mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
4857799a88914cd9597655da56af312808d0474d
10
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
8ee8f1fd6e |
ci: retire recurring public cloud image builds (#13827)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Core publishes standard images and source verification for downstream services. > - Managed services can now compose private images from the signed standard image. > - Core still builds a second public cloud image on every master push and release. > - That duplicate producer consumes build capacity and retains an obsolete readiness contract. > - This pull request retires recurring cloud publication while preserving the standard producer and rollback artifacts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13797 and #13789. Related: #12856 changes image dependency packaging; it does not retire this producer. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Core's recurring Docker publication and Cloud readiness workflow. **Current behavior** Master pushes call the legacy cloud publisher from Cloud readiness. Release tags and manual Docker runs call it too. Canary promotion also requires the legacy image. **Proposed behavior** Publish standard Core images and retain `Cloud source verified v1`. Let downstream services build their managed image. Keep explicit commit previews and existing images available. ## What Changed - Remove `docker-cloud.yml`, its master and release callers, and its unused cache selector. - Remove the legacy image/migrator wait and `Cloud deployable v1` job. Keep the full source verification workflow and exact source-proof name. - Make canary promotion inspect and promote the standard image only. - Preserve signed standard-image publication, direct migrator publication, and explicit `release.yml` previews. The preview path still uses the Dockerfile `cloud` target. - Update workflow, preview, build-stamp, and packaging tests. Exercise the promotion shell with mocked registry commands, including missing-image and missing-tag cases. - Document frozen legacy aliases, consumer requirements, preview compatibility, and rollback retention. ## Verification - All 377 workflow tests pass: `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs`. - All 129 release-registry tests pass: `pnpm test:release-registry`. - Focused source-proof, standard-image, preview, and workflow tests pass: 256 tests. - Focused image packaging/build-stamp tests pass: 16 tests. - Actionlint passes on all three changed workflow files. `git diff --check` passes. - Full local `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` pass. - The policy follow-up updates an old assertion that required the removed readiness job. All 37 source-proof/release-workflow tests pass locally. - Full local `pnpm test:run` did not complete successfully while the Mac ran out of disk space. No full-suite pass is claimed. Removed 1.2 GiB of generated Cargo output from this isolated worktree with `cargo clean`. GitHub CI passed on the final head: 52 successful checks and 2 optional skips. - Fresh Greptile review for `4f5fe1951f0bd7f7739cf6655d395ff78f1ed944`: **5/5**, successful current-head check, zero review threads. - September 23 refresh: the unchanged PR head merges cleanly with current master `db8f8fe5b73a2697684a30261b0d306a9c631aba`. In an isolated temporary worktree, all 377 workflow tests and 29 release/preview tests pass on the combined tree. `git diff --cached --check` passes. - Refreshed Actionlint workflow validation passes with ShellCheck disabled. Full Actionlint reports the same 10 existing ShellCheck diagnostics as master, with no added diagnostics. No source changes or new PR commits were needed. - The full local build/typecheck and current-head Linux CI results above remain the verification for the unchanged PR head. They were not rerun for this metadata-only refresh. No image publication or tenant deployment was initiated for this refresh. ## Risks **Deployment prerequisite satisfied (September 23):** The combined cleanup release is deployed to staging and production, and production Support is verified. Active managed-fleet automation uses standard-image composition. Explicit immutable previews remain supported by the retained preview publisher. This PR is ready for maintainer review; keep auto-merge disabled and wait for explicit merge authorization. - A consumer still selecting `Cloud deployable v1` will stop advancing at the last legacy-ready commit. Confirm active automatic consumers use the standard-image composition contract before merge. - Legacy cloud release-channel aliases stop advancing. Standard self-hosted aliases continue. - This PR deletes no registry images, cache tags, migrators, credentials, or runner infrastructure. Existing immutable releases remain usable for rollback. - Explicit legacy previews remain for commit-specific operator deployments. Retiring that compatibility path requires a separate consumer migration. - These changes affect CI publication, not database schema or application behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime does not expose a more specific model identifier or context-window size. Used repository inspection, reasoning, code editing, shell tools, 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4cc387f907 |
fix(ci): remove npm propagation from cloud readiness (#13456)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Paperclip Cloud needs a verified image and matching database
migrator before it can deploy a merge.
> - New npm package versions can take minutes to become downloadable
after the package build finishes.
> - The direct producer now publishes signed archives and a complete
dependency lockfile for each master commit.
> - This pull request makes readiness verify those artifacts and removes
the duplicate automatic npm migrator run.
> - Deployment still requires all source checks, exact image identity,
migration compatibility, and pinned dependencies.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs: #13455, #13454, #13192
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The time from a master merge to the `Cloud deployable v1` signal.
**Current behavior**
Readiness polls npm metadata for the new DB and shared versions. An
automatic dispatcher also starts a separate npm-only migrator workflow.
A measured source built its packages at 06:22:41 UTC on 2026-09-15, but
both npm archives were not downloadable until 06:31:56 UTC.
**Proposed behavior**
Wait for the successful exact-source direct producer, verify its signed
manifest and all pinned downloads, and publish readiness only after the
existing source and image jobs pass. Keep manual npm migrators and
branch previews available.
**Reason and benefit**
Remove new-version npm propagation from merge-to-deployable time. The
gain depends on whether image building or source verification finishes
later; it is not a fixed subtraction from every run.
## What Changed
- Require a successful producer from the canonical repository, exact
commit, master ref, expected workflow, and approved event.
- Verify the manifest's GitHub attestation with the hosted GitHub CLI.
Enforce the exact source SHA, master workflow identity, and hosted
runner.
- Download and validate both archives and the complete dependency
lockfile after publication succeeds. Reject invalid signatures,
inaccessible objects, corrupt bytes, and source mismatches.
- Remove automatic npm-only migrator dispatch. Retain manