mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 12:04:41 +01:00
457a36e0d9a3386d4097db17b55bbaddab089b17
17
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Constantineandcucurigoo
|
276730d63e |
fix(server): recognize cross-package Zod errors (#10168)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip validates API request bodies with Zod and converts validation failures into client errors. > - The global error handler recognized Zod failures with `instanceof ZodError`. > - Monorepo dependency layouts can provide more than one installed Zod module instance. > - A valid Zod error from another instance fails that identity check and falls through as HTTP 500. > - This pull request keeps the native path and adds a narrow structural fallback for named Zod errors with an issues array. > - The benefit is stable HTTP 400 validation semantics regardless of package-instance identity. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related but not duplicate: Refs #6908. That PR catches `instanceof ZodError` inside validation middleware and returns 422; it does not cover errors created by a second Zod module instance, which is the reproduced failure here. **What happened?** An invalid `POST /api/issues/:id/work-products` payload raised a real Zod validation error but returned HTTP 500 because the error came from a different Zod package instance. **Expected behavior** All genuine Zod validation failures return HTTP 400 with validation details, independent of module identity. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Submit a work-product body missing the required `provider`, `externalId`, and `url` fields. 2. Ensure the route schema is resolved from a different installed Zod instance than the server error handler. 3. Observe HTTP 500 before this fix. 4. Observe HTTP 400 after this fix. **Environment** - Paperclip base: `14f20be92b86a49ff2c35495e5b0fa4d719998ef` - Deployment: self-hosted, built from source - Access context: board API - Adapter scope: not adapter-specific - [x] I searched open PRs for `ZodError`, validation errors, and work-product validation and linked related work above. ## What Changed - Add a narrow `readZodIssues` helper that accepts native Zod errors or structurally valid cross-package Zod errors. - Preserve existing HTTP 400 response shape and structured error context. - Add a regression for a Zod error object from another module instance. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - Full upstream CI test/build/e2e matrix passed. - Local post-deploy smoke returned HTTP 400 for the previously failing invalid work-product payload. ## Risks - A deliberately thrown object named `ZodError` with an `issues` array will be treated as a client validation failure. The effect is limited to returning HTTP 400 instead of 500; no authorization or persistence behavior changes. - No schema or migration changes. > This is a bug fix, not roadmap feature work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex `gpt-5.6-sol`, with tool use, code execution, repository inspection, and independent read-only review agents. ## 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 linked related public work and described the bug in-PR following the bug template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have considered documentation; no user-facing documentation change is required - [x] I have considered and documented 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: cucurigoo <cucurigoo@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cac3c0fa1a |
feat(connections): add runtime subjects and grants (#9982)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Connections is the subsystem that lets operators connect external apps and govern which subjects may use those credentials > - #9958 established the v3 schema foundation and #9981 adds the AppDefinition catalog layer > - The runtime still needs subject-aware authorization state, scoped key handling, and API/OpenAPI routes so connected apps can actually be granted and used safely > - This pull request adds the runtime grants/authorization behavior on top of the catalog branch, while keeping unrelated dependency and workflow sync commits out of the stack > - The benefit is a reviewable runtime layer that can land after the catalog PR, then unblock the wizard and orchestrator cutover work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9958 and #9981. Refs #9981. No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the runtime layer for the Connections v3 stack and is rebased onto `master` after #9981 landed. ## What Changed - Adds the connection user authorization state migration and schema wiring. - Adds shared runtime subject/grant types and validators. - Adds runtime grant and scoped key behavior in the tool-access service. - Adds runtime route coverage and registers the routes in OpenAPI. - Replays only the Connections runtime commits on top of the catalog branch, dropping unrelated sync/dependency history from the prior closed runtime PR. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium: runtime grant enforcement is security-sensitive and must fail closed for unknown key scopes. - Migration ordering depends on the schema and catalog layers already merged through #9958 and #9981. - This PR is rebased and retargeted to `master` with runtime-only commits. > 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 Codex coding agent with repository 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 - [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> |
||
|
|
89ce36d7af |
feat(skills): open-by-default company skill policy and core UX (#9564)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable across an organization. > - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and inconsistent denial handling. > - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments. > - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI. > - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate `paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR. ### Problem or motivation Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution. ### Proposed solution Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise Edition implementation in the core repository. ### Alternatives considered Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must receive its own PR. ### Roadmap alignment Extends the completed **Skills Manager** roadmap area by adding coherent governance and removing workflow dead ends. ### Additional context The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI integration code. ## What Changed - Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary. - Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused server tests. - Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and execution. - Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an operation is actually denied. - Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE repository. - Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company restriction exists. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - `git diff --check` — passed. - `git diff --name-only origin/master | rg 'paperclip-ee|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches. ## Risks - Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised. - Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions. - Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused review. - The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core policy API as policy actions evolve. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and code review capabilities enabled. ## 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 available to this runtime) - [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 or described the result 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 focused 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 on the latest head - [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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
88bf71b84e |
Reject projectless isolated git worktree tasks (#9231)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is an open-source platform for orchestrating AI agents;
agents run inside execution workspaces that range from a shared
container to full git worktrees cloned from a project repository.
