mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 14:19:00 +01:00
42bc238aa5a1208cabecba76773e0500fcd33959
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
|
aaaad177eb |
fix(e2e): follow renamed project and Artifacts V1 download controls (#19323)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Product E2E journeys drive the real UI and run in the QA staging smoke plan > - Two UI changes landed after the previous QA deployment: the Projects toolbar action is now "Create project" (#18716), and Artifacts V1 is on for every instance (#19164), so attachment rows offer download as an icon link with an `aria-label` > - The journeys still clicked "Add Project" and required a visible "Download" text, so they timed out before reaching the server > - This pull request accepts both the old and the current controls > - The benefit is that project-task-context, build-revise and stop-redirect measure the product again on current deployments ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** On the QA deployment of |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e5713d95c6 |
test(e2e): add scheduled routine journey (#18728)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks, projects, and routines. > - Daily QA must exercise the staging app through normal browser and API surfaces. > - A schedule must create real work and retain its result and history. > - Pausing that schedule must prevent the next invocation. > - The routine journey in #18652 passed in QA, while its separate completion journey has not passed. > - This PR delivers the routine test independently and preserves its measured flow and assertions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #18652. This is the routine-only delivery from that PR. The original completion implementation and its failed attempts remain on #18652. ## What Changed - Add the target-independent `routine-scheduled-run` journey with one native run and seven required checks. - Start from the measured routine source `ac4efb7c6f4782ea806661683c656fd2b4cc3189`. Keep its request, seven success assertions, one native-run limit, and 65-second pause check. - Bound each observed GET by the original remaining journey deadline. Preserve the normal API timeout for other callers. Keep the original routine error if final trigger disabling also fails, save a closed secondary receipt, and fail an otherwise successful journey when disabling fails. - Narrow the shared output-reader type to its one-argument GET capability without changing its runtime code. - Register only this case in the catalog, types, feature associations, dispatcher, and definition hash. Keep the strict catalog expectation in sync. - Retain the real Routines component controls and the existing project-flow coverage for the shared browser helper. - Document resource cleanup and the 65-second pause observation. Preserve the current routine map content. ## Verification - The original source passed [QA staging run 41567574185](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41567574185-1/). TestOps launch 1657 / result 3431 maps to case 718. All seven checks and five phases passed. One scheduler-bound native run, saved output attribution, the full pause window, and cleanup were verified. - Current source `8f62137f130f59fd3e39276e3d60185ddff24517` passed [fresh QA staging run 41582706162](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41582706162-1/) against Core `09162fe893b464dd2ccdafd14bd3ef1611202a86`. TestOps launch 1855. All seven checks, five phases, and all three workflow jobs passed. The run used one scheduler-bound native turn and observed 65.352 seconds after pause and completion. Canonical evidence collection and normal cleanup completed, with no active operations and the owned agent terminal. - This fresh pass covers the reviewed deadline and failure-reporting changes in the current source. The earlier ac4 pass and the byte-preserving b940 extraction remain historical records under their original conditions; neither failed attempts nor prior source conditions are regraded. - Causal controls: six assertions failed on the old behavior, then all 62 focused controls passed after the repair. Local: 834 related support tests, 41 shared chat/output-reader tests, and 26 unchanged real component controls passed. Runner E2E typecheck, recursive typecheck, build, maps, token gates, and `git diff --check` passed. The temporary output-reader type mismatch exposed by typecheck was corrected by narrowing the capability type. - The first restricted build/typecheck invocations failed because local tsx IPC was denied. A restricted support run also lacked the report CLI output. The same source passed with normal owned local IPC allowed; the original logs remain retained. - The original head's hosted e2e shard 2/8 failed at the unchanged mobile preference frame-count test: expected more than five frames, observed five. The cause is unknown. Its original log remains retained; it is not labeled a proven flake. No CI rerun was requested. - Current-head full CI run 41580423918, attempt 1, passed. The fresh review is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. The broad local suite was not repeated. The earlier full local run recorded in #18643 had four failures and did not reach 164 serialized groups; this PR does not claim an all-local pass. - Prior failed routine attempts remain recorded. They exposed composer focus, collapsed schedule controls, pending browser events, and Markdown serialization problems. The measured later pass does not regrade those attempts. ## Risks - The shared browser-event helper also serves task creation and project creation. Its regression tests and existing consumers remain included. - The staging pass qualifies the captured source and configuration. The coordinator retains source merging, daily pinning, and plan selection. - The repository test and the unpassed completion test are not registered by this PR. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact deployment ID 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 issue/PR references) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
a4308b9791 |
test(e2e): add browser project and task context journey (#18353)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People group tasks into projects and use those projects to keep work in context. > - Deployment journeys already test task creation and assignment. > - They do not yet prove that a new project and its task keep the same saved relationship after reload. > - This pull request adds an explicit browser journey for that gap. > - Independent API reads and visible task properties must agree on the exact records and selected settings. > - The journey uses no model runs. Each deployment must pass before a daily plan can include it. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The deployment-targeted Product E2E suite can now check project creation and task context through the production dialogs. **Current behavior** The suite covers standalone task creation and assignment. It does not prove that a newly created project contains the task selected in the composer, or that the relation survives reload. **Proposed behavior** Select `project-task-context`. Create a unique project and a self-assigned task with that project selected. Reopen the project, open its task, and reload. Require exact saved company, project, title, prompt, user assignment and standard work mode. Require no agent runs before or after reload. **Reason and benefit** The same journey can qualify different deployments. It catches lost project links and incorrect saved context without a model call or a separate QA-only test implementation. ## What Changed - Add the browser flow and an independent saved-state oracle with positive and negative cases. - Scope project and task navigation to unique links in the main content so sidebar links cannot bypass list coverage. - Bind reopened routes to saved project and task references. Verify the main project heading and visible task content instead of a hidden duplicate sidebar label. Keep browser failures as closed stage codes. - Register the journey, its closed success checks, and its source files in the definition hash. Default model-matrix selections stay unchanged. - Associate qualification-report coverage with project lifecycle, project task context and task creation. Reject retained browser-only passes containing run IDs, provider/model metadata or native/legacy execution. - Add `project` to the existing durable ownership resource contract. A target provider remains responsible for cleanup of its own project fixtures. - Update discovery expectations, the deployment journey guide and the projects feature map. ## Verification - Focused runner tests: 110 passed across the new oracle, discovery, journey contracts and existing report subprocess checks. The first sandboxed attempt blocked the existing report subprocess IPC socket; the same selection passed with local IPC enabled. - Late review regression checks: both report association and unexpected browser-only model work reproduced as failing tests before the fix. The final contract, saved-state oracle and report catalog selection passed all 72 tests. Runner typecheck passed again after these changes. - Browser readback: the old project-name selector failed in Chromium when a hidden sidebar label preceded the production project heading. All six browser regression cases now pass, including missing rows, wrong project/task destinations and a wrong project property. The fixture uses the production heading and task-row overlay conventions. Credential-free Node 24 imports pass. - Current-master integration: 208 focused catalog, project/search, campaign and reporting tests passed. All nine project/search browser regressions passed. Runner typecheck, map checks and Node 24 imports for both journeys passed. The combined catalog, dispatch, source hashes, success checks, browser-only guard and feature associations retain both selections. - The first deployment qualification created both owned records but failed during later readback with a generic browser code. Authentication, setup, collection and cleanup passed. That failed grade is retained. The corrected source subsequently passed a fresh attached QA campaign; the original failure remains preserved. - New oracle alone: 7 tests passed after the final catalog mapping change. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` — passed; structural checks only. - Credential-free `--suite product-journeys --list` — passed and lists this browser journey. - `node node_modules/typescript/bin/tsc -p tests/runner-e2e/tsconfig.json` — passed after building required plugin, runner and eval-kernel declarations. The initial fresh-checkout check failed because those declarations were not built. - All current-head CI gates passed, including repository typecheck, tests, build and browser checks. Greptile reviewed the exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Fresh attached QA passed at `f19557c9eebde14c2def37195d6b154c23eb9690`: [sanitized report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41119722363-1/). All five independent checks and authentication, setup, journey, collection and cleanup passed; zero agent runs started. ## Risks - This adds an opt-in test and changes no production behavior or schema. UI control changes can fail the journey. - The target provider must support durable `project` ownership before it can run this case. Project cleanup must settle owned tasks, reject foreign linked tasks and archive the project while preserving history. - Source registration alone does not include the candidate in any saved daily plan. A fresh pass against that deployment is required first. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code inspection and tool execution. The host does not expose the exact underlying model revision 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 (no duplicate journey found) - [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 |