation, backlog, review, blocked state, and reassignment. - Omit empty redundant pre-start cancellations from native and legacy task chat. Preserve stop markers for runs that started. - Document recovery eligibility at enqueue time. ## Verification - All seven new race cases failed before the guard was connected. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Task chat suite: 98 tests passed. - Recovery integration suites: 290 tests passed, including 31 stale-queue tests. - Full CI verification passed on `7ea71f04d`: all 31 active checks succeeded, including all test shards, browser tests, build, typecheck, and canary release dry run. Storybook visual regression was skipped by its path filter. - Greptile reviewed this commit at 5/5 with no review threads. - The local `pnpm test:run` aggregate reported a setup failure in the unchanged `tool-access-service.test.ts` suite. Its isolated rerun passed all 231 tests without edits. The duplicate aggregate was stopped after the complete CI matrix passed; it is not counted as a successful local full-suite run. ## Risks Low risk. The backend guard applies only to productive successful-run recovery. It requires the task to remain in-progress with the same agent. Other wake sources keep their current policy. The UI change only suppresses empty redundant cancellations; run records remain available. No schema change or migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code edits, and local test execution. The exact deployment snapshot and context window are not exposed by 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 `#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 - [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
|
a05b828bcd |
Reduce run polling and workspace inspection amplification (#13174)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and shows run progress to operators. > - Run lists, live events, transcripts, and workspace details must remain responsive as usage grows. > - Run-list redaction rereads the full context for every run. Hidden tabs can still trigger requests through live events and manual timers. > - Workspace detail reads repeat Git inspection even when concurrent callers request the same state. > - This pull request batches registry reads, pauses hidden-tab refreshes, and caches Git inspection for display. > - Cleanup keeps fresh Git checks, and redaction keeps company and run boundaries. ## Linked Issues **What happened?** Run-list responses perform one extra database read per run and parse full context JSON to obtain small secret registries. Hidden tabs continue transcript reads and event-triggered refetches. Workspace detail requests repeat Git scans. **Expected behavior** A run list reads registries once. Hidden tabs stop recurring run reads and reconcile when visible. Concurrent workspace detail reads share a short-lived Git result. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open run lists and task transcripts in several tabs while agents run. 2. Hide some tabs and observe transcript and event-triggered requests. 3. Request a 200-run list and count redaction database queries. 4. Request the same workspace detail concurrently and count Git inspections. Related: #5255 adjusts polling cadence. This change addresses hidden-tab lifecycle, batched registry reads, and workspace inspection reuse. No duplicate with this scope was found. ## What Changed - Batch heartbeat and live-run redaction into one company-scoped registry query. Select only registry JSON for run and issue redaction. - Resolve duplicate secret values once per request. Preserve each run's registry and remove registry material from responses. - Suspend company event sockets and transcript reads while hidden. Refresh active queries and resume transcript offsets on return. - Prevent queued event invalidations and developer health polling from fetching in hidden tabs. Gate legacy run-log readers in both UI variants. - Exclude legacy plugin placeholder connections from remote health probes. Select only due connection IDs in SQL before the sweep limit. Preserve existing plugin records. - Cache concurrent Git display inspections for five seconds, with at most 256 entries. Leave close-readiness and cleanup checks uncached. - Add regression coverage and document the performance behavior. - Stabilize the existing Rust descendant-lineage fixture: allow a bounded 30 seconds for 300 durable notifications under concurrent test load, retaining every correctness assertion and adding timeout diagnostics. ## Verification - Regression coverage verifies one registry query for 200 runs, per-run isolation, request-local secret resolution, decryption failures, Git cache expiry/bounds, hidden-tab pause, and visibility recovery. - Real PostgreSQL redaction/run-route suites passed all 57 tests; workspace-service coverage passed. The health-sweep regression verifies plugin placeholders and chat connections remain untouched and do not consume the sweep limit. - Both legacy transcript viewers retain history and resume their byte offset after visibility changes. The related visibility/progress/chunk suites passed all 29 tests. Other focused UI suites and token gates passed. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. Affected-package typechecks/builds passed after review fixes. The concurrent Rust provider suite passed 84 tests (two ignored), and Rust formatting passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` stopped after the general-server group: 10,538 passed, 65 skipped, four failed. Fresh chat-delivery and health-sweep reruns passed; building the debug runner fixture cleared the native-event test. One unchanged native-session recovery assertion still fails locally with a semantic-digest error instead of the expected settled-session message. The full local command is therefore not green. CI runs the later groups separately and skips the two native-session tests requiring a prebuilt runner binary (confirmed in its 37-test native-session suite). - All CI gates pass on final head `ee610e737`: typechecking, general and serialized tests, browser tests, runner verification, build, and canary dry run. One server shard passed on its single retry after exposure fixtures encountered port 42001 where they assumed 42000; that suite also passed locally (25 passed, three platform-specific skips). - Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5 with no actionable findings. ## Risks - Workspace delivery display can lag local Git changes by five seconds. Destructive operations still inspect current state. - Hidden tabs do not receive company live-event notifications until visible. Active queries refresh on return. - This change preserves legacy plugin records and does not repair instance-specific workspace rows. There is no database migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact model identifier and context-window size are 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 `#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 (targeted regressions; full-suite limitation documented 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>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.8 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
932c8bec56 |
fix(ci): bake the managed runtime identity into cloud images (#13210)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed deployments start from the image built by the Cloud workflow. > - The managed runtime requests user and group 1001. > - The image currently builds the node user as 1000. > - Startup must remap that user, which can walk a large mounted home directory. > - This pull request uses the existing Docker build arguments to bake user and group 1001 into Cloud images. > - Matching the runtime identity removes that startup work and helps avoid health-check retries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13208, #1923, and #7861. Searched open and closed PRs for the Cloud UID change. The older #7861 addresses build context and volume ownership repair. This change uses the existing identity arguments in the Cloud workflow and preserves ownership repair. **What happened?** A measured rollout had a container log `Updating node UID to 1001` after startup. The container stayed at this step for at least 2 minutes 55 seconds before rollback stopped it. The baked node identity was 1000, while the managed runtime requested 1001. A health check timed out and the target required a second deployment attempt. **Expected behavior** Cloud images should already have the managed runtime identity. A matching image should skip user and group remapping. Fresh or mismatched volumes must still receive ownership repair. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Build the current Cloud image with its default build arguments. 2. Start it with `USER_UID=1001`, `USER_GID=1001`, and a populated home volume. 3. Observe the startup user remap before the application starts. **Paperclip version or commit** `fc06f7f05f42c675be71ff0927b6334405d520ed` **Deployment mode** Docker on managed hosts. ## What Changed - Pass `USER_UID=1001` and `USER_GID=1001` to the Cloud image build. - Check the pushed digest's baked identity before the entrypoint can repair it. Then check the normal entrypoint's effective identity and writable home before publishing the verified full-SHA tag. - Add a workflow regression and two entrypoint cases for a matching Cloud identity, including a mismatched volume. - Document the runtime identity and the first-build cache cost. ## Verification - Focused workflow and artifact tests: 27 passed. - Entrypoint tests: 11 passed. Actionlint passed. Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Full local `pnpm build` passed. The manual [Cloud image build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34575473213) passed on the exact PR head. It checked Sentry, baked and effective identity, writable home, orphan reaping, and full-SHA publication. The new identity check took one second. All 30 PR checks passed; the Storybook workflow was intentionally skipped. Greptile reviewed commit `114d408f637a0b53e2e2b1339c263779b1e4ae54` at 5/5 with no findings or open threads. - The full local suite for the same application source was already run in #13205. Its macOS general-server phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged files. Those failures included missing Runner fixtures, filesystem errors, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-count mismatch. After configuring Cargo and rebuilding fixtures, 37 of 38 native tests passed; one unchanged native-resume assertion still failed. Linux PR CI passed. This change adds entrypoint tests and does not change application code. ## Risks - The first build must rebuild layers that depend on the base image identity. Later builds can reuse them. - A future managed runtime identity change must update these build arguments and checks together. - The Dockerfile's self-hosted defaults remain 1000. Runtime overrides and mounted-volume ownership repair remain supported. - The observed startup delay supports this change, but fleet timing also includes provider startup, image pull, canary order, and retries. No fixed end-to-end gain is claimed before a live rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and tool use. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are 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 `#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 (focused workflow tests; full-suite limitations are listed 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>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.7 |