51 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	338bf75761	fix(chat): admit task Retry after GitHub reconnect (#17733) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their tasks. > - Task Retry must preserve saved input and enforce current access. > - A GitHub reconnect invalidates old runtime callbacks. > - Retry reused that old callback authority and rejected valid new intent. > - Retry also replayed an older failed request when a follow-up was already saved. > - This change admits a deliberate Retry under current authority and transfers saved input once. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16965, #17053 and #17317. These repairs preserve work and contain old executors. This change fixes the subsequent chat admission boundary. A search found no overlapping open reconnect/admission fix. **What happened?** Ordinary task Retry returned `chat_failed_run_retry_not_authorized` after the same GitHub App reconnected. The endpoint was healthy, but the saved request still carried its old runtime generation. A newer queued follow-up also made Retry reject the older failed request instead of continuing the follow-up. No successor was admitted. HTTP qualification found two related defects. Concurrent clicks could omit the canonical chat action from a response. Signed-in board dispatch also passed an incomplete task resource to the permission resolver, which rejected a permitted mutation. **Expected behavior** A deliberate Retry checks current authority for the same App, sender, repository, conversation and task. It continues saved input once. A later reconnect, changed App, revoked access or changed source prevents dispatch. Old runtime callbacks remain invalid. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Admit a GitHub request and record a failed native run. 2. Save a follow-up while execution is blocked. 3. Reconnect the same GitHub App. 4. Click ordinary task Retry. 5. Before this change, admission returns 409. Without reconnect, the newer input alone also causes 409. **Paperclip version or commit** Baseline source: `41c42895fa862c586ff841f8c50200d93ffc83a4`. **Deployment mode** Source checkout on macOS. Regressions use real PostgreSQL transactions and the assembled chat, HTTP route and heartbeat admission services. Provider boundaries are simulated. No hosted recovery is claimed. ## What Changed - Record the admitting App identity for new GitHub deliveries. Historical deliveries can use their original working-comment binding. Reauthorize deliberate Retry under a pinned current generation and credential-reference fingerprint. - Select the complete saved-input queue from the failed run's actual conversation before replaying the older failed batch. Keep exact-run Retry bounded while ordinary task Retry supports larger queues. Transfer its receipts with the dispatch transaction. Recover the same ownership after restart or a lost response. Release unadmitted input after a definitive rejection. - Preserve canonical chat action IDs across concurrent clicks. Supply current task status and assignment fields to board mutation checks. - Keep exact-run Retry, stale webhook, containment, source integrity, publication, pause and budget checks. Update recovery contracts and verification recipes. ## Verification - Red: all three new PostgreSQL regressions failed on unchanged production code. Reconnect failed at chat authorization. Newer input failed at the obsolete-source guard. The combined case also failed. - Green: 61 selected chat integration cases passed. These include 27 new cases and 34 existing cases for containment, retained-source recovery, exact batches and source revocation. - A further red/green PostgreSQL regression reproduces the 51-message overflow identified during review. All 51 messages reach one successor, including a later Retry of that successor. A separate 52-message consumed-batch regression also passes. - A competing conversation retains its own deferred message. Distinct automatic policy contexts are checked independently; revoking only the later policy blocks the whole unadmitted batch. Batch validation still rejects a later message with a changed App binding or deleted source. A real PostgreSQL query capture reduced the 51-message preparation from 1,103 calls to fewer than 180. - All 16 durable task Retry tests passed. - The real HTTP route returns 202 and admits one queued successor for concurrent deliveries. Fault injection covers rollback during input handoff, response loss after dispatch commit, and permission loss when resuming an existing durable wait. A wait only adopts input after current admission succeeds; a one-shot settlement marker keeps status projection read-only. A new deliberate Retry works after another reconnect or a failed successor. - Current-App, repository, sender, source edit/delete, reassignment, endpoint pause and board-permission controls passed. Historical deliveries remain unchanged. - Final-head CI: 55 checks passed, three expected skips. The unchanged minute-bucket rate-limit assertion passed locally against PostgreSQL and on its one CI rerun. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - Workspace typecheck and full build passed. Map alignment, module boundaries, UI token gates and `git diff --check` passed. - Hosted task recovery and a live provider turn remain unverified. The local tests hold agent capacity to inspect admission without starting a model or publishing a GitHub response. ## Risks - A deliberate GitHub Retry can admit old saved input under current connection authority. It requires the same App binding and current access. It pins that admission; it does not rewrite the historical delivery or make stale callbacks valid. - The durable chat queue has an optional admission callback. It transfers input only when the transaction contains a valid queued execution or saved wait. Other chat consumers have no callback and retain their behavior. - No migration, Cloud dependency, deployment, configuration change or workspace cleanup is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, source inspection, code execution and GitHub tools. The exact serving variant 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>	2026-10-26 10:26:45 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	7703220d38	perf(github): narrow response authority reads (#17686) ... Read current GitHub response identity and policy fields without transferring saved message bodies, instructions, or automatic policy wrappers. Preserve company predicates, shared locks, publication leases, malformed input handling, and stored content. Verify workspace typecheck, server build, 414 selected GitHub tests, three focused browser cases, all 55 checks, and Apex 5/5. Preserve the original browser cleanup deadlock failure; always restore experiment settings while reporting cancellation errors. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-25 20:52:09 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	39e5c8c1c3	perf(server): narrow committed chat authorization reads (#17530) ... Select current chat authorization fields for committed responses under the existing scoped share lock. Preserve complete evidence for actual retries, source revocation, JSON types, and saved run data. Full build, typecheck, 113 focused tests, complete CI, and exact-head Greptile5/5 pass. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-24 19:01:19 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	7ae81c9fa7	fix(slack): support rich questions and complete review delivery (#17255) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Questions and review decisions must work in the conversation where a task started. > - Slack omitted question context and did not publish several review kinds. > - Some answers saved in Paperclip also lost their authorized continuation or their final Slack reply. > - A settled card and a successful run did not prove that the user received the result. > - This pull request preserves complete questions and follows the existing answer and delivery receipts through continuation. > - Users can read the request, submit an authorized decision, and receive the resumed task's result in the same conversation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17045 and #17218. **What happened?** Slack question cards could omit instructions and editable starting text. Checkbox reviews, item verdicts, task suggestions, and connection requests had no publication path. Complex question answers submitted in Paperclip could fail continuation authorization. Several review continuations completed without delivering their result to Slack. **Expected behavior** Show the actual question and context. Use native Slack controls when they preserve the form contract. Otherwise provide an explicit Paperclip review link. Persist one authorized response, resume through the existing delivery path, settle the card, and deliver the useful result to its originating conversation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task in Slack and ask a text or choice question with instructions and help text. 2. Submit native text and choice responses, then submit a complex form through Paperclip. 3. Accept a checklist, submit item decisions, select suggested tasks, or decline a connection request. 4. Inspect the saved answer, continuation run, original Slack card, and final Slack reply independently. ## What Changed - Preserve full prompts, context, descriptions, recommendations, help, and editable starting text. Use direct buttons for short choices, inline searchable selects for longer lists, and native checkboxes with explicit submission for multiple choices. - Add native custom-answer and validated-text modals, ordinary confirmation buttons, checklist decisions, per-item verdicts with reasons, suggested-task creation/dismissal, and connection decline. Keep governed approvals, permission grants, and forms that cannot be represented faithfully in the full Paperclip review surface. - Keep Slack-specific canonical-validation feedback in its owning platform module. Shared callbacks delegate without interpreting provider presentation. - Reuse the existing canonical interaction transactions, callback receipts, publication queue, and continuation delivery. Share ordinary confirmation handling across Telegram and Slack. Recheck current authorization and commit response receipts atomically. - Settle cards with the saved answer and remove stale controls. Ignore passive Slack link callbacks so opening a task does not display a false answer error. - Validate exact multi-select receipt mappings during native continuation. Recover automation-origin connection replies from their published prompt after validating the durable connection receipt. - Keep oversized multi-select handoffs free of unused native tokens, and retain the complete Paperclip form for 101–128 choices plus Other. Make the original-conversation audience explicit before submitting a Slack modal. - Add rollback, provider serialization, callback, continuation, and negative authorization regressions. Update the connector playbook and feature/access maps. No React or application UI changes are included. - Add a durable Q01–Q11 qualification index and provider coverage matrix. Require distinct functional, good-experience, and best-available-control assessments; real unanswered/answering/settled evidence; saved results, continuation and navigation proof; and retained failures. Mark other providers unaudited rather than assuming Slack parity. ## Verification Candidate: `e0017d446b1016a38d65382366cd1408cce33039`. The eleven-core-format live Slack gallery is pinned to `c3d458b2a06b660448940fd8cf33c5906f0058d5`; subsequent boundary fixes and the sharing notice have automated verification, not new live screenshots. - Real Slack UI testing covered all 11 formats: text, closed choice, long single select, multiple choices, choices with a custom answer, pattern-validated text, confirmation, checklist, item verdicts, suggested tasks, and connection requests. Each has unanswered/answering/answered screenshots as applicable, an inspected saved result, one continuation, and an individual experience review in the local HTML gallery. - The dedicated private QA app/channel used signed callbacks to the local candidate. A separately approved password-protected, read-only preview proved connection-review, suggested-task review, and created-task navigation. Anonymous access, writes, and credential routes were denied. No OAuth grant was attempted. - Real testing exposed and repaired a multi-select continuation failure and a misleading error on link-button clicks. Failed attempts remain in the evidence. The final navigation replay opened the exact pending connection request and declined it in Slack without granting access. Suggested-task creation produced the selected child with the correct parent and description. - Final review-fix verification: **32 form tests**, **28 provider/form-rendering tests**, **30 publication tests**, and **171 native continuation/authorization tests** passed. Earlier **3 atomic-resolution rollback**, **9 targeted callback/publication/Telegram**, and **28 review-continuation** cases passed. The final Slack/Teams modal subset also passed. The automation-origin connection cases, 101/128 custom-choice cases, and oversized multi-select continuation reproduced before their fixes and passed afterward; failing logs remain retained. These counts describe relevant runs, not a reliability percentage. - CI on `b5885b85fd` exposed a test fixture that assumed every Slack modal block was an input; the new sharing notice correctly renders a non-input block. The fixture now selects input blocks safely. The exact signed-modal correction/one-continuation test passed locally, together with 14 Slack form/modal tests. The failing CI log and its specific cause remain recorded. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. Server typechecking was repeated after the final source changes. Map and module-boundary checks and `git diff --check` passed. - The full `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after repeated embedded PostgreSQL semaphore exhaustion on this host. Its 1,395-test chat suite found two stale native-control assertions; both were corrected and re-tested in a focused run. Focused database suites used separate disposable databases on existing local PostgreSQL. The full suite is not claimed green; new-head CI must complete before merge. - Final-head CI passed on `e0017d446b1016a38d65382366cd1408cce33039`: all test/build jobs and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates are green ([run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40115430194)). Greptile and Ponytail both reviewed this exact head at 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - All three QA app callbacks were restored to staging. Both temporary tunnels and local proxies were closed. The local endpoint was archived and its local credential copies removed. The candidate app was stopped. Limits: provider execution used a deterministic Claude protocol fixture, not an LLM. This is local real-provider UX proof, not deployed staging or broader Codie/Claude qualification. The public preview intentionally blocked ancillary artifact routes, so its destination pages could show a partial-history warning. The complete permission-grant flow and every oversized/mixed-form branch were not driven manually. Earlier fixture, test, and provider failures remain recorded. ## Risks - New reply routes require durable origin proof. Incorrect receipt matching could lose a reply or route it incorrectly. Tests cover missing, forged, mismatched, and revoked authority. - Governed forms keep their Paperclip resolution checks. This change does not grant new approval authority to Slack. - Existing completed review results can become deliverable through the repaired publication path without another provider run. - No schema, lockfile, workflow, public task-status model, or runtime-instruction change is included. This branch is not deployed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code execution and tool use. The exact backend 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [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 new head - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on the new head - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-24 10:29:15 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	3f1ad6b25b	fix(chat): resume task Retry after retained-source containment (#17317) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through task and execution ownership. > - A task Retry must retain the user's request while the system verifies an old executor. > - Connected conversations also retain their external principal and accepted source batch. > - Chat Retry admission required containment before it could save a wait for that recovery. > - A saved chat receipt could also remain deferred after containment became available. > - This pull request lets the exact recovery-bound request wait and resume through its chat owner. > - Normal admission still checks containment, current access and policy before one successor starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An ordinary task Retry on a connected conversation failed with `failed_chat_retry_not_authorized` while its retained remote executor still needed verification. The new recovery generation existed, but the chat action failed before it could save a dispatch wait. This occurred after the repairs in #17267 were confirmed live. The local regression found a second gap. A processed chat action with a deferred wake was not reconsidered after containment. Re-entering normal admission also tried to insert its existing durable receipt again. A historical hold for the same failed run could also hide the current Retry's workspace strategy, so the request still waited after the old executor was contained. Preparation could then read that sibling instead of the recovery record that owned the fresh successor, losing the fresh-workspace decision. **Expected behavior** Save the exact authorized Retry while its matching recovery generation verifies the executor. Once containment is recorded, reconsider the same chat receipt through normal admission. Start one successor with the original source batch. Keep publication, principal, pause and budget checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Admit a GitHub or Telegram request and record a failed native run with a retained remote lease. 2. Leave the executor's termination unconfirmed and exhaust its prior recovery generation. 3. Use ordinary task Retry to create a new recovery generation. 4. Process the connected Retry. The old admission code fails instead of retaining a wait. 5. With a deferred receipt, record exact containment and reconcile again. The old dispatch path leaves it stranded. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from `412914cfa78d5abefcc34d3eb8d4bb86e461caac`. The branch is rebased onto current master. **Deployment mode** Hosted tenant for the reported failure. Isolated local PostgreSQL and the assembled heartbeat/chat services for the regression. Refs #17267 and #16965. This change does not add a Cloud dependency or change the absence protocol. ## What Changed - Permit a saved admission wait only for the exact current task Retry and active source recovery generation. - Keep promotion and execution dependent on independent containment proof. - Bind a Retry to active automatic recovery without replacing its generation, attempt count or deadline. - Share the current exact Retry strategy across historical holds for the same run. Retain each hold's stop and effect checks. - Select the canonical recovery record that proves the committed fresh successor during workspace preparation. - Let task receipt reconciliation return the same deferred action to its chat owner. - Recheck current board and external authority, then update the existing wake atomically with its successor. - Preserve the exact chat source batch. Keep generic board-comment filtering unchanged. - Add GitHub and Telegram cases for waiting, containment, one successor, stale generations, source edits, endpoint pause and supersession. - Update recovery documentation and capability maps. ## Verification - Red: real PostgreSQL tests reproduced the admission rejection for GitHub and Telegram. Six active-recovery cases then failed on the generation-ID assumption. Two same-run historical-hold cases remained deferred after containment on the old strategy lookup. A preparation regression then returned no readiness when the historical hold was stored first. - Green: 73 selected chat integration tests and 394 continuation, task Retry, workspace recovery, recovery-state and workspace-preparation tests passed. The chat tests use the real chat admission and heartbeat queue. Unrelated capacity stays occupied so no real provider starts. They assert no executor before containment, one successor afterward, unchanged source leases while waiting, preserved recovery budgets, and denial after authority changes. A separate source hold still blocks work. Both sibling insertion orders pass through the committed-readiness lookup and real workspace preparation: the new directory has independent Git storage and files, and unpublished old work remains intact. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed after the review fixes. The source build passed on `f6660efa48e37a80cd9857217a537606de85b5c8`. - The local host reached its PostgreSQL semaphore limit. Successful runs used a test-only loader to reduce disposable cluster connection and worker limits. No repository database helper or application setting changed. - The full local `pnpm test:run` began before the final review edits, failed in its first server phase and was stopped after those failures. Later phases did not run. This is not a full local pass. The transient Retry-notice case passes after fixture isolation; the four Discord close-owned publication cases also pass in isolation. Other broad-run failure causes are not established. - Exact-head CI and security checks pass on `f6660efa48e37a80cd9857217a537606de85b5c8`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. Optional Paperclip Review completed neutral with a 5/5 static assessment of all 11 changed files and no findings; it did not run tests or hosted acceptance. All 57 current-head checks are terminal: 54 success, two skipped and the optional neutral review, with no failures or pending checks. - The real hosted workflow confirmed that the deployed absence repair recorded containment. A later ordinary UI Retry was accepted and saved a durable request, but it remains behind the historical source hold. The useful existing review remains unchanged. This follow-up is not deployed; a live successful successor and final task disposition remain unverified. No missing files are claimed recovered. ## Risks - The existing task reconciliation sweep can restage a deferred chat action. This reuses its receipt and generation; it does not grant new execution or publication authority. - Dispatch must keep the board Retry identity separate from the connected request's principal. The regression checks these bindings and preserves current chat authorization at each phase. - Historical holds reuse a strategy only from the locked same-run recovery that names the current Retry intent. A different run, malformed recovery record or independent source hold remains fenced. - Unknown executors without a matching active recovery still fail admission. Promotion and execution require containment even when admission saved a wait. - No schema or API shape changes. No credential changes, manual deployment or service restart. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution and browser verification. The exact served model variant and context window 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>	2026-10-23 07:51:34 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	4173059081	fix(inbox): keep advisory GitHub review waits quiet (#17318) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Mine shows a person's participation and requests that need their response. > - Automatic GitHub reviews should remain quiet until the assigned work needs human input. > - Review bots used completion requests to keep tasks in review while CI or a PR was still open. > - Those requests correctly entered Mine, despite the automatic-work filter from #16356. > - This pull request gives published reviews an existing provider-event wait in the in-review state and withdraws superseded completion requests. > - Real input requests and separate approval gates keep their current behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16356 Refs #13314 An advisory score below 5/5, pending or failed CI, or an unmerged PR does not by itself require a person's approval in Paperclip. The bot can track those conditions without adding a completion card to Mine. ## What Changed - Explain the quiet review lifecycle in the GitHub review instructions. Use a yielded provider-event wait, or an existing saved monitor, after publication. Report done when the configured completion conditions are met. - Keep a confirmed, published review in `in_review` during that wait. Reuse existing authorization and monitor delivery. Add no schema, timer, or polling loop. - Recognize the committed external wait in review attention and recovery. Shared execution receives a verified publication flag; GitHub receipt lookup stays with the GitHub module. Other chat waits keep their current status. - Withdraw an older system-created completion request only when the same bot has published both reviews and its new report has no attention request. Keep explicit cards, separate approval gates, and requests without the prior review evidence. Finish validation stays read-only; withdrawal commits atomically with the new status after checking current governance, the admitted result, and both low-risk contracts. - Update the product rule, capability maps, and regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit `7c502118eec36028d1b4537bb8797ef893940bf0`: 54 GitHub checks passed, two intentionally skipped, none pending or failed. Greptile is 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Rechecked server typecheck and build after the final authorization guard. - Passed: 195 tests across `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `status-arbiter.test.ts`, `review-instructions.test.ts`, and `issue-liveness.test.ts`. The database suite used an isolated PostgreSQL 18 container through `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL`. - Acceptance coverage: 3/5 stays in review outside Mine; 5/5 with pending completion conditions stays in review; 5/5 with satisfied conditions finishes quietly; a real repository-access request enters Mine until resolved. Also covers obsolete-card withdrawal, transaction rollback, rejected reports, separate approval gates, multiple reviewed heads, saved monitors, and revoked endpoints, repositories, or membership. - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check`. - The initial acceptance run exposed a missing authenticated user in the test fixture. Added the user required by the existing addressee authorization check. All 154 tests in that database suite then passed, including the final rerun. - Review found premature withdrawal during validation, stale repository access, and a missed receipt when a run reviewed multiple heads. The revision fixes all three and includes acceptance regressions. The saved-monitor commit guard now accepts the verified published-review state. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted but could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL failed to allocate semaphores (`semget: No space left on device`); a direct initialization probe confirmed the host resource limit. The isolated database run proves the affected suite, not the full repository suite. - These tests exercise persisted review receipts, finalization, and Mine queries. They do not prove a live model followed the new instructions or submit a live GitHub review. ## Risks - The bot must follow the new lifecycle instructions. A real explicit attention request still enters Mine. - Existing obsolete cards are withdrawn when the same bot publishes a later review and reports no human dependency. This change does not run a bulk cleanup of historical inbox entries. - Review attention now recognizes an external response path. It requires an applied current status decision, a successful bound run, and current conversation, repository, and principal authorization. - No migration or UI change. The full local test suite is unverified because of the host database limit; CI passes on the final commit. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment 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 (195 focused tests; full-suite limitation above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-23 07:14:40 -07:00
3 people	f3af9887ca	fix(chat): keep each chat conversation in its own wake batch (#17054) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels let a linked user talk to an agent from Slack, GitHub and other platforms. Each external thread is a chat conversation that is bound to one issue. > - One issue can have many conversations. A GitHub pull request review makes one conversation for each inline finding thread. > - When replies arrive behind an active run, the wake queue merges them into one deferred wake. The merge did not look at the conversation. > - A reviewed chat run can attest only one conversation. A merged batch from two threads always failed attestation with `setup_failed` / `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized`, so no reply got an answer. > - This pull request keeps each chat conversation in its own wake batch. The single-conversation attestation check stays the same. > - The benefit is that replies in different review threads each get their own attested run, one after the other. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16793 (related: chat origin during coalescing). No public issue exists, so the bug report follows. **What happened?** A linked user replied in three different inline review-finding threads of one pull request while the agent's review run was still active. The three wakes merged into one deferred wake. The promoted run failed in about 2 seconds with `setup_failed` / `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized` and `providerWorkStarted=false`. None of the three replies got an answer. The failed-chat retry cannot recover this batch, because a retry source holds one conversation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Bind two chat conversations (two GitHub finding threads) to one `in_review` issue. 2. Start a run for the assigned agent on that issue. 3. As the linked user, reply once in each thread. 4. Finish the active run. 5. See one promoted run that fails with `reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized`. **Expected behavior** Each thread gets its own run. Each run attests its one conversation and answers its reply. **Cause** `findExistingDeferredWake` matched on company, agent, issue and actor only. The active-run coalesce path had the same gap. `authorizeChatConversationForBoundRun` correctly denies a batch with more than one conversation. ## What Changed - `run-dispatch/domain/wake-context.ts`: add the `chatConversationId` wake-context key, a reader, and `wakeChatConversationsConflict`. A conflict means that both wakes have a conversation and the two conversations are different. - `issue-assignment-wakeup.ts` and `chat-channels/inbound/wakeups.ts`: stamp the conversation ID on each inbound chat wake. - `chat-channels/failed-run-retry.ts`: stamp the conversation ID on failed-chat retry wakes, so later replies do not merge into a retry from another conversation. - `wake-queue` admission: do not coalesce into an active run of another conversation. The deferred-wake lookup now matches only wakes of the same conversation or wakes without a conversation. - `heartbeat/queue.ts`: the same-scope queued or running coalesce target is skipped when the conversations conflict. - `doc/execution-semantics.md`: describe per-conversation chat wake batching. - Tests: an integration regression in the GitHub review block of `chat-channels.integration.test.ts`, and unit cases for the active-run branch in `wake-queue/application/use-cases.test.ts`. ## Verification - Red before the fix: `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t "replies in review finding threads"`. The main case fails with one run: `{ status: "failed", errorCode: "setup_failed", error: "reviewed_chat_execution_binding_not_authorized" }`. - Green after the fix, same command, 3 of 3 pass: - Replies in two finding threads give two successive runs. Each run succeeds, has `paperclipExternalChatExecutionBound: true`, and holds only its own comment and conversation. - Two replies in the same thread still give one run with both comments. - After the linked identity is revoked, each separated run is still denied (`setup_failed`) and the adapter does not execute. - `vitest run src/modules/wake-queue src/modules/run-dispatch`: all pass, with the new cases (different conversation, same conversation, run without a conversation, non-chat wake). - Related suites pass: `heartbeat-comment-wake-batching`, `durable-chat-wakeup`, `chat-failed-run-retry-boundary`, `issue-queued-comments-routes`, `heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation`. - Full `chat-channels.integration.test.ts`: 823 passed, 1 timed out. The timed-out test (`GitHub terminal receipt composes pinned HTTP and durable source authority (held_token)`) passes alone with and without this change. The sandbox has a 4 GB memory cap. - Not run locally: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The server `tsc` process was killed at the 4 GB sandbox memory cap. CI runs both. - Runtime dependency note: the deferred-wake lookup adds one JSONB predicate to the existing deferred-wake query. It reads the same rows. The query count does not change. The integration regression runs it against embedded Postgres. ## Risks - Low risk. No schema change and no migration. - Behavior change: chat replies from different conversations on one issue now run one after the other, not in one batch. Before this change, such a batch always failed, so no working flow becomes slower. - Wakes without a conversation (non-chat wakes, and wakes queued before this deploy) keep the old coalescing. A deferred wake from before the deploy has no conversation key, so one later reply can still merge into it. That window closes when the queue drains. - The check keeps the single-conversation attestation in `authorizeChatConversationForBoundRun`. Revoked identities are still denied. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), in Claude Code through the Paperclip agent harness. It used tool use (shell, file editing, test runs) and extended reasoning. ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-20 22:47:24 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	d33b40a5c3	fix: recover saved work and provide reliable task Retry (#16965) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must retain work when an execution or workspace export fails. > - Retained-workspace holds can leave saved input waiting with no usable Retry action. > - Users cannot verify process ownership or repair provider allocations. > - This pull request gives system recovery a durable budget and gives each deliberate Retry a durable intent. > - Safe recovery can preserve files, settle an accepted result, or prepare an independent workspace. > - One task state keeps infrastructure diagnostics out of the ordinary conversation while preserving real permission and approval gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with a retained workspace can show recovery, failed-run and saved-message warnings at the same time. Historical runs without native workspace descriptors cannot use the native restore path. Old recovery metadata can prevent a new attempt even when an independent workspace would be safe. **Expected behavior** Paperclip owns bounded infrastructure retries and file preservation. A user can request another attempt with ordinary Retry. Thinking appears immediately. The service preserves completed effects and current user controls. It does not claim that starting fresh recovered the old files. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a failed run and its workspace after export or process-stop failure. 2. Save a follow-up while the recovery hold is active. 3. Open the task and try to continue without infrastructure credentials or operator certification. Refs #16906, #16835, #16883. This extends their recovery and receipt contracts. Related work: #16962 and #16963. ## What Changed - Add task-level Retry with company-scoped authorization, all-status idempotency and durable admission before physical work. Keep exact-run Retry compatible. - Add typed recovery phases, finite persisted backoff, historical adoption and durable local failure diagnostics. - Preserve native workspaces or verified historical snapshots. Admit an independent fresh workspace only after execution containment. Keep old-source preservation and cleanup obligations separate. - Carry completed publication and API receipts forward. Fence uncertain mutation retries across replacement runs. Preserve connected-chat identity and authorization. - Re-enter normal dispatch for saved input. Reuse accepted results through the existing finalizer. - Use one task interruption projection across the thread, composer and task list. Show optimistic Thinking, ordinary Retry and genuine user gates. - Add PostgreSQL, filesystem, API, browser-fixture and controlled provider coverage. Document the behavior and update the feature/access maps. ## Verification - All GitHub Actions CI jobs pass on `6d8c6d27d50586d8548b31d03b47f6d73a0ee11d`: typecheck, all server/chat/workspace and serialized suites, Runner checks, eight browser shards, canary and build. The required merge gate passes. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. Its two earlier P1 findings are fixed. - Full recursive typecheck and build pass locally on the final commit. All 16 task Retry cases pass against isolated real PostgreSQL. The unrelated-success case and both stale Retry cases fail on the previous code and pass after the fix. - The corrected gateway fixture passes its uncertain-mutation and independent-read case. Four real HTTP API cases pass for definite 403/422 rejection, completed-effect reuse, and uncertain-effect fences across deliberate and automatic retries. These focused gateway/API checks used a temporary database lifecycle harness on an existing healthy local PostgreSQL process. The standard repository helper is unchanged. - Earlier qualification covers 291 task UI cases, saved-file copyback and ancestry, current Agent Chat ownership races, nine chat Retry API browser cases, and six assembled browser recovery fixtures. A real API/PostgreSQL/native-runner journey showed Thinking in 25 ms despite a delayed response, admitted one successor in a separate workspace, retained original files, and survived reload. - The controlled Daytona test interrupts export, joins the controller, restarts it in a separate process, and verifies one agent start, one external sentinel operation, retained file contents and no premature cleanup. It does not establish abrupt-kill or live LLM/GitHub acceptance. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and was not green: an OAuth row-lock timing assertion failed, and a later suite exhausted macOS PostgreSQL semaphores. The ten OAuth timing cases passed on rerun against a separate database. Later embedded database initialization failures remain recorded; the final CI matrix passes. - Security scanning passed on production-code commit `63953edf069b111c6becc3144dffa6deb52f68b5`. Its only successor changes one test-fixture identity line. The final scan is neutral/inconclusive because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. Both rerun API requests returned 404, so no fresh successful scan is claimed. Socket and Snyk checks pass on the final head. - The optional Paperclip Review remains queued behind an earlier run in workspace finalization. Its prior completed assessment was incomplete because a comparison tool was blocked by the platform filter. It is not counted as a completed code review. GitHub does not require this check for merge. - Hosted acceptance remains pending deployment. Local and CI results do not establish recovery of a hosted task or its retained files. ## Risks - Recovery changes span admission, physical ownership and dispatch. Incorrect evidence could permit overlapping work. Existing physical locks and authoritative stop requirements remain in place. - The migration adds concurrent indexes. It requires the existing top-level migration runner and retries incomplete index creation safely. - A fresh attempt can complete while old-source preservation remains unresolved. The service retains that obligation and does not report those files as recovered. - Unknown tool mutations remain blocked until their authoritative receipt owner resolves them. Generic upstream tools have no universal result-query protocol. - Recovery and diagnostics stay inside the stack. No Cloud incident endpoint, notification worker or new outbound reporting channel is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell execution, source editing and browser tools. No model subagents were used for this implementation. ## 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 suites; the full local run limitation is 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>	2026-10-20 19:58:53 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4b05795712	fix(github): reuse review instructions across native turns (#16971) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub events continue an ordinary task and can reuse its provider conversation. > - Each automatic event appended the full review policy and PR description. > - Native GitHub follow-ups also repeated task history because only Slack used the compact path. > - This pull request separates admitted review configuration from commit updates. > - A verified resume sends the current messages and changed configuration. A fresh session gets full context. > - This reduces repeated input while retaining review rules and current tool checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13959, #16645, #16901. **What happened?** Opening a PR and pushing twice stored three full review prompts. A later native turn repeated all three in a retained provider conversation. **Expected behavior** A new event supplies its commit and event data. The harness delivers stable review instructions once per retained conversation and configuration. Fresh sessions receive full instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable automatic GitHub reviews for a repository. 2. Open a PR, let the review finish, and push two new commits. 3. Inspect task messages and the native submitted envelopes. Before this fix, the policy and old requests repeat. ## What Changed - Store compact automatic event messages. Fetch the PR description through the existing metadata tool when needed. - Load review instructions from processed deliveries bound to the company, task, agent, and source comments. Preserve each admitted policy snapshot. - Use the existing verified native continuation path for complete GitHub text batches. Deliver configuration changes using a key over endpoint, PR conversation, revision, and instructions. - Keep full bootstrap input for fresh sessions and failed resume, including board follow-ups with no new GitHub event. Retain existing framing for incomplete batches, attachments, interactions, and recovery. - Keep the same configuration identity across automatic review, discussion, and automatic review. Coalesced requests use the last accepted request's admitted policy. - Add regression and database coverage. Update the execution contract and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red: the new event-size regression failed because policy and PR body repeated. The GitHub continuation regression failed because it returned no compact prompt. - Green: focused policy, continuation, native input, and adapter prompt tests passed (231 tests). Native resume/fresh-bootstrap cases passed (9 tests). - The signed-webhook/database case passed at `6296168253`. It checks configuration edits, queued older snapshots, coalesced policy selection, discussion continuity, board follow-ups, and company/task/agent/comment boundaries. The private PostgreSQL template used 12 connections because the host reached its semaphore limit with the default settings. - The earlier broad channel/session integration run passed 1,432 tests. Later review fixes invalidated that run. The latest focused database case passed after those fixes. - Reviewer regressions failed against the previous lookup, then passed with the fix: a mixed-revision batch delivered multiple policies, and a discussion lost the configuration identity. The board wake-to-rendered-prompt regression also failed before repair. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed on the final source. - Full local `pnpm test:run` exposed follow-up/fixture failures during development. Those cases are fixed and pass separately. The stale run was stopped after source edits. Full-suite validation for the final commit passed in CI. - All required CI checks passed for `6296168253`, including tests, typechecks, build, and clean public npm install checks. The two unrelated Storybook checks were skipped. - A live two-turn Codex smoke could not start: the local macOS sandbox helper rejected execution of the installed Codex 0.153.4 binary. No live GitHub/provider acceptance or deployment is claimed. ## Risks Skipping instructions is safe only after a verified checkpoint resume with the correct previous run. The full bootstrap remains available if resume fails. Changed or previously unknown configuration is sent again. Tests cover these cases. Tool authorization and publication checks still run under the current server policy. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact deployment model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. No delegated 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 - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-20 10:39:17 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	bc091f0a21	fix(recovery): recover retained workspaces before saved messages (#16906) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A stopped run can leave useful files in its original sandbox. > - The server keeps that sandbox when it cannot confirm file copyback. > - The task can then save new user input but offers no safe way to recover the files. > - A retry of the old agent turn can repeat work that already finished. > - This pull request recovers files through the existing workspace owner and delivers only saved human input. > - The user can recover a task without certifying infrastructure facts or losing completed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16883 and #16835 for publication receipts and verified process termination. Related: #16478 clears stale holds after copyback already succeeded. This change performs the missing export and records its proof. #16901 manages the main GitHub response comment and does not perform workspace repair. **What happened?** A failed run retained its workspace. A later user message stayed saved behind a file-repair hold. The task asked the user to verify process termination and file recovery but offered no repair control. Sending a message could show an optimistic Working state and move the task to Todo before admission succeeded. **Expected behavior** The harness should recover the original files when it can prove ownership and termination. It should preserve newer edits and completed operations. Only waiting user input may start another turn. Missing evidence must keep the source held with a specific explanation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Interrupt a sandbox run before workspace finalization succeeds. 2. Retain its exact allocation and save a user follow-up. 3. Observe the file-repair hold and missing end-user repair path. ## What Changed - Add source-bound background recovery for native and legacy runs. An accepted native result is not required. - Share the physical copyback lock and durable owner. Resume only the exact stopped allocation, export files, verify persistence and obtain a fresh stop receipt. - Persist retry limits and idempotent requests on the existing recovery record. Limit each server to two background exports. Add an indexed candidate scan and a separate cleanup obligation. - Add a task-editor recovery endpoint. Deny agents and viewers. Reject caller-supplied stop or repair claims. - Deliver waiting human input once through ordinary admission. Preserve pause, approval, budget and assignment gates. Require historical conversational-adapter evidence for legacy-to-Runner continuation. - Include exact GitHub publication receipts in continuation context. Preserve unknown effects and the original failed run. - Show observed recovery progress, a transient-failure retry action and specific service blockers. Keep saved messages visible. Suppress false startup feedback and implicit Todo promotion behind a file hold. Hide unavailable workspace links. - Update execution semantics, capability maps and production-component stories. ## Verification - Red: the original read model failed the new recovery-progress assertion; the other 23 checks in that file passed. - Passed: recovery regressions with 28 cases with real PostgreSQL, files, tar and Git operations. Lifecycle provider calls are controlled test boundaries. Coverage includes native/legacy export, concurrent owners, rollback after export, interrupted archive export with a new database connection, lost replies, historical discovery, durable retry limits, separate cleanup and saved-input delivery. The actual candidate query uses its partial index with 3,000 unrelated history rows. A first automatic repair can bind verified old-controller stop proof without an accepted native result. Review also reproduced and fixed export-only continuation and cleanup lost after a committed repair. Cleanup remains discoverable without waiting input and after task reconciliation. - Passed: two GitHub integration cases verify that continuation context carries the existing publication receipt and does not write another response. Company and task boundaries are checked. - Passed: 293 continuation, workspace-sync, platform-receipt and OpenAPI checks. After file repair, actual dispatch retains pause, cancellation, approval, real budget-policy and assignment gates. - Passed: 174 route checks, including editor admission, agent/viewer denial and rejection of fabricated repair claims. - Passed: 351 task detail, workspace properties and comment-reopen checks after updating the new read boundaries and asynchronous workspace-link expectations. Two new route cases keep held tasks Blocked when a comment is saved. - Passed: 265 task-thread and recovery-notice checks. The broader continuation suite also passed; its new legacy migration case first exposed a gap that the focused recovery suite now covers. - Passed after rebase: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The later master merge adds an unrelated permission migration; recovery migration generation and safety checks passed after the merge. - Passed: token gates, module boundaries, map structure and migration checks. The recovery index is migration 0360 after current master. - Browser: inspected the production recovery component and its retry-to-queued transition with fixture data. The first dev dependency load failed; a reload after optimization resolved it. This is UI evidence, not a live provider recovery claim. - Every test shard passed on final commit `bbbc09efb4`. The older local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the complete CI test matrix passed. Local full typecheck and production build passed. The first CI build compiled and booted, then lost its runner during the clean public npm-install check. An isolated retry passed the build, production boot and clean public npm-install verification. - Greptile reviewed final commit `bbbc09efb4` at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - The change is not deployed. Hosted recovery remains unverified until the served revision includes this change. ## Risks - Recovery crosses process, provider and persistence boundaries. Missing or mismatched ownership, stop, descriptor or file evidence keeps the hold. It never selects a replacement allocation or silently starts over. - File recovery does not certify external action outcomes or authorize replay. New input still uses normal execution admission. - Historical sources without sufficient durable evidence can remain blocked. Destructive reconstruction stays separate. - The index migration is idempotent. It changes no task data. Snapshot pruning follows repository policy. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with code execution and browser tools. `gpt-6-astra` assisted earlier investigation. The runtime does 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>	2026-10-19 21:51:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3b8324a233	fix(github): keep one main PR review comment and reconcile stopped work (#16901) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub connections send review requests to an assigned agent. > - A PR needs one main comment that shows its current review state. > - The response ledger used one comment per incoming request. Pushes and follow-up messages created more placeholders. > - Thread subscriptions also accepted requests addressed to external bots. Recovery could leave an acknowledged request without a final notice. > - This pull request shares the main PR comment, filters other recipients, and reconciles stopped work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16874 showed the repeated placeholders. #15416 introduced the per-request response path. The prior summary path used one PR-level marker. **What happened?** Repeated pushes created new main PR comments. A subscribed `@greptile review` message also woke the Paperclip bot. If execution stopped before staging a milestone, its comment could keep claiming that work was active. **Expected behavior** One bot keeps one main comment per PR. Progress and review results update it. A message addressed to another recipient does not wake the bot unless it also explicitly mentions this bot. Stopped work gets an accurate notice. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept two review requests in one PR conversation. 2. Add `@greptile review` to that subscribed conversation. 3. Fail the assigned run before it stages a milestone. Run channel maintenance. ## What Changed - Add a durable main PR response target. Keep per-request receipts and the existing publication lease. - Recover the target from App-owned provider markers. Adopt older placeholders and point verified duplicates to the current review. - Use a queued notice before a PR run starts. Preserve version ordering and final responses. - Filter leading mentions addressed to another recipient. Explicit mentions of this bot take precedence. Incidental mentions keep normal thread behavior. - Reconcile acknowledged requests after terminal execution. Show paused state for saved requests on a blocked task. Preserve newer work and confirmed or uncertain tool delivery. - Keep a request open when its stale acknowledgement is suppressed. Close placeholders after replies published elsewhere. Retire old coalesced placeholders before replacing their receipts. Resolve native request identity when legacy wake fields are absent. - Update guidance, connection documentation, and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: all three behavioral regressions failed on the original code. A second review created a second comment; an external-bot request was processed; stopped execution retained its working placeholder. - Green: the same three cases passed after the fixes. - Review regressions also failed before their repairs: a delayed acknowledgement closed a new request; normal and stored formal-review receipts left a live placeholder; coalesced completion lost a duplicate receipt; native terminal work without legacy wake fields stayed queued. All 13 combined regression and safety cases passed after repair. - The same legacy receipt-loss bug was also reproduced in the superseded-acknowledgement branch. Its four affected cases passed after adding retirement before that receipt replacement. - A further review regression reproduced paused requests rejecting resumed progress and skipping stopped-run cleanup. Four cases failed before repair; all eight resume and neighboring safety cases passed afterward. Both paused-notice branches keep the request open. - Repeated paused maintenance reproduced two needless GitHub edits. The writer now skips an identical complete comment body. Nine affected cases passed, covering repeated maintenance, resumption, stopped work, final assessment preservation, and main-comment reuse. - Safety cases cover lost receipts, legacy adoption, newer progress, published assessments, provider-verified mention aliases, and old replies that must not complete new requests. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, map validation, and module boundaries passed. The server TypeScript check passed after the final repair. The broader local GitHub workflow and policy run passed 188 tests. Full CI passed on the final commit (`554979d79285b68bcbf90cd639e3d2d053f4ea4b`), including all three chat shards, server/workspace/Runner suites, typecheck, build, and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 with no open review findings. One serialized job received a runner shutdown signal mid-test; its single retry passed. - Preserved failure evidence: the first CI run exposed an overbroad recipient filter and an old queued-text assertion. The next commit passed all three CI chat shards. Greptile then found the receipt transitions covered by the new regressions above. Local full-suite runs were stopped when those defects required source changes; no clean full local pass is claimed. - Tests use real PostgreSQL and controlled provider responses. They do not establish a live GitHub App rollout. The original instance needs the fixed server before its comments change. ## Risks - Leading mentions now select a recipient even when that account has no Paperclip connection. A leading human mention also selects that person. Mid-message incidental mentions retain normal subscription behavior. - Existing comment adoption edits only comments proven by this endpoint's request ledger or prior summary marker and App identity. Deleted and replaced comments remain protected. - Failure cleanup uses current authority and does not replace newer progress or unresolved provider writes. It does not restart failed execution. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 21:51:20 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2cbca4ceb0	fix: retain channel tools across task continuations (#16806) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels give an agent tools for its assigned task. > - Each later run must resolve the task and its accepted requester again. > - Some native runs store the task in a database column without the older JSON fields. > - Tool discovery read only the JSON fields. GitHub calls also required a new inbound comment. > - This pull request uses the durable task binding and accepted request history. > - Later runs retain their channel tools while current access checks still apply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A GitHub task can find `begin_review` on its first run, then receive an empty tool list on a later native run. If discovery is repaired alone, a call can still fail because the later run has no new inbound comment. Slack and voice tool access also read the older JSON task fields. **Expected behavior** A later run for the same task can find and call its assigned channel tools. The current requester, task, company, agent, endpoint, and access rules must still allow the call. Revoked access must fail. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a GitHub task and accept its linked requester. 2. Confirm that the runtime can find `begin_review`. 3. Start a later native run with `nativeIssueId`, accepted parent identity, and no JSON task ID or new wake comment. 4. Search for `begin_review` again. Before this change, the search returns an empty list. 5. Repair discovery alone and call `read_pull_request`. Before the request-history fix, the call fails with no active conversation capability. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in source tests before this patch. The branch includes master at `fa50cab5685b9cdbb26ad9c610cc5b6c373d3ff4`. **Additional context** This is a core run-binding bug. The tests use PostgreSQL and synthetic provider responses. They do not send live reviews, Slack messages, or phone calls. ## What Changed - Resolve run task IDs from durable columns, with legacy JSON fields as a fallback. - Use the same binding in the gateway, access policy, identity service, and channel runtime preparation. - Recover accepted channel request history across later runs. Keep company, task, agent, and requester boundaries. - Recover older wake sources through verified parent runs, including after same-user board follow-ups. Clear the board message’s own legacy wake fallback. Keep cycle checks without a fixed limit on valid task history. - Retain the GitHub origin after a board comment from the same accepted user. Skip GitHub origin lookup results from other providers. - Keep ordinary board tools available when the requester changes. Accept legacy user comments without an author-type field. Still reject explicit malformed task IDs. - Prevent a later failure reply from replacing an earlier final GitHub answer. Recheck this rule under the publication lease. - Rotate the native tool contract to replace retained sessions with an older tool list. - Add continuation, publication, revocation, and boundary tests. Update the access and feature maps. ## Verification - Red: the later GitHub assigned-tool search returned an empty list before the binding fix. - Red: the later GitHub read failed with no active conversation capability before the request-history fix. - Green: runtime MCP discovery, GitHub read/begin/submit review, and response publication pass for monitor and same-user board continuations. - Green: Slack history, retained access controls, revocation, and voice gateway continuation pass. - Green: 35 channel, failure-publication, legacy-origin, long-history, and provenance tests pass. Both review findings had failing tests before their fixes. - Green: 107 gateway, operation-credential, identity, and provenance tests pass. These cover both first-run CI failures without changing their tests. - Green: 122 runtime, discovery-policy, and native-session tests pass; 2 unrelated tests are skipped. - Map checks and whitespace checks pass. - Updated to master in `cfcaba22628772d7fe1fb32b57ff7031c7072781`. The sole conflict was two tests added at the same location. Both the continuation test and the publication 403/401 test are retained. - Current local verification: all 179 gateway, credential, requester-identity, access-policy, runtime-context, and session-resume tests passed. Repository typecheck and build passed. Map and whitespace checks passed. - The new review regression first returned no source for a same-user board follow-up over legacy wake metadata. After the repair, all 27 provenance and channel cases passed. The combined GitHub discovery/read/begin/submit path and revoked access are covered. - The broader local channel run passed 176 cases and failed four timing/setup cases: a 15-second Slack authorization timeout, webhook-verification polling, a Slack acknowledgement deadline, and Discord setup polling. All four passed in isolation without source, assertion, or deadline changes. The earlier failure record is retained; the exact load/order cause is not established. Full CI must pass on the latest commit. - Current head: `7b9a08dcbc7b8140b589742f136944270b0496bb`. Repository typecheck and build pass on this commit. Greptile completed on this exact commit with 5/5; all four review threads are resolved. The final-head [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39278921653) passed: 55 checks passed and 2 intentionally skipped, with no failures or pending checks. This includes the full sharded test matrix, browser tests, typecheck, build, and Runner verification. Results were delayed during the [GitHub Actions incident](https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/8tzbpcnl75jp). An additional unsharded local full test run has not completed; the completed full-suite evidence is CI. - Earlier verification: the first PR commit failed two server suites. Those failures were fixed and verified before this update. The original 4 GiB sandbox could not complete full local typechecking or tests; the current checkout completed typechecking and build. The full test suite runs through the CI shards. No full local test-suite pass or live provider delivery is claimed. ## Risks - Request history can restore the wrong authority if its scope is too broad. The resolver checks each accepted parent against the task, company, agent, and requester. Tests cover invalid and cyclic history. - The native contract change starts a new provider session for older contracts. - No database migration or public API schema changes are required. Each tool call still checks live access. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, code edits, and local test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 11:20:39 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	9966f31bee	fix(chat): keep permission failures scoped to the rejected operation (#16847) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External channels deliver agent replies through a durable publication queue. > - A provider can reject one operation while other operations remain allowed. > - The shared error classifier treated generic 403 and permission errors as failures of the whole connection. > - Failure handlers then changed the user's enabled setting and removed all assigned channel tools. > - This pull request limits permission failures to the rejected operation and preserves connection intent during authentication failures. > - Unrelated work can continue, while confirmed authentication failures still stop endpoint traffic. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16137. Follows #16138, which distinguishes local authorization errors from provider errors. This change also narrows provider permission failures. Related #16806 handles a separate task-continuation tool-binding defect. A provider 403 or missing-scope response currently disables a connection that may still support other operations. The expected behavior is a visible operation failure with unrelated work preserved. Confirmed authentication failures must stop sends without changing the user's enabled setting. ## What Changed - Classify generic 403, adapter permission errors, and Slack missing-scope/no-permission responses as failed operations. - Preserve rate-limit retries, known destination quarantine, and confirmed authentication failures. - Preserve connection status and enabled intent when publication, provider-reply, or form-open authentication fails. The endpoint still enters attention and its runtime stops. - Add GitHub regressions for retained discovery and successful later publication after 403, and no further sends after 401. - Mark authentication health failed and fence persistent receiver startup, background reconciliation, and receiver callbacks. Keep signed GitHub lifecycle events available during an authentication stop. Verify Discord reconciliation and Photon restart preserve the stop, while transient Discord disconnects still recover. - Update provider, publication, and modal regression expectations and the execution contract and verification maps. ## Verification - Red: five new classifier cases returned endpoint attention before the repair. The signed-installation-removal regression also reproduced a blocked lifecycle event after a 401 before narrowing the receiver guard. - Green: all 35 classifier tests pass. - Green: 19 PostgreSQL-backed cases pass through the production channel services, including GitHub discovery/publication, Slack provider replies and question modals, Telegram credential/destination failures, rate limiting, and Discord/Photon authentication-stop persistence. - Map structural checks and `git diff --check` pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. All CI gates are green on `7e379bcd98aa8363e42efe7f8a4b2589b7111ae6`; Greptile is 5/5 on that exact commit with no unresolved findings. - The monolithic local `pnpm test:run` was started, then stopped after its revision passed the full CI matrix and was superseded by the authentication-stop repair. Final full-suite verification passed in CI shards; all 19 final local provider regressions pass. - The tests run from this source checkout on macOS arm64 with isolated PostgreSQL and controlled provider failures. They do not prove live GitHub recovery or deployment. No live connection settings were changed. ## Risks - Permission failures now leave unrelated work available. The rejected operation remains failed and is not automatically replayed. Provider authorization still applies to every request. - Keeping a connection enabled must not bypass an authentication stop. GitHub verifies blocked tool discovery and later sends; Discord and Photon verify background reconciliation and restart cannot clear the stop. Failed connection health is an execution gate while the endpoint requires attention. - Explicit disable, disconnect, signed installation revocation, and existing destination-specific denial handling remain unchanged. No migration or API schema change is required. - Previously disabled connections are not automatically re-enabled because an upgrade cannot safely infer the user's intent. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. Used reasoning, shell tools, repository edits, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 09:54:22 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	669d329f25	perf(slack): avoid unused catalog revision scans (#16630) ... Slack catalog discovery now checks live task, user, endpoint and credentials without calculating an unused compatibility revision. Full authority callers retain the unchanged revision and search-token path. Validation: 44 affected cases, full repository typecheck/build, current-head full CI/E2E and security checks, Greptile Base 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Identical production catalog output with revision statements reduced from two to zero in real-PostgreSQL comparisons. Hosted latency acceptance remains pending. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-16 22:21:03 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3db33c131e	perf(slack): overlap endpoint preparation and narrow credential reads (#16593) ... Prepare Slack endpoints in pairs with a per-call concurrency limit of two, and resolve only the current bot token for live tool authority. Preserve candidate-order errors, active-sibling settlement, credential rotation and authorization revocation. Verified with real PostgreSQL regression controls, full repository CI/E2E, security checks and current-head Greptile Plus5/5 with no unresolved findings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-16 16:05:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f1d4bc1617	perf(slack): resolve only signing secret during webhook checks (#16548) ... Resolve only the current Slack signing secret during workspace checks and authenticated setup evidence. Preserve full runtime credential resolution, company bounds, rotation, and auditing. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-16 03:05:05 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	becdc3b08e	perf(slack): remove delays before mention acknowledgements (#16491) ... Slack mentions now start eyes reactions after the authorized task/comment commits, independently of attachments, subscription and scheduler acceptance. Omit unused optional URL-preview polling while retaining message text, links and files. Keep receipt failures and missing-file warnings independent, including terminal cleanup of older multi-line diagnostics. Verified with full current-head CI and E2E, Superagent and legacy security checks, Apex 5/5 with no unresolved findings, 19 selected real-PostgreSQL receipt/authorization/cleanup cases, and full frozen-source typecheck/build. The first CI attempt's unchanged Cursor probe timeout is retained in the PR; the one failed-only retry passed under unchanged deadlines. Live Slack latency still requires deployed acceptance. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-15 17:36:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	25b16e65fc	fix(observability): detail workspace and connector preparation (#16454) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The server prepares a repository, sandbox workspace, and connector access before an agent can reply. > - Existing traces measure large preparation phases but leave important work inside those phases unclear. > - Repository source materialization and Browser Use discovery can do more work than their callers suggest. > - New detail must preserve access checks, run ownership, and the existing work order. > - This pull request adds fixed OpenTelemetry spans inside those operations. > - Operators can use one deployed trace to select the next performance fix. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16419, #16425, #16428. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Startup traces for server workspace preparation, native sandbox synchronization, and connector assignment resolution. **Current behavior** Workspace and connector aggregate spans can take many seconds. The trace does not separate private source cloning, seed reuse, archive work, progress persistence, or each connector resolver. Browser Use resource selection builds the full authorized tool catalog. The configuration and native backend can each resolve connector assignments. **Proposed behavior** Show the awaited work as fixed child spans. Separate discovery queue wait from catalog construction. Preserve the initiating run context when another run releases a scheduler slot. Add no new lifecycle event writes for workspace detail callbacks. **Reason and benefit** Operators need evidence about the hosted critical path before another performance change. These spans distinguish filesystem work, provider transfer, authorization, transaction entry, locks, and reporting overhead. **Breaking changes** None. Authorization, query order, transaction ownership, synchronization, existing progress events, and task results retain their contracts. The change adds opt-in Observability spans under the existing OTLP endpoint gate. ## What Changed - Trace private source directory setup, Git credentials, clone, requested ref, source identity, and checkout publication. - Trace sandbox source capture, seed cache/replay, shallow clone and archive, overlay copy/archive, verification, upload, warm stamps, and descriptor persistence. - Separate existing awaited progress reporting from useful workspace work. Keep new detail callbacks trace-only. - Trace each connector resolver and Browser Use catalog/grant work. Split discovery queueing, descriptor sources, and policy evaluation. - Trace Slack authority, credential reads, catalog synchronization, transaction entry/settlement, and advisory locks. - Update the real filesystem staging trace expectations and the Honeycomb investigation guide. - Add a real scheduler regression for a queued job released by another run. Assert run ownership, parent spans, and exactly one completed queue span. ## Verification - Passed: server and adapter-utils TypeScript checks (`pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit`). - Passed: 252 checks across 9 focused files. These cover real filesystem staging, native workspace synchronization, trace ownership, endpoint gating, and workspace preparation. - Passed after review: 26 trace-context, tracing-failure, and discovery-scheduler checks across 3 files (these overlap the first run). The new queued-discovery regression fails when context binding is removed and passes after restoration. An initial submillisecond timestamp assertion was replaced with explicit span-completion order to avoid SDK clock precision assumptions. - Passed on implementation commit `0e68968a4bd61001893d833f281f12bb110edbe1`: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The later commit updates only an engine test expectation. - The first CI workspace lane found an old engine trace-tree expectation. It expected the earlier span set. The updated assertion now checks the new detail spans, their parents, and single completion. Its targeted executor check passes. - The full test suite, build, release registry, and end-to-end gates pass in CI on final head `40e37d89ef679109d60a96bb5731a0616efeaa43`: 55 passing checks and 2 optional Storybook skips. The full suite was not duplicated locally after the focused run. - Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5. No unresolved review threads remain. - After deployment, filter Honeycomb by the hashed run ID and verify `service.version`. Inspect `heartbeat.prepare.workspace`, `runtime_selection.workspace_sync`, and the connector assignment parents. The guide in `doc/observability.md` explains each new family and the nested intervals. - No hosted run has used this new instrumentation yet. Local checks cannot establish hosted latency improvement. ## Risks - Tracing adds spans when an operator configures an OTLP endpoint. Detail remains capped at 16 spans per phase per execution attempt. - Parent and child durations overlap. The documentation explains how to avoid counting them twice. - A discovery job can start in another run's scheduler continuation. The bound callback preserves the initiating async context. - New spans export fixed names and the existing hashed run ID. They add no paths, repository URLs, connector resource IDs, credentials, tool schemas, or exception text. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact served 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>	2026-10-15 12:21:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	09a2f0b7b0	refactor(server): isolate provider message admission and runtime policies (#16289) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn external messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still contains some provider decisions. > - These decisions belong with the existing channel modules. > - This pull request isolates provider message-admission and runtime policies. > - Shared authorization, persistence, and runtime ownership keep their current order. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16235. Stack part 3/3. Base: `master`. #16276 and #16283 are merged. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Provider ownership and readability in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The entry point combines shared workflows with provider decisions. **Proposed behavior** Provider modules own their decisions. Shared modules own product state and authorization. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find provider behavior in its channel folder. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service methods and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Move Discord SDK admission and its barrier to the Discord message module. - Move Photon live-message eviction and startup recovery policy to its runtime callbacks module. - Move Slack mention eligibility and Teams setup-channel eligibility to their message modules. - Keep Photon deferred ingress and Speko conversation policy with their provider modules. - Keep ordered SDK message batching in a shared runtime module with a live per-message ingress callback. - Keep receiver leases, cache lifetime, startup failure cleanup, authorization locks, and transaction ownership shared. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3,570 to 3,548 lines. ## Verification - The same 46 runtime/admission integration cases and all 18 Photon channel cases passed before and after in the owned Linux container. - The existing first-channel Teams orphan-admission case passed before and after moving its eligibility predicate. - The same 94 SDK adapter and lifecycle-normalization tests passed locally. - Server typecheck and module-boundary checks passed. - Token comparison confirms ordered SDK batching and every processor argument, plus Photon invalidation and its live runtime lookup. - The shared factory creates no cache or worker. It reads the ingress policy for each message and awaits processing in order. - The extraction rebased without conflicts onto master after #16276 and #16283 merged. Git range-diff reports the same patch. Final head `7b63b569e2a0dbcc959310f565f77f367fa64aa0` has the same patch by range-diff. The 94 SDK/lifecycle tests, server typecheck, and boundary check passed on the final head. All CI gates pass on that exact head. Greptile reviewed it at 5/5 with no inline findings or unresolved review threads. - One Runner CI test failed its original short timing window. The unchanged test passed earlier-head CI and local reproduction. The single failed-job retry passed. - Cumulative `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. All 1,321 channel integration cases passed. The normal UI, CLI, database, adapter, plugin, and serialized API test selections ran. - The first Linux `pnpm test:run` returned 1. Original-source runs reproduced the local failures. Container-only repairs supplied missing tools, process reaping, and sufficient Node heap. The existing mocked-fetch CLI telemetry fixture passed with the image opt-out flag overridden only for that fixture. - One local venue limitation remains: adapter-utils T24 fails unchanged on both original and final source in the Linux container. Its entire 56-case suite passes before and after on the host. All other failed or aborted suites passed in repaired reruns. No test assertion or timeout changed. - These fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live provider execution. ## Risks - A captured option value or changed callback order could affect deferred ingress or stale-runtime handling. - The ingress callback and runtime getter remain live. Core maps and receiver lease operations keep one owner. - No schema migration or public API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 10:50:34 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7df55f3dcc	refactor(server): isolate provider webhook lifecycle decisions (#16283) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn external messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still contains some provider decisions. > - These decisions belong with the existing channel modules. > - This pull request moves webhook recovery and payload-scope decisions to their provider modules. > - Shared authorization, persistence, and runtime ownership keep their current order. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16235. Stack part 2/3. Base: `master`. #16276 is merged. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Provider ownership and readability in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The entry point combines shared workflows with provider decisions. **Proposed behavior** Provider modules own their decisions. Shared modules own product state and authorization. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find provider behavior in its channel folder. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service methods and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Move GitHub revoked-installation recovery classification to `github/webhook-scope.ts`. - Move Teams payload-scope validation to its message module. - Record normalized GitHub, Telegram, and Teams lifecycle events through one shared durable call. - Keep Slack callback ordering and persistence failures outside parser catches. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3,598 to 3,570 lines. ## Verification - The same 86 selected webhook/lifecycle integration cases passed before and after in an owned Linux container. - The same 17 selected Telegram edit and Teams edit/delete/restore cases passed before and after in that container. - The same 94 SDK adapter and lifecycle-normalization tests passed locally before and after. - Server typecheck and module-boundary checks passed. - Token comparison confirms the shared recording payload and runtime fence, plus the Teams scope and parser inputs. - The host database baseline failed before assertions because System V shared-memory IDs were exhausted. No other PostgreSQL server or host setting was changed. Database verification used an isolated container under its unprivileged user. - The extraction rebased without conflicts after #16276 merged. Git range-diff reports the same patch. The 94 SDK/lifecycle tests and server typecheck passed on this base. All CI gates pass on rebased head `d835d7c3815c168226fa646aec6370b6a8ac94c1`. Greptile reviewed that exact head at 5/5, with no inline findings or unresolved review threads. - Cumulative `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. All 1,321 channel integration cases passed. The normal UI, CLI, database, adapter, plugin, and serialized API test selections ran. - The first Linux `pnpm test:run` returned 1. Original-source runs reproduced the local failures. Container-only repairs supplied missing tools, process reaping, and sufficient Node heap. The existing mocked-fetch CLI telemetry fixture passed with the image opt-out flag overridden only for that fixture. - One local venue limitation remains: adapter-utils T24 fails unchanged on both original and final source in the Linux container. Its entire 56-case suite passes before and after on the host. All other failed or aborted suites passed in repaired reruns. No test assertion or timeout changed. - These fixtures exercise application state and the service entry point. They do not prove live provider execution. ## Risks - A scope or ordering error could record an event for the wrong provider context. - The selected parser returns normalized data. The shared service keeps durable recording and runtime fencing. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 10:38:12 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f16c0ad5c8	refactor(server): isolate chat conversation and control policies (#16276) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn external messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still contains some provider decisions. > - These decisions belong with the existing channel modules. > - This pull request separates conversation binding and Telegram control policy. > - Shared authorization, persistence, and runtime ownership keep their current order. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16235. Stack part 1/3. Base: `master`. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Provider ownership and readability in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The entry point combines shared workflows with provider decisions. **Proposed behavior** Provider modules own their decisions. Shared modules own product state and authorization. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find provider behavior in its channel folder. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service methods and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Keep shared conversation lookup and completion in `inbound/conversation-binding.ts`. - Move Photon binding-completion policy to its messages module. - Move Telegram command classification, forum behavior, and chronology exemptions to its commands module. - Keep the original conversation generation separate from the retained task binding. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3,649 to 3,598 lines. ## Verification - The same 62 selected Telegram/Teams integration cases passed before and after extraction. - All 18 Photon channel integration cases passed before and after extraction in separate test processes. - The initial combined baseline command had a Photon database-startup hook timeout. No Photon assertion ran in that invocation. The unchanged Photon suite then passed in isolation with its existing timeouts. - Server typecheck and the module-boundary check passed. - A token comparison confirms the moved lookup, completion, and generation logic, after normalizing the explicit policy callbacks. - All current-head CI checks passed. Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5 with no findings. - Cumulative `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. All 1,321 channel integration cases passed. The normal UI, CLI, database, adapter, plugin, and serialized API test selections ran. - The first Linux `pnpm test:run` returned 1. Original-source runs reproduced the local failures. Container-only repairs supplied missing tools, process reaping, and sufficient Node heap. The existing mocked-fetch CLI telemetry fixture passed with the image opt-out flag overridden only for that fixture. - One local venue limitation remains: adapter-utils T24 fails unchanged on both original and final source in the Linux container. Its entire 56-case suite passes before and after on the host. All other failed or aborted suites passed in repaired reruns. No test assertion or timeout changed. - These fixtures exercise the assembled service and persisted state. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Changing query order or losing the original generation could bind a message to the wrong task. - The workflow retains the original lookup result and all existing query and write conditions. - No schema migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 10:21:48 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f69c6a8a35	fix(github): retry and recover review publication (#16284) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results. > - GitHub review bots publish task-bound assessments through governed tools. > - A review can survive a caller timeout because its publication intent is durable. > - A transient provider failure still returned a failed receipt before recovery. > - Gateway replay could return an empty cached result, and publication retries had no dedicated scheduler deadline. > - This pull request adds bounded retries, receipt recovery, and an independent durable worker. > - A temporary GitHub failure can recover without another review or duplicate publication. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16275. That change increased the GitHub tool deadline. This change repairs retry and recovery behavior. **What happened?** A one-off GitHub HTTP 503 or 429 left the caller with a failed publication receipt. The saved retry did not have its own scheduler worker. An identical gateway call after a timeout could return an empty cached result instead of the saved publication receipt. **Expected behavior** Temporary failures should retry under current authority. Pending work should resume at its saved deadline after restart. Exact retries should return the current receipt. Lost responses must not create duplicate comments, findings, or checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Admit an advisory PR review request and begin its assessment. 2. Return HTTP 503 or 429 for the first summary-comment PATCH, then let GitHub succeed. 3. Submit the assessment through the run-scoped tool gateway. 4. On master, the result says publication failed. With this change, the same call returns the processed receipt and neutral check. 5. For receipt recovery, use a shorter caller deadline and repeat the exact call after publication finishes. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `6cb6ac3b8e40cb90d734ba115a2f22f850ff9477`. ## What Changed - Classify transient transport, server, and rate-limit failures. Honor Retry-After and primary reset deadlines. Stop retries for permanent permission and validation errors. - Retry safe reads and installation-token issuance within a bounded call window. Retry publication writes through the existing outbox and provider receipt checks. - Wait for up to three publication attempts within a 45-second retry window. Keep the durable eight-failure cap and enforce saved deadlines on explicit retries. - Register an independent GitHub publication worker with transaction-owned wake notifications, startup recovery, and per-PR lease deadlines. - Recover exact comment, progress, and assessment gateway calls from their stored publication. Require the same company, agent, task, run, connection, tool, arguments, and current policy. Clear stale timeout errors after recovery. Approved exact retries read the current receipt through the existing signed replay path; the worker retains the verified approval for deferred writes and still rejects revocation. - Add regression coverage and update the connector guide and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: both one-off HTTP 503 and 429 regressions failed on master with a failed publication receipt. - Green: the same tests passed after the change. - GitHub review workflows: 133 covered against isolated PostgreSQL 18. The final combined run passed 132 and hit one fifteen-second timeout under concurrent build load. All three variants of that workflow passed in isolation. The earlier combined run passed all 131 workflows before the two approval regressions were added. - Retry policy and delivery coordinator tests: 35 passed. - Additional focused checks passed for the actual eight-failure cap, exact-argument conflicts, policy revocation, and timeout receipt recovery. The approved deferred-publication and revocation regressions failed before the review repair and passed after it, with one approval request preserved. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. `pnpm build`: passed. `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` path remains blocked by the host's exhausted PostgreSQL shared-memory slots. The changed database-backed workflows use an isolated Docker database instead. All Paperclip CI jobs passed at a6d81b67cb, including the required verify and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 at the same head, with the approval-recovery finding resolved. The external Superagent Security Scan also passed. - Live acceptance passed on a dedicated single-repository local test App and native Paperclip Runner. A test-only preload returned one HTTP 503 before the final summary PATCH. One submit_review call completed in 17.305 seconds; the bot published its 3/5 advisory review and neutral check, then automatically finished the task. [Published review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-permissions-smoke-20260926-pap57-fee7428e/pull/9#issuecomment-6168809007), [neutral check](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-permissions-smoke-20260926-pap57-fee7428e/runs/115863564014). This live test ran at de6862072c; approval-specific recovery is covered by the later regressions. The preload is excluded from the repository and removed from the running local instance. ## Risks Retries make additional bounded provider requests. A provider write with a lost response is recovered through its existing App-owned identity before another write is permitted. The worker rechecks authority and the PR head; revocation and superseded work stop publication. Calls can still exceed their deadline, and repeated failures eventually exhaust the retry cap. A pending publication is not a completed task. The agent still owns task completion after receiving a confirmed receipt. No schema migration is needed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6 family), with code inspection, editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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>	2026-10-14 08:40:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e9b6c4d44c	perf: remove history scans from task and chat queries (#16278) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task reads and external chat notices must remain responsive as run history grows. > - The chat notice sweep casts indexed UUID columns to text. > - Run redaction and task provenance filter large JSON contexts with expressions that lack matching indexes. > - These queries scan history and read large stored contexts on common requests. > - This pull request adapts two existing fixes to current master and adds the missing provenance index. > - The benefit is less database work with the same query results and access rules. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15927. This change adapts that chat sweep fix to the extracted inbound notice module and retains the contributor credit. Refs #12499. This change adds that missing nested-context index through a current, concurrent migration. It retains the contributor credit. This combined change replaces those older layouts for the measured query paths. It also covers task creation provenance, which those pull requests do not address. **What happened?** The chat notice sweep scans wakeup history. Issue redaction scans run contexts because only one branch of its JSON condition has an index. The task creation-source filter also scans contexts because its native and legacy ID expression lacks an index. **Expected behavior** The queries use indexed lookups and return the same rows. Company access, task origin precedence, secret redaction, and chat notice ordering remain the same. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-slow-queries.ts --baseline-ref=f8af817f8d`. The benchmark creates disposable PostgreSQL data and compares the old query with the current query on the same fixture. ## What Changed - Compare chat UUID columns directly with safely parsed payload IDs. Reject malformed and noncanonical IDs without a cast failure. - Add the nested `paperclipIssue.id` run-context index and the exact native/legacy task-provenance expression index. - Build both indexes concurrently. Register the migration for top-level execution and invalid-index retry repair. - Extend chat payload and migration regression coverage. - Add a repeatable synthetic SQL benchmark and document its scope and command. - Keep the five newest schema snapshots. ## Verification - Focused local checks: 76 selected tests passed in five files. These cover FIFO notices, malformed IDs, conversation state, redaction, provenance, and company boundaries. - Disposable PostgreSQL 18.1 fixture: 335 tasks, 1,400 runs, 13,000 wakeups, 377 actions, and 192 KiB synthetic contexts. - Five warm samples per query, after two warmups. Every returned SQL column matched before and after, compared as positional tuples so duplicate unnamed projections are retained. | Query | Before, median | After, median | Improvement | | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | | Chat notice candidates | 26.21 ms | 6.43 ms | 4.1× | | Task creation-source list | 159.69 ms | 6.51 ms | 24.5× | | Issue redaction contexts | 131.88 ms | 0.34 ms | 389.1× | The run-history context projection returned the same 200 rows and kept the same index plan and buffer counts. Its timings were noisy (37.30 ms before and 56.78 ms after in the last run; 34.25 ms and 34.14 ms in the previous run). No improvement is claimed for this control. Its repeated JSON projection remains a separate optimization opportunity. The populated plans use the wakeup primary key, the provenance expression index, and a BitmapOr over both redaction indexes. These are local SQL measurements. They do not prove an equivalent change in hosted API latency. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was started and then interrupted (exit 130) when the Mac reached its PostgreSQL shared-memory limit. It did not complete and is not reported as passed. The final SQL benchmark passed after its disposable database resources were released. The full general and serialized test suites passed in CI. - All CI checks for final head `193acca6abaa992acad12f4b631bd31dd3234641` passed, including full Vitest coverage, E2E checks, typecheck, build, migration order, and lifecycle boundaries. - Greptile reviewed that exact head at 5/5 with no actionable comments. ## Risks - Both indexes add storage and write cost. Initial builds read stored run contexts and can take time on large histories. - Concurrent index builds avoid holding a write-blocking table lock for the whole build. The existing migration retry path removes invalid partial indexes before retrying. - The chat parser accepts only canonical lowercase UUID text. This preserves the prior text comparison, including rejection of uppercase and malformed values. - Staging has not been migrated or deployed. Local PostgreSQL and synthetic data do not reproduce hosted load or network latency. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, browser inspection, and local code execution. The adapted fixes retain their original contributor credits. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 07:37:51 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2c17d3ca52	fix(github): recover webhook verification in attention state (#16263) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots require signed webhook delivery before activation. > - Cloud can deduplicate an old ping after a connection repair. > - A fresh event could verify active connections, but an attention-state connection discarded it before authentication. > - This pull request allows signed delivery verification while the connection needs attention. > - It discards ordinary work until the manager completes the existing reconnect and activation checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16259. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization failures. **What happened?** Live verification of #16259 found that a GitHub App already marked as needing attention remained stuck waiting for a signed ping. The Cloud relay had already delivered that ping. New signed events were discarded by the attention-state ingress gate before they could verify delivery. **Expected behavior** A fresh valid event from the bound installation verifies delivery. It does not activate the connection, change repository access, or start work. The manager can then complete the normal reconnect flow. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put an existing App connection into attention state with webhook verification cleared after repair. 2. Deliver a fresh signed comment event for its bound installation. 3. Continue setup. Before this fix, webhook verification remains missing and reconnect cannot proceed. ## What Changed - Use a content-free verification path for signed ordinary GitHub events while the connection needs attention. - Allow a fresh signed event from the same installation to verify webhook delivery. - Verify delivery even from disabled or unavailable repositories. Discard the event before content storage, resource reconciliation, or runtime creation. - Keep newly verified connections in the provider-setup step. Later installation events cannot activate them before reconnect. Preserve normal installation recovery for existing qualified connections. - Extend recovery regressions to cover attention state, foreign installations, invalid signatures, missing installation IDs, unchanged resources, no wakeups, and successful reconnect after verification. - Document the recovery behavior. ## Verification - The targeted regression reproduced the attention-state failure before the change. - All ten recovery cases pass after the change. The tests cover disabled and unavailable repositories, content-free verification, and installation events after verification. - Server typecheck passed. - All 260 GitHub integration tests passed after the review fixes. Final server typecheck also passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - The full local suite is running. One unrelated workspace-runtime conflict-reference test failed and then passed on its isolated rerun. Final totals and CI/review outcomes will be updated before merge. - Live verification will use the existing advisory review bot after deployment. ## Risks - Attention-state ordinary events authenticate under the current credential lease without creating a durable content record. They return before resource reconciliation or runtime creation. - Verification is still bound to the current credential lease, runtime generation, valid signature, and installation ID. It does not activate the bot or replace normal setup checks. - Paused, revoked, archived, and unconfigured connections retain their existing ingress rules. No schema changes or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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>	2026-10-14 05:23:42 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	a8b652b085	fix(github): preserve review delivery through reconnect (#16259) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots turn authorized repository events into agent tasks and publish the result on the pull request. > - Cloud Apps send callbacks through a relay, but the direct callback recovery worker reported that URL as broken. > - Reconnecting the same App then prevented a new authorized publication from updating its existing working comment. > - Report-only runs could also produce an action-required check when no complete assessment was available. > - This pull request preserves comment identity across reconnects, verifies fresh signed delivery after repair, and keeps report-only results neutral. > - Users can receive the review without changing repository access or making an advisory bot block their pull request. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A review could be saved in Paperclip while GitHub kept showing “Working on this…”. A same-App reconnect changed the runtime generation and the existing response receipt then failed with “GitHub response binding changed”. Cloud callback recovery also compared the relay URL with a direct tenant URL. An incomplete or failed report-only run could produce an action-required check. **Expected behavior** A fresh authorized attempt updates the same App-owned comment after reconnect. Stale attempts and revoked people remain denied. Cloud relay delivery does not produce a direct-callback mismatch. Report-only checks remain neutral and explain incomplete work honestly. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept a GitHub request and publish its working comment. 2. Reconnect the same App before the agent publishes its result. 3. Submit the result and inspect the working comment and check. 4. Separately, let a report-only run end without an assessment and inspect its check conclusion. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization errors as provider credential failures. This change fixes the response binding and report-only paths themselves. ## What Changed - Bind durable response comments to the App and agent. Keep per-attempt runtime generation checks and provider comment ownership checks, including legacy receipts. - Exclude Cloud-managed Apps from the direct webhook recovery scan and its stale callback-mismatch warning. The Cloud inbox owns relay retries. - Let a fresh authenticated event from the bound installation verify webhook delivery after repair. Keep signature, runtime epoch, installation, and credential lease checks. - Keep report-only assessment and terminal-run checks neutral. Preserve incomplete/error text and gated-review behavior. - Add integration regressions for reconnect races, legacy comments, failed runs, Cloud recovery, and foreign or forged webhook traffic. Update connector documentation. - Correct the assigned-tool search guidance to name the actual input fields (`offset` and `schemaOffset`) and show valid arguments. The failed automatic review had an input-schema rejection before tool execution; this clarifies recovery without expanding tool access. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - GitHub policy and integration suite: 291 tests passed (`vitest run server/src/services/chat-github-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub|github'`). - The report-only policy regression failed before the fix and passed after it. - `pnpm build` passed. - Assigned tool discovery: 24 tests passed. Its guidance now maps returned pagination offsets to the correct input fields and tells the model to omit unused optional fields. - Full `pnpm test:run` is running. It encountered a 15-second timeout in the unrelated authenticated Workspace calendar-write test. That test passed on one isolated rerun. - After the review-requested module extraction, server typecheck and both direct/Cloud recovery activity integration checks passed. - All 55 non-skipped CI checks passed for `32e690279d847e44a6946b6c7cfb110fb11aff79`. Greptile scored that commit 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Live staging publication verification follows deployment. ## Risks - A durable response can now survive a same-App reconnect. Fresh authorization, runtime generation checks for each publication attempt, App ownership, and the publication lease still fence writes. - Report-only failures intentionally become neutral. The check still reports the failure; it does not claim a complete assessment. - Cloud-managed callbacks rely on their existing durable relay inbox. The direct callback recovery worker remains unchanged for direct installations. - No schema migration or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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>	2026-10-13 22:24:41 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	75189b8762	refactor(server): isolate channel runtime admission and maintenance (#16235) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves Discord runtime command capture and root receipts, Speko runtime and authority, and GitHub maintenance scheduling behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 5/5. Depends on #16233. Base: `master` (parent PR merged). **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements Discord runtime command capture and root receipts, Speko runtime and authority, and GitHub maintenance scheduling inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract Discord runtime command capture and root receipts, Speko runtime and authority, and GitHub maintenance scheduling into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3715 to 3649 lines. ## Verification - The same 167 selected chat-runtime cases and 87 voice ownership cases passed before and after extraction. Full workspace typecheck and build passed. Token parity checks passed for six moved control-flow blocks. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 21:39:08 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	c1994056f9	refactor(server): isolate channel registration and setup services (#16233) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves Slack registration, account linking, test-message setup, GitHub setup progress, and Telegram webhook URL restrictions behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 4/5. Depends on #16232. Base: `master` (parent PR merged). **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements Slack registration, account linking, test-message setup, GitHub setup progress, and Telegram webhook URL restrictions inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract Slack registration, account linking, test-message setup, GitHub setup progress, and Telegram webhook URL restrictions into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3813 to 3715 lines. ## Verification - The same 97 selected setup integration cases passed before and after extraction. The cases cover Slack installer linking and welcome eligibility, GitHub registration, and Telegram webhook restrictions. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 21:28:16 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	875943ac83	refactor(server): isolate provider webhook lifecycle processing (#16232) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves GitHub webhook runtime deadlines and Slack lifecycle processing behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 3/5. Depends on #16231. Base: `master` (parent PR merged). **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements GitHub webhook runtime deadlines and Slack lifecycle processing inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract GitHub webhook runtime deadlines and Slack lifecycle processing into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3906 to 3813 lines. ## Verification - The same 61 selected webhook/lifecycle integration cases passed before and after extraction. They cover cold GitHub runtime startup, signed ingress, installation recovery, Slack lifecycle effects, and Telegram/Teams edits. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 21:03:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f6608f382f	refactor(server): isolate GitHub task preparation and review containment (#16231) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves GitHub task prompts, review provenance, and shared guest containment behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 2/5. Depends on #16230. Base: `codex/chat-channel-inbound-policies`. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements GitHub task prompts, review provenance, and shared guest containment inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract GitHub task prompts, review provenance, and shared guest containment into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3970 to 3906 lines. ## Verification - The same 130 selected GitHub and low-trust integration cases passed before and after extraction. Existing transactions still own containment, authority receipts, and review rows. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 20:54:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3e8e1efb84	refactor(server): isolate inbound channel message policies (#16230) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves inbound message filtering, command rendering, reply metadata, and setup-reply settlement behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 1/5. Base: `master`. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements inbound message filtering, command rendering, reply metadata, and setup-reply settlement inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract inbound message filtering, command rendering, reply metadata, and setup-reply settlement into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 4082 to 3970 lines. ## Verification - The same 14 selected chat/Photon integration cases passed before and after extraction, including Telegram forum controls, guidance retries, Teams setup replies, and Photon conversation reuse. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 20:44:29 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7eea9d8214	fix(github): use bot names in review summaries (#16212) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A GitHub bot can send a pull request to an agent and publish its review. > - Each bot has its own GitHub App identity, but every summary currently starts with "Paperclip Review". > - A generic heading makes it harder to identify reviewers when several bots review the same pull request. > - This pull request uses the bot display name in review summary headings. > - Users can identify each reviewer while required checks keep their existing name. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heading of a GitHub bot's published pull request review summary. **Current behavior** Every summary uses "Paperclip Review", regardless of the bot's name. The check also uses "Paperclip Review" and must keep that name for existing branch rules. **Proposed behavior** Complete and incomplete review summary headings use the GitHub bot display name. The heading falls back to the bot login, then the assigned agent name, when old connections have no display name. Separate GitHub Apps keep independent checks with the same name. **Reason and benefit** Readers can identify each bot's review. A regression test confirms that publishing a review does not update a check owned by another App or endpoint. **Breaking changes** The summary heading changes. Consumers that parse the old heading must accept bot names. No API, prompt configuration, database schema, or check name changes are included. No duplicate PR was found in the GitHub bot title search. ROADMAP.md does not contain a duplicate of this change. ## What Changed - Use the bot display name in complete and incomplete review headings. - Escape Markdown in names and fall back to the bot login or agent name. - Verify the heading through the publication workflow and keep check updates scoped to the App and endpoint. - Document bot-named summaries and independent checks. Update both access maps. ## Verification - Focused policy, heading, and existing UI tests: 67 passed. - Database-backed regression cases: 2 passed, including bot-name publication and independent checks. - Map checks, token gates, and git diff --check passed. - Typecheck and build passed on the final rebased branch. The final focused run passed 44 tests; the two database-backed regression cases also passed in a separate run. All final-head CI checks passed, including full test suites, build, typecheck, E2E, and security scans. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks - Consumers that parse the old summary heading must accept bot names. - The GitHub check remains Paperclip Review. Multiple-bot check isolation was tested with provider fixtures; a live two-bot GitHub test was not run for this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 15:33:05 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e43af9770a	refactor(server): isolate publication recovery and Board sends (#16192) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip publishes task messages through several chat providers. > - Operator recovery must keep durable receipts and task authority consistent. > - The service combines shared publication transactions with provider recovery details. > - Provider-specific recovery belongs beside its transport implementation. > - This pull request extracts publication requests and resolution workflows. > - Shared workflows keep transaction ownership and delegate provider operations. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16187. Refs #16185, #16183, and #16180. Review against the parent branch. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The structure of publication requests, Board sends, and operator recovery. **Current behavior** Six public publication methods live in the main service and include provider-specific transfer and receipt operations. **Proposed behavior** Move shared requests and resolution to publications modules. Move Teams file resolution and Board preparation, Slack file receipts and Board staging, and Photon retry records to their provider folders. **Reason and benefit** Provider recovery is easier to locate without moving transaction and idempotency ownership into providers. ## What Changed - Extract six public publication methods into two shared workflow factories (629 and 467 lines). - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 5,337 to 4,078 lines. The full stack reduces it from 7,919 lines. - Extract Teams transfer resolution and cold-runtime Board preparation. - Extract Slack upload receipt resolution and Board send staging. - Extract Photon operator retry records. - Preserve the same public service API and keep provider operations in the original transactions. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh local integration and wiring checks passed (1,318 tests). The dedicated Photon suite passed 18 before and 18 after the conflict resolution. This final slice was replayed onto merged #16187 with all chat-channel source unchanged. Current-head CI and review are running. Earlier verification below describes previous stack commits. - Publication, attachment, Board send, and operator recovery baseline: 261 passed before and 261 passed after; 1,034 other cases excluded. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax audit reconstructs all six public method bodies from the provider helpers and matches the original AST. Unrelated service functions and the public API match too. - Final repository typecheck passed. Build passed. The broad local test run encountered heartbeat fixture setup failures under the macOS PostgreSQL shared-memory limit and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130). Four confirmed abandoned guard slots were reclaimed without stopping active databases. The complete chat integration suite and source-wiring checks passed separately (1,309 tests). - Greptile rates current head 55417debfe 5/5 with zero inline findings. All 55 CI checks pass on that head. Tests use local PostgreSQL and fixture transports, not live provider execution. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Operator recovery can duplicate a send if receipt updates move out of their transaction. The extracted helpers use the caller transaction. Teams preparation remains outside Board locks, and repeated send identities retain their existing receipt. Public method names and return values stay the same. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant 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 - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 11:48:07 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f18247b7e7	refactor(server): isolate durable chat wakeup workflows (#16187) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip accepts chat messages as durable task input. > - Wakeups must preserve current company, identity, and task permissions. > - The main service mixes those shared checks with provider message rules. > - Shared wakeup workflows should own persistence and queue ordering. > - This pull request extracts wakeup authorization, processing, and notices. > - Slack and GitHub rules move into their provider folders. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16185. Refs #16183 and #16180. Review against the parent branch. Related open #13620 covers durable chat wakeup feature work; this PR only moves existing behavior. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The structure of durable inbound wakeup processing. **Current behavior** The service contains authorization, durable wake receipts, queue notices, and provider authority details. **Proposed behavior** Use three cohesive inbound modules and provider-owned authority functions. **Reason and benefit** The shared transaction and company checks stay together while provider rules have a clear home. ## What Changed - Move wakeup authorization, processing, and notices into inbound modules (245, 418, and 377 lines). - Move Slack mention checks and GitHub automatic-event admission and acknowledgements into provider folders. - Preserve lock order, durable receipt ordering, notice cursor lifetime, and the live heartbeat dependency. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 6,340 to 5,337 lines, including blank-gap cleanup. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh local integration and wiring checks passed (1,318 tests). The dedicated Photon suite passed 18 before and 18 after the conflict resolution. This slice was replayed onto merged #16185 with its chat-channel source unchanged. Current-head CI and review are running. Earlier verification below describes previous stack commits. - Existing wakeup, queue, retry, and authorization integration cases: 212 passed before and 212 passed after; 1,083 other cases excluded. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax-tree audit compares all 12 moved functions, cursor state, retained service functions, and public API after explicit provider delegations. - The first three stack PRs have 55 passing CI checks and current-head 5/5 reviews. - Final stack checks are recorded below. The first broad local run encountered a PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture limit and was interrupted after that failure. - Greptile rates current head 1462819f53 5/5 with zero inline findings. All 55 CI checks now pass. Initial CI failures: the first workspace job hit EADDRINUSE in sandbox-callback-bridge.test.ts, and cloud-auth.spec.ts hit a disposed Playwright response. Both jobs passed on retry without source changes. Integration uses local PostgreSQL and fixture provider transports, not live providers. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Authorization and wakeups must retain the same locks and transaction scope. Factories receive narrow dependencies and initialize before their consumers. The notice cursor stays per service. Shutdown and heartbeat reads remain live. Provider helpers do not own transactions. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant 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 - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 11:36:35 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	721e87ac02	refactor(server): separate receiver ownership and provider callbacks (#16185) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip accepts provider callbacks as durable task input. > - Runtime ownership prevents two servers from accepting the same receiver stream. > - Discord and Photon share the lease machinery but have different callback details. > - Moving that shared machinery into Discord would create the wrong platform dependency. > - This pull request extracts common receiver ownership and puts provider callbacks in their own folders. > - The service keeps startup and shutdown coordination. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16183; review against the parent branch. Refs #16180 and #16080. Related open work: #15532 changes Discord command reconciliation scheduling. This extraction preserves existing scheduling. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The structure of shared receiver ownership and Discord/Photon runtime callbacks. **Current behavior** The shared entry point mixes lease acquisition, renewal, provider capability checks, and Photon checkpoint transactions. **Proposed behavior** Put the common lease operations in runtime/ownership.ts and the protocol details in the provider folders. **Reason and benefit** The ownership lifetime stays explicit without making Photon depend on Discord implementation code. ## What Changed - Extract 11 receiver-ownership helpers into runtime/ownership.ts (397 lines). Expose only the operations used by the service. - Extract Photon ownership checks and checkpoint callbacks (44 lines). Retain the same runtime context object. - Extract Discord command and capability reconciliation (112 lines). - Keep the original service-owned lease map, runtime versions, stop tasks, and shutdown sequence. Read shutdown and test overrides through live accessors. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 6,880 to 6,340 lines, including removal of blank gaps left by extractions. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh local integration and wiring checks passed (1,318 tests). The dedicated Photon suite passed 18 before and 18 after the conflict resolution. Current head is 6d52aba35f; CI and review are running. Earlier verification below describes the previous stack commits. - Existing Discord, Photon, and runtime integration cases: 110 passed before and 110 passed after; 1,185 other cases excluded. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax-tree comparison: 11 ownership helpers, two Photon callback bodies, Discord reconciliation, unrelated service functions, and the full public API/shutdown return expression preserve structure. Intentional binding changes are audited. - Both preceding PRs have 55 passing CI checks and current-head 5/5 reviews. - Repository typecheck and build passed earlier in this stack. Final stack checks are recorded below. The first broad local run hit a macOS PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture limit and was interrupted after that failure. - All 55 CI checks pass on df15f9dd9c. Greptile rates that head 5/5 with no inline findings. Tests use real local persistence with fixture runtimes; they do not prove live Discord or Photon execution. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Lease loss and partial startup can create overlapping receivers if cleanup order changes. The service retains the same map objects and shutdown ordering. The ownership module reads current shutdown state, and Photon callbacks retain the exact mutable runtime context reference. No new worker or timer starts during module initialization. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant 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 - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 11:17:21 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	ba00e9ef1a	refactor(server): isolate provider webhook handling (#16183) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip connects provider messages to governed agent work. > - Webhooks must authenticate and persist messages before acknowledging them. > - The shared service still contains GitHub and Slack protocol details. > - The platform-boundary rule places those details in provider folders. > - This pull request extracts provider webhook handling behind typed methods. > - The service retains dispatch, runtime selection, and durable lifecycle recording. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16180; review this PR against its parent branch. Refs #16080. Related open work: #16163 changes GitHub automatic-author policy. This extraction preserves that policy implementation. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of GitHub and Slack webhook handling. **Current behavior** The shared service implements GitHub signatures, replay fences, automatic event messages, and Slack callback verification. **Proposed behavior** Place those details in the respective provider folders and keep the common dispatcher small. **Reason and benefit** Provider code can be reviewed without reading the shared task service. ## What Changed - Extract GitHub request-local deadline and replay scope (60 lines). - Extract GitHub authentication and durable-ingress coordination (280 lines). - Extract GitHub event admission, message construction, and policy-skip receipts (140 lines). - Extract Slack workspace validation and authenticated callback observation (131 lines). - Keep the same service-owned background task set and GitHub provenance maps. Forward late-initialized callbacks without reading them during construction. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 7,383 to 6,880 lines: 503 net lines removed. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh integration, CI, and current-head review are running. Earlier verification below describes the previous stack commits. - Parent baseline: 544 selected GitHub, Slack, and webhook integration cases passed; 751 other cases excluded. - Initial extracted run: 543 passed and one idle-queue scan assertion failed. The idle-queue case passed separately on both the parent and extracted code. Its publication implementation is unchanged. The full selected-suite retry passed all 544 cases; the initial failure remains documented and its cause is not established. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax-tree comparison verifies unchanged request-scope logic, durable ingress, leased authentication, event handling, workspace validation, and callback recording. All unrelated service functions remain unchanged. - Repository typecheck and production build passed for the parent extraction. Full-stack verification will run at the final handoff. The first broad local run hit a macOS PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture limit and was interrupted after that failure. - All 55 current-head CI checks passed. Greptile: 5/5 on f74ecb5094, with zero inline findings. No live third-party execution is claimed. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Moving callback code can change initialization timing or lose request-scoped state. The new factories retain live option getters, the exact runtime context and provenance maps, and typed forwarding for late initialization. Authentication stays inside the existing credential lease. The common lifecycle write still completes before returning provider success. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant 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 - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 11:02:19 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1e64c875b2	refactor(server): move Slack recovery into channel modules (#16180) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Chat channels connect provider messages to governed tasks. > - Slack task recovery still lives in the shared channel service. > - Its provider sends and recovery state belong in the Slack folder. > - This pull request moves Slack task-start resolution and Board-message recovery into two modules. > - The service keeps the public dispatcher and the existing shared authorization owners. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16080. Related open work: #15421 changes linked-user task trust; #15532 changes Discord reconciliation. This extraction changes neither behavior. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of Slack task-start and Board-message recovery. **Current behavior** The 7,919-line shared service implements Slack retry and cancellation details. **Proposed behavior** Keep those implementations in the Slack folder. Preserve public methods and all state transitions. **Reason and benefit** The channel boundary follows rules/chat-channel-platform-boundaries.mdc and makes Slack recovery easier to review. ## What Changed - Move Slack task-start operator resolution into slack/task-start-resolution.ts (488 lines). - Move the durable Slack Board-message worker into slack/board-messages.ts (104 lines). - Keep initial endpoint/action lookup and provider-effect dispatch in the service. Pass the original endpoint record to avoid a new read or race. - Preserve live reads of heartbeat and deferred-processing options. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 7,919 to 7,383 lines: 536 net lines removed. ## Verification - Existing Slack integration cases: 282 passed before and 282 passed after; 1,013 non-Slack cases excluded by the filter. - pnpm -r typecheck: passed. The first sandboxed attempt could not create a local tsx IPC socket; the permitted rerun passed. - pnpm build: passed. - Module-boundary check and git diff --check: passed. - Normalized TypeScript AST comparison: moved Board worker and Slack resolution tail unchanged; all other service function declarations unchanged. - All 55 current-head CI checks passed; two optional Storybook checks skipped. Greptile: 5/5 on 1c1bf5d019, with zero inline findings. - The broad local pnpm test:run encountered PostgreSQL fixture startup failure because the macOS shared-memory ID limit was exhausted (the chat integration file did not execute in that run). The focused 282-case before/after runs passed. Two verified abandoned, unattached 56-byte guard segments were reclaimed; no active database was stopped. The broad run remains unverified and its output is retained. - Existing public-service integration tests use real local database fixtures and injected provider transports; no live Slack execution is claimed. - Final stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Credential lease loss, ambiguous sends, and scheduler failure can cause duplicate work if ordering changes. The extraction keeps the lease, transaction, provider-confirmed receipt, and resume marker sequence intact. No schema, API, dependency, or workflow change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant 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>	2026-10-13 10:50:23 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	833769ab55	perf(chat): schedule Telegram maintenance from commits and deadlines (#16094) ... Replace periodic Telegram discovery and maintenance scans with bounded startup recovery, connection-specific commit notifications, and durable action deadlines. Preserve ownership, inactive subscription parking, retry and cleanup recovery, and atomic credential binding updates. Verified full typecheck/build, 30 focused scheduler tests, 12 database-backed recovery cases, all current-head CI checks, and Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 07:55:27 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	df06df2306	fix(slack): allow direct messages without at-mentions (#16151) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connections let people start and continue agent tasks. > - The Require at-mention setting currently applies to channels and direct messages. > - A person who sends a direct message has already selected the agent. > - This pull request exempts direct messages from mention checks, including queued work. > - People can talk normally in DMs while channel messages keep the configured mention rule. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15612, which introduced the Require at-mention setting. Searches found no duplicate PR for the DM exemption. **What happened?** With Require at-mention enabled, a plain Slack DM does not start or continue agent work. New Slack connections enable the setting by default. **Expected behavior** Direct messages do not need an at-mention. Top-level DM replies remain top-level. Channel messages and channel thread replies still follow the saved mention setting. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Allow direct messages and Require at-mention on a Slack connection. 2. Send a plain DM from an authorized sender. 3. Confirm the agent responds without an at-mention. Send a plain follow-up and confirm it also works. 4. Confirm unmentioned channel messages remain filtered when Require at-mention is enabled. 5. Disable Allow direct messages and confirm new DMs remain blocked. **Paperclip version or commit** Source baseline: `eb06c9fedd`. **Deployment mode** Built from source. Automated tests use disposable local Postgres and provider fixtures. This change has not been deployed or retested in live Slack. ## What Changed - Exempt DMs at inbound admission, task mutation, work authorization, and heartbeat queue claim. - Keep channel mention checks and all existing sender, endpoint, and destination checks. - Update regressions for new connections, follow-ups, deferred delivery, and coalesced queued messages. - Clarify the Slack settings copy, connection documentation, and verification maps. - Refresh the affected Storybook review references after source inspection. ## Verification - Passed 55 Slack and durable scheduler tests with Vitest on the current rebased commit, including admission through the extracted inbound module. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` on the rebased PR commit. - Passed token gates and map checks. - Passed Storybook catalog validation after rebase: 223 files and 2,210 stories. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after three failures in the unchanged tool-access suite. All 418 tests in that suite passed in a standalone rerun. The focused regressions passed; full GitHub CI remains the merge gate. - Greptile reviewed commit `b0293fa6571403c5e01c30bb7b5fcc5e91b88c97`: 5/5, with no findings or unresolved review threads. All 55 GitHub checks passed on this commit; two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. - No live Slack messages were sent during implementation verification. ## Risks Existing Slack connections now accept authorized plain DMs even when Require at-mention is enabled. Allow direct messages and sender authorization still apply. Queued DM work follows the same exemption. Channel behavior and DM reply routing are unchanged. No schema or migration change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model 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>	2026-10-13 07:40:46 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	eb06c9fedd	refactor(server): split chat channel workflows into provider and shared modules (#16080) ... Move provider operations into channel folders and shared chat work into named interaction, setup, admission, delivery and publication workflows. Consolidate reviewed PRs #16085, #16089, #16096 and #16105. Preserve upstream execution-default and recovery behavior. The main service is 7,917 lines. All 55 current-head CI checks pass, with two optional Storybook skips. Greptile is 5/5 with no findings. All 1,294 current chat integration cases, repository-wide typecheck and build pass locally. Broad local tool-route timing/socket failures are recorded in the PR. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 07:26:32 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d837b65be8	refactor(server): move provider setup, inventory and delivery into channel folders (#16058) ... Consolidate the ten reviewed provider-folder extractions. Preserve the verified source tree and current master changes. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 00:26:33 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7d7f55e4be	fix(apps): show user avatars and center access rows (#15577) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their access to apps. > - The app access page shows people with linked chat accounts. > - The identity response omitted the user's saved image. > - The row placed the avatar beside only the first name line. > - This change returns the image and centers the avatar beside both name lines. > - People can recognize linked accounts and still see initials when no image is available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The app access page showed initials even when the linked Paperclip user had a profile image. The avatar was above the vertical center of the Disconnect button. **Expected behavior** Show the linked user's saved image. Center it beside the Paperclip and chat names. Keep initials when no image is available. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Link a Slack account to a Paperclip user with a profile image. 2. Open the app's Access tab. 3. Inspect the person's avatar and the two name lines. Searched public issues and pull requests. No duplicate fix was found. Related avatar work in #15095 concerns agent uploads, not linked user profiles. ## What Changed - Return `paperclipUserImage` from the chat principal service and declare it in the API and client types. - Use the shared avatar primitives and center the avatar beside the full name block. Keep full names available in hover text. - Add image and initials examples to the existing Storybook access story, with image and alignment checks. - Extend the service test to check saved images and missing images. ## Verification - Token gates and `git diff --check` pass. - The 33 existing chat setup and identity-link UI tests pass. - The OAuth installer service regression test passes. - Chromium rendered the Storybook Access story at desktop and mobile sizes. The avatar, name block, and Disconnect button centers all measured 307 CSS pixels on desktop. - UI typecheck passes. Full repository typecheck and build stop at the Rust runner because this workspace has no `cargo`. The initial parallel typecheck also exceeded the 4 GiB workspace limit. The full local test attempt was stopped as memory approached the 4 GiB limit; it has no complete verdict. CI passed the full build, typecheck, test, and E2E lanes on the initial commit. The previously reviewed commit passed 54 checks with two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Master was merged on October 10 to resolve an import conflict; fresh CI is running for `24badb742d331c1b6ee3e90cbd06defefe5cd634`. Token gates and whitespace checks pass after conflict resolution. The single retry after CI runner shutdowns passed. Greptile gives this commit 5/5, with both review threads resolved. ### Screenshots The Storybook fixture shows an image, fallback initials, and a pending account.   ## Risks Low risk. The API field is additive and needs no migration. The image uses the same avatar primitive as other user identities. Missing or failed images retain the initials fallback. Other chat providers share this access row. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. Tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 23:54:01 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	e168512f7b	perf(chat): stop polling failed run retries (#15871) ... Stop one-second scans of failed chat-run retries. Wake the existing retry queue after transaction commits and at saved retry or stale-claim deadlines. Preserve claim fences, authorization, recovery, and idempotent agent admission. Resolve conflicts with the current chat-service extraction by applying the retry signals and shared deadline predicate in the failed-run retry module. Verified with pnpm typecheck, pnpm build, all 1,328 chat and coordinator regression tests, and current-head CI. Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 19:49:47 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	f329b24ee1	feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces (#15749) ... Give tasks durable company-scoped workspace bindings independent of project assignment, channel defaults and authorized repository preparation. Reuse verified input seeds and sparse output recovery while preserving trust, privacy and controller provisioning boundaries. Full CI and E2E, Superagent, legacy checks and Greptile Apex 5/5 passed on reviewed head 753680b61c. All review findings are resolved; the PR records focused verification and historical acceptance limits. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 20:45:18 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	64bd6e9e07	refactor(chat): extract delivery, reaction, and setup boundaries (#16024) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Chat channels connect that work to provider conversations. > - One shared service contains callback, delivery, reaction, and setup logic. > - These responsibilities have distinct contracts and existing public-path tests. > - This PR moves ten cohesive responsibilities into focused modules. > - The service retains shared runtime ownership and scheduling. > - Provider behavior is easier to locate and review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15995, #16026, #16027, #16030, #16031, #16035, #16037, #16038, #16041, #16043. This PR consolidates the reviewed extraction stack. The plan is `doc/plans/2026-10-12-chat-channel-delivery-boundaries-refactor.md`. ## What Changed - Move Slack callback verification into the Slack folder. - Move Discord Gateway events and root-thread admission/recovery into the Discord folder. - Extract durable receipt reactions and inbound reaction admission/replay. - Extract inbound attachment ingestion and outbound integrity-checked hydration. Preserve the public hydration export. - Extract durable provider effects. Keep Telegram callback notices in the Telegram folder. - Extract conversation/activity reads and setup qualification. Keep Slack and Teams projections in their channel folders. - Preserve the merged managed Slack setup behavior, shared workers, credential leases, and transaction boundaries. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 26,493 lines / 1,048,769 bytes to 21,460 lines / 862,284 bytes. This removes 5,033 lines from the service. ## Verification - Each extraction passed its selected existing tests before and after through public service paths. - On updated master, all 55 selected Slack cases passed before extraction. All 194 selected chat/managed-Slack cases passed on the final stack tip. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, module-boundary checks, and whitespace checks passed on that tip. - The normalized syntax audit verifies 69 moved declarations and all retained statements, including their relative order, against updated master. - The eight earlier stack merges retain the exact validated repository tree. The combined root equals the validated tip merged with current master. All chat-channel files remain byte-identical to the validated tip. Current combined-root CI and review are pending. - Full local verification remains unverified. The unchanged `workspace-git-snapshot-streaming.test.ts:56` stress test timed out at 300,000 ms in a clean run and again in isolation. The full run was stopped after the reproduced failure. No timeout or assertion was weakened. - These checks use assembled services, real local databases, and provider fixtures. They do not prove live third-party execution. Reviewers can run the public-path suites: ```sh pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts server/src/services/chat-outbound-attachment-hydration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/slack-development-manager.test.ts ``` ## Risks - Factory wiring must preserve live values, shared state, and initialization order. Identity-link construction retains deferred access to the provider-effects callback. - Credential fences, authorization transactions, and delivery settlement must keep their original ordering. Syntax parity and public-path integration cases cover these boundaries. - Full local verification has the recorded Git-streaming timeout. The combined PR must pass master’s required CI before merging into master. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate agent was 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 - [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>	2026-10-12 22:46:25 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	0d0e138dad	refactor(chat): extract channel status, receipts, drafts and authority workflows (#15995) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Chat channels connect that work to provider conversations. > - Provider workflows still fill the shared service. > - Their authority and recovery rules need clear homes. > - This PR lands five reviewed extractions into channel folders. > - Shared authorization, state and worker lifetime stay explicit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15976, #15996, #15999, #16001 and #16002. This root PR now contains all five extractions from batch three. The four upper PRs were merged into their parents. The combined tree matches reviewed stack head `789e918b5af49ec1958076ce4d22d31006205302` exactly. ## What Changed - Extract Slack session status and accepted-file receipt recovery. - Extract Telegram publication drafts and Stop handling. - Extract Photon events and native responses. - Extract Teams file-transfer authority. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 29,897 to 26,461 lines (3,436 lines, 11.5%). - Preserve function bodies, runtime-map identity, leases and transaction boundaries. ## Verification - All 117 selected public-service cases passed before and after their respective extractions. - All 30 moved declarations and remaining service statements preserve normalized syntax across the five slices. - Server typecheck, module boundaries and whitespace checks passed. - Cumulative `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. Combined-head CI and review are pending on `5de1b0b99d71049a72440e8c131bf4bb30bdf3f3`. - Fixtures exercise assembled services and disposable databases, not live third-party providers. - Cumulative local `pnpm test:run` on `789e918b5af49ec1958076ce4d22d31006205302` exited 1: 32,414 passed, 125 skipped, one failure. `company-skills-routes.test.ts:1691` (`stars, forks, and comments on skills through company-scoped endpoints`) failed with `socket hang up`; that test and its route are unchanged by this stack. The same 58-case suite then passed in isolation without code changes. The original command did not reach 111 later serialized suites; its failure is retained, so the full-local-test checklist remains unchecked. ```sh pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'Slack session|Slack turns to Idle|signed Slack session stop|denies guest Slack stops' ``` - Combined-head CI attempt 1: five runners received a shutdown signal at 19:13:08 UTC (server shard 10/12, serialized shards 2/9 and 7/9, E2E shards 3/8 and 7/8). These jobs stopped during execution without a failing test assertion. [Original workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38293566028). The affected jobs will receive one unchanged retry after the other jobs finish. ## Risks - Changes cross durable provider recovery and authority boundaries. The moved bodies preserve syntax, and 117 focused public-service cases passed before and after their extractions. - Shared workers, timers, runtime maps and generic authorization remain in the service. - The full local test run failed in an unchanged company-skills route test; its result and the unrun suites are recorded above. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate agent was 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 - [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>	2026-10-12 19:26:54 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	a2ac5c2715	refactor(chat): isolate Telegram, Slack, GitHub and Discord workflows (#15976) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Chat channels connect that work to external conversations. > - The shared chat service still contains provider-specific workflows. > - Those workflows are hard to inspect in a 34,000-line file. > - This stack extracts Telegram, Slack, GitHub and Discord workflows into their channel folders. > - Shared authorization and service lifetime remain explicit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15823, #15834, #15836, #15844 and #15845. Root of the second behavior-preserving channel-folder refactor stack. The dependent PRs #15979, #15981, #15985 and #15987 have merged into this branch; this PR lands all five extractions on master. ## What Changed - Move Telegram maintenance and subscription repair into `chat-channels/telegram/maintenance.ts`. - Move Slack session stopping and task starts into `chat-channels/slack/session-stop.ts` and `task-start.ts`. - Move GitHub webhook intake and recovery into `chat-channels/github/webhook-ingress.ts`. - Move Discord command registration and handling into `chat-channels/discord/commands.ts`. - Share type-only runtime records while preserving shared authorization, transactions, live lease checks and worker ownership. - Reduce the original service from 34,603 to 29,897 lines, removing 4,706 lines (13.6%). ## Verification - All 205 selected integration cases passed before and after their respective extractions: Telegram 41, Slack session stop 2 multi-step scenarios, GitHub 84, Slack task start 25 and Discord 53. Each dependent PR records its focused reproduction command. - Server typecheck, module boundaries and whitespace checks passed. - Per-slice syntax comparisons passed for moved declarations and remaining service statements, allowing only the documented live callback substitutions. - Tests exercise the public service with disposable databases and fixture provider transports. They do not claim live third-party execution. - Cumulative workspace typecheck and build passed on the final stack. - Current-head CI passed on the combined stack commit `d5b37dbe512e3e199932b6608cdc17639eda555a`; Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - The [original serialized shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38266518817/job/114870022249) timed out in unchanged `adapter-auth-signal-routes.test.ts`. The exact case passed locally without changes, and the [single job retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38266518817/job/114874019933) passed. The original timeout remains recorded. Reproduce the original Telegram slice’s focused suite: ```sh pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'Telegram durable private draft Stop|Telegram maintenance|Telegram webhook|Telegram.*(pause|remove)|Telegram.*commands' ``` - Cumulative local `pnpm test:run` exited 1: the first server group had **18,770 passed, 105 skipped, and one timeout** in unchanged `server/src/services/workspace-git-snapshot-streaming.test.ts:56` (300,000 ms on macOS). The fail-fast runner did not reach its later workspace and serialized groups. An unchanged isolated rerun passed using the existing timeout; this does not turn the original full run green. The test and its Git utility code are outside this refactor; all current-head CI jobs passed. - Reproduce that diagnostic alone: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/workspace-git-snapshot-streaming.test.ts`. ## Risks - Credential lease ownership and provider-confirmation ordering must remain unchanged. Existing rotation, lease-loss, recovery and durable Stop cases pass. - The channel factories create no workers or timers and preserve live runtime, shutdown and gateway-ownership reads. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate agent was 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 12:03:23 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d497d1ccec	refactor(chat): extract failed-run retry coordination (#15845) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and sends results back to chat. > - A failed chat run can be retried only while its original source remains authorized. > - That decision includes persisted source evidence and native runtime state. > - Retry claims also share in-flight promises and depend on service shutdown. > - This PR groups retry authorization, execution and notices in one module. > - The service retains the live admission, runtime and shutdown boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15844, #15836, #15834 and #15823. Stack slice 5 of 5, based on `codex/chat-publication-replacement`. Merge each predecessor first, then retarget this PR. Do not merge the stack out of order. Stack order: #15823 (provider messages) → #15834 (resource reconciliation) → #15836 (identity links) → #15844 (publication replacement) → #15845 (failed-run retries). GitHub native stack merging preserves this order and automatically restacks the remaining branches. ## What Changed - Extract failed-run retry admission and coordination while keeping the in-flight map, cursor, error class and authority registrations scoped to one chat service. - Move the exact Teams uncertain-file continuation proof into `microsoft-teams/file-transfer-source.ts`. - Pass the existing transaction, explicit source identifiers and denial factory. Return only the proven publication ID. - Keep committed-result, complete source-batch, ancestor and other-uncertain-effect checks in shared `failed-run-retry.ts`. - Keep native execution recovery together; its provider references describe runner backends, not chat channels. - The retry coordinator is 1,825 lines and the Teams proof is 149 lines. Restack on revised #15844 and record the reassessment. ## Verification - Baseline: 59 retry cases and six negative Teams authority cases passed. The combined 65 cases passed after the move. - Cases cover retry ownership, service restart/lifetime, ambiguous Teams receipts, sibling unknown effects, changed source authority and active attempts. - Teams guard, joins, locks, attempt checks and selected ID match after explicit input substitutions. The shared coordinator retains its state and cleanup ownership. - Server typecheck, module-boundary and whitespace checks passed. - Integration uses disposable databases and fixture provider transports; no live third-party execution is claimed. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on `4f7151409717458717633aa270441a8faf33664e`, with a successful check and no open review threads. - Final-stack `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed at `57ec5ba94aecd860471f9b14db46f99120c7c790`. - All CI checks passed on `57ec5ba94aecd860471f9b14db46f99120c7c790`. - Full local `pnpm test:run` stopped in the general-server group: 18,763 passed, 105 skipped, and one test timed out after 20 seconds in unchanged `workspace-runtime.test.ts` ("does not accept an occupied allocated port when listener ownership is unavailable"). The same case passed in an isolated rerun without code, assertion or timeout changes (1 passed, 175 excluded). The original timeout is retained as a failed full run; later workspace and serialized groups were not reached. The full local gate remains unverified. - Merge verification on the restacked tree: 118 focused identity, publication, Photon and retry integration tests passed; server typecheck and module-boundary checks passed. GitHub’s rebased trees exactly match the previously reviewed file contents. - All current-head required checks passed on `4f7151409717458717633aa270441a8faf33664e`: full CI; Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. ## Risks - Authorization must remain fail-closed across committed output and retry admission. The helper proves only the Teams transfer; the caller still checks the complete source and result in the same transaction. - In-flight promises, error-class identity, registration cleanup, cursor state and the live shutdown getter must remain per-service. Their code is unchanged by this channel-folder move. - This PR depends on #15844. Merge and retarget in stack order. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate agent was 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 09:49:34 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5a72061ccc	refactor(chat): extract publication replacement decisions (#15844) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip publishes agent progress and results back to chat. > - Some updates replace an earlier message while others need a new message. > - The current outbound link and task generation determine that authority. > - These decisions are spread through the large chat service. > - This PR groups publication replacement and supersession decisions in one module. > - Reviewers can follow those decisions without reading provider transport code. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15836, #15834 and #15823. Stack slice 4 of 5, based on `codex/chat-identity-links`. Merge the predecessor first, then retarget this PR. Do not merge the stack out of order. Stack order: #15823 (provider messages) → #15834 (resource reconciliation) → #15836 (identity links) → #15844 (publication replacement) → #15845 (failed-run retries). GitHub native stack merging preserves this order and automatically restacks the remaining branches. ## What Changed - Extract shared publication replacement and supersession queries from the large service. - Keep exact outbound ownership, run/wake scope, consumed progress, interaction replacement and retained-source authorization together. - Put the iMessage typing-versus-progress policy in `imessage-photon/publications.ts`. - Preserve endpoint lookup timing and all ownership query bodies. The multi-provider close allowlist remains shared dispatch metadata. - Restack onto the revised #15836 and record why this boundary remains mostly shared. ## Verification - The same 49 existing publication and Photon integration cases passed before and after the provider-policy move. Other cases were excluded by the filter. - Cases cover close-owned progress, ambiguous delivery, interleaved Slack control, Telegram confirmation, FIFO replacement and Photon channel behavior. - Server typecheck, module-boundary and whitespace checks passed. Only the iMessage predicate/reason moved; ownership queries are unchanged. - Historical server shard 2 hit a cleanup deadlock; its unchanged [isolated rerun passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38134431077/job/114457999409). [Original failure](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38134431077/job/114455332022). - Tests use disposable databases and fixture provider transports, not live third-party execution. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on `8e2da97b6dc11eb446128b61c789edb529c50d5a`, with a successful check and no open review threads. - Final-stack `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed at `57ec5ba94aecd860471f9b14db46f99120c7c790`. - Historical pre-restack CI failed on `ci / General tests (server (11/12))` and its aggregate `ci / verify`. All 1,255 tests passed, but worker-exit cleanup in unchanged `server/src/__tests__/setup-supertest.ts:32` failed with EACCES removing a temporary `paperclip-vitest-home-*` directory. The [original job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38256549828/job/114836065382) and the [single unchanged rerun](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38256549828/job/114839735273) failed the same way. No further reruns were requested. After GitHub automatically restacked the branches, the full cumulative run on #15845 passed this server shard. This middle PR uses the repository’s policy-only stack CI scope; the top PR runs all suites. - The final full-local-suite outcome for this cumulative stack is recorded in #15845; do not infer that gate from the focused tests above. - Merge verification on the restacked tree: 118 focused identity, publication, Photon and retry integration tests passed; server typecheck and module-boundary checks passed. GitHub’s rebased trees exactly match the previously reviewed file contents. - All current-head required checks passed on `8e2da97b6dc11eb446128b61c789edb529c50d5a`: policy CI (middle-stack scope; full cumulative suites passed on #15845); Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. ## Risks - Splitting shared ownership queries per channel would duplicate authorization rules. They remain in the shared module. - Preserve the issue-to-run lock order and retained-source callback. The factory creates no worker or mutable state. - This PR depends on #15836. Merge and retarget in stack order. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate agent was 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 09:49:34 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	de79750939	refactor(chat): extract identity linking (#15836) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip connects provider identities to company members. > - A confirmed identity determines whose permissions apply to chat messages. > - Token consumption and membership checks must remain atomic. > - These operations currently share the large chat channel service. > - This PR moves identity linking into one module with explicit runtime callbacks. > - Reviewers can inspect the complete identity-link flow together. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15834 and #15823. Stack slice 3 of 5, based on `codex/chat-resource-reconciliation`. Merge the predecessor first, then retarget this PR. Do not merge the stack out of order. Stack order: #15823 (provider messages) → #15834 (resource reconciliation) → #15836 (identity links) → #15844 (publication replacement) → #15845 (failed-run retries). GitHub native stack merging preserves this order and automatically restacks the remaining branches. ## What Changed - Extract company-scoped identity linking into shared `identity-links.ts`. - Move Slack connect receipt queries, access requests and confirmation-notice staging into `slack/identity-links.ts`. - Move GitHub identity fields into `github/identity-links.ts`. - Preserve shared token consumption, link locks, membership checks and revocation. - Stage the Slack notice inside the original confirmation transaction. Schedule delivery after commit. Keep runtime and public URL callbacks live. - Restack on the revised resource PR #15834 and record the architectural reassessment in the plan. ## Verification - Four existing service integration cases passed before and after. The Slack connect case covers discovery, preview, access requests, duplicate requests, member confirmation, provider notice, consumed tokens and endpoint isolation. - Receipt queries, the access-request transaction and notice payload match the previous implementation with explicit parameter substitutions. - Server typecheck, module-boundary and whitespace checks passed. - These are local database and fixture transport tests, not live Slack execution. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on `7b44962f09fe8043c77ed40e05f761f31c64b33c`, with a successful check and no open review threads. - Final-stack `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed at `57ec5ba94aecd860471f9b14db46f99120c7c790`. - All CI checks passed on `62ee045a4728da2d756be3d2e40d13e592a0b5a9`. - The [original workspace shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38256203686/job/114834873234) timed out waiting for the CLI import/export test server health endpoint. Its [single unchanged rerun passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38256203686/job/114838954081). The original timeout remains part of the evidence. - The final full-local-suite outcome for this cumulative stack is recorded in #15845; do not infer that gate from the focused tests above. - Merge verification on the restacked tree: 118 focused identity, publication, Photon and retry integration tests passed; server typecheck and module-boundary checks passed. GitHub’s rebased trees exactly match the previously reviewed file contents. - All current-head required checks passed on `7b44962f09fe8043c77ed40e05f761f31c64b33c`: full CI; Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. ## Risks - Confirmation must retain transaction and token ownership. The Slack helper receives the existing transaction and stages the same effect; scheduling remains after commit in the shared coordinator. - This PR depends on #15834. Merge predecessors and retarget before merging this PR. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate agent was 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 09:49:33 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3a213ab987	refactor(chat): extract resource reconciliation and availability (#15834) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Chat resources control which provider destinations can admit that work. > - Inventory updates and lifecycle callbacks must preserve company scope and operator choices. > - These rules share a large service with runtime and credential ownership. > - This PR extracts resource reconciliation and its availability transaction. > - Reviewers can inspect resource changes together while the service retains runtime control. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15823 (merged). Slice 2 of 5 now targets `master`. Remaining order: #15834 → #15836 → #15844 → #15845. ## What Changed - Extract shared resource inventory, audited selection and availability settlement from the large service. - Put GitHub repository parsing, rename/transfer repair, webhook recovery and listing in `github/resources.ts`. - Put Telegram group migration in `telegram/resources.ts`, using the coordinator's existing transaction and timestamp. - Put Slack labels, Teams IDs and Photon participant parsing in their channel folders. - Keep lease assertions, delivery settlement and the resource upsert between Telegram migration steps in the shared coordinator. - The shared module is 598 lines; provider resource modules total 409 lines. Update the dated plan with this reassessment. ## Verification - On updated master, 15 existing resource integration cases and one Telegram migration case passed before this folder move. The same 16 cases passed after. Other cases were excluded by the filter. - Eight moved declarations and three transaction blocks match the prior implementation. The GitHub provider guard remains in the caller. - Server TypeScript, module-boundary and whitespace checks passed. Rebuilt plugin SDK types after rebasing onto current master. - Historical browser shard 8 timed out on inbox retry; its unchanged [rerun passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38134430238/job/114457529315). [Original failure](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38134430238/job/114455332214). - Tests use local disposable databases and fixture provider transports. No live third-party execution is claimed. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on `e914f532ca66c429125492c1723df38afc6e13d7`, with a successful check and no open review threads. - Final-stack `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed at `57ec5ba94aecd860471f9b14db46f99120c7c790`. - All CI checks passed on `e914f532ca66c429125492c1723df38afc6e13d7`. - The final full-local-suite outcome for this cumulative stack is recorded in #15845; do not infer that gate from the focused tests above. ## Risks - Resource identity and migrations depend on lock and write order. Provider modules use the original transaction; statement order and credential fencing remain unchanged. - Shared selection and availability still contain provider dispatch predicates. They coordinate common state transitions and should remain shared. - Full local tests and current-revision CI remain required for a green handoff. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate agent was 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 - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 09:39:51 -05:00