> - Isolated git-worktree workspaces require a project to determine
which repository to clone — without a project the worktree base path
cannot be computed.
> - A task pinned to `isolated_workspace` + `git_worktree` with no
project was previously accepted at creation time but failed late at
dispatch with the opaque `workspace_validation_failed` /
`git_worktree_base_agent_home` error — only after the heartbeat
attempted to provision the workspace.
> - Fail-closed validation should happen in two places: (1) explicit
create/update pins that contradict the requirement are rejected at the
HTTP layer with a structured 422; (2) rows that reach the heartbeat
dispatcher with this invalid combination (e.g. through inheritance or a
retroactively-removed project) are blocked before any heartbeat run or
adapter spawn.
> - This PR adds the shared detection policy, the create/update guard in
the issues service, and the heartbeat pre-dispatch guard, together with
focused unit tests for all three layers.
> - The benefit is deterministic early failure with a clear remediation
message instead of a late, cryptic runtime error.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No upstream public GitHub issue — describing the problem inline
(bug-report format).
**What happened?**
Creating an issue with `executionWorkspaceSettings: { mode:
"isolated_workspace", type: "git_worktree" }` and no `projectId` was
accepted without error. The issue then became blocked at dispatch time
with the opaque message `git_worktree_base_agent_home` /
`workspace_validation_failed` — surfaced only after the heartbeat
attempted to provision the workspace.
**Expected behavior**
The platform should reject the invalid combination at create/update time
with a structured 422 that includes a clear remediation message, before
any heartbeat resource is consumed.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Call `POST /api/issues` (or `PATCH /api/issues/:id`) with
`executionWorkspaceSettings: { mode: "isolated_workspace", type:
"git_worktree" }` and omit `projectId` (or set it to `null`).
2. Observe: request succeeds (200/201).
3. Assign the issue to an agent and watch it enter `blocked` with a
cryptic `workspace_validation_failed` error at dispatch.
**Related prior fix** — Refs #4844 (`fix(validator): reject static cwd
combined with git_worktree strategy`) — same validation area, different
dimension (static cwd vs. missing project).
**Paperclip version / commit**
Latest `master` (pre-this-PR).
**Deployment mode**
Standard (app-global server).
## What Changed
- **`execution-workspace-policy.ts`** — new shared
`detectWorkspaceWorktreeRequiresProject` function returning a stable
`workspace_worktree_requires_project` policy violation when an isolated
git-worktree task has no project, project workspace, or reusable
execution workspace; exports canonical remediation text used by both the
HTTP guard and the heartbeat guard.
- **`issues.ts`** — create and update paths check the new policy before
persisting; explicit pins to `isolated_workspace` / `operator_branch` +
`git_worktree` with no project are rejected with a 422 including the
policy code and remediation text.
- **`heartbeat.ts`** — pre-dispatch preflight checks the same policy for
rows that reach the heartbeat with the invalid combination (e.g. through
inheritance); such rows are marked `blocked` with a skipped wakeup
request, durable issue comment, and activity log before any heartbeat
run or adapter spawn.
- **`execution-workspace-policy.test.ts`** — focused policy-layer unit
tests for detection logic and remediation text.
- **`issues-service.test.ts`** — create/update 422 guard tests for the
new policy.
- **`heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`** — pre-dispatch
blocking test for inherited/ambiguous invalid rows; also fixes a cleanup
race in the existing test suite.
## Verification
```sh
pnpm exec vitest run \
server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts \
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts \
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck
# Targeted regression
pnpm exec vitest run \
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts \
-t "blocks projectless isolated git-worktree issues before dispatch"
```
All three test files and typecheck passed locally before this PR was
opened.
## Risks
**Low risk.** The policy detection function is pure with no side
effects. The create/update guard only triggers on explicit
`isolated_workspace` or `operator_branch` + `git_worktree` pins combined
with a missing project — it does not fire on inherited settings (handled
by the heartbeat preflight), so there is no false-positive rejection
risk for valid tasks. The heartbeat guard fires before any resource is
provisioned; the only behavioral change for already-invalid rows is that
they receive a clear `blocked` status and durable comment instead of a
late cryptic error.
## Model Used
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`), 200k context window, tool use
enabled (agentic coding). Used to implement all server-side changes and
tests in this PR.
## 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
- [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > 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-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
43b005b704 |
Add pipeline workflow primitives and operator UI (#7903)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift notices, and linked work. > - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface, not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments. > - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes, CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the primitive reviewable end to end. > - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline workflow primitive stack. > - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator experience and server contract together against `master`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature request is described inline. ### Problem or motivation Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation, and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues, routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate. ### Proposed solution Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes, aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail, review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over fields, and retry/recovery flows. ### Alternatives considered - Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated workflow patterns. - Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch because the operator experience is the main way to validate the primitive. - Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same primitives are useful across future company processes. ## What Changed - Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts, server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke support. - Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment, blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and permission recovery behavior. - Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets, automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets, liveness banners, and source automation metadata. - Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared `DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent with the pipeline document surfaces. - Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current pipeline branch. ## Verification Current branch refresh: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19 passed - `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed - `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed - Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`: sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle. - GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket, Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review - Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — Confidence Score 5/5 - GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads Previously recorded during branch development: - Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests - Shared validator tests - UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests - Pipeline tutorial smoke path ## Risks - High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database, shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI. - Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master` syncs. - GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status checks are green. - Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references. > 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship. ## 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) - [ ] 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
|
c91a062326 |
[codex] Runtime control-plane fixes (#6380)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a server-side control plane > - That control plane depends on reliable issue state transitions, plugin lifecycle behavior, import limits, and startup/shutdown handling > - Several small runtime fixes had accumulated on the working branch and were mixed with larger feature work > - Keeping them separate makes the correctness fixes reviewable and mergeable without waiting for cloud-sync UI work > - This pull request groups the server/runtime control-plane fixes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a tighter, safer runtime baseline for retries, imports, plugin migrations, feedback flushing, and trusted cloud import handling ## What Changed - Fixed updated issue list pagination sorting and scheduled retry comment handling. - Re-applied pending plugin migrations during hot reload and fixed plugin-schema worktree seed restore. - Hardened public tenant DB startup, portable import body limits, trusted cloud import errors, and trusted cloud tenant import mutation access. - Expired stale request confirmations after user comments. - Added feedback export shutdown hardening so database-unavailable flush loops stop cleanly. - Guarded plugin worker `error` event emission when no listener is registered. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` - `npm run install --prefix node_modules/.pnpm/sqlite3@5.1.7/node_modules/sqlite3` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-lifecycle-restart.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/body-limits.test.ts server/src/__tests__/feedback-flush-controller.test.ts server/src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/board-mutation-guard.test.ts packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts` initially exposed local setup issues and two 5s test timeouts. - Rerun after local prereq build: `pnpm exec vitest run --testTimeout 15000 server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/feedback-flush-controller.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` passed. - Some embedded Postgres-backed tests skipped on this host because local Postgres init was unavailable. ## Risks - Runtime-touching branch: startup/shutdown and issue interaction behavior should be reviewed carefully. - The feedback export change disables repeated flush attempts only for database connection-refused failures; other upload failures still log normally. - The plugin worker error guard avoids process crashes from unhandled EventEmitter errors but may hide errors from code paths that expected an emitted listener. > 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-based coding agent with local shell/git/tool use. Exact hosted model ID and context-window size are not exposed by the local Paperclip adapter runtime. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
53dbcd185e |
fix: align telemetry client payload and dimensions with backend schema
Restructure the TelemetryClient to send the correct backend envelope
format ({app, schemaVersion, installId, events: [{name, occurredAt, dimensions}]})
instead of the old per-event format. Update all event dimension names
to match the backend registry (agent_role, adapter_type, error_code, etc.).
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
34044cdfce |
feat: implement app-side telemetry sender
Add the shared telemetry sender, wire the CLI/server emit points, and cover the config and completion behavior with tests. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
1420b86aa7 |
fix(server): attach raw Error to res.err and avoid pino err key collision
Extract attachErrorContext helper to DRY up the error handler, attach the original Error object to res.err so pino can serialize stack traces, and rename the log context key from err to errorContext so it doesn't clash with pino's built-in err serializer. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
2e7bf85e7a |
Fix 500 error logs still showing generic pino-http message
The previous fix (
|
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
8151331375 |
Enrich 500 error logs with request context and actual error messages
- pino-http customErrorMessage now includes the real error message - customProps includes reqBody, reqParams, reqQuery, and routePath for 4xx/5xx - Error handler logs full request context (body, params, query) for both HttpError 500s and unhandled errors Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
690149d555 |
Fix 500 error logging to show actual error instead of generic message
pino-http checks res.err before falling back to its generic "failed with status code 500" error. Set res.err to the real error in the error handler so logs include the actual message and stack trace. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.6
|
758a5538c5 |
Improve 500 error logging with actual error details and correct log levels
pino-http was logging 500s at INFO level with a generic "failed with status code 500" message. Now 500s log at ERROR level and include the actual error (message, stack, name) via res.locals handoff from the error handler. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Forgotten
|
f766478f5a | fix(issues): support hidden issue flows and filter hidden activity | ||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
abadd469bc |
Add server routes for companies, approvals, costs, and dashboard
New routes: companies, approvals, costs, dashboard, authz. New services: companies, approvals, costs, dashboard, heartbeat, activity-log. Add auth middleware and structured error handling. Expand existing agent and issue routes with richer CRUD operations. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
ForgottenandClaude Opus 4.6
|
c9d7cbfe44 |
Add API server with routes, services, and middleware
Express server with CRUD routes for agents, goals, issues, projects, and activity log. Includes validation middleware, structured error handling, request logging, and health check endpoint with tests. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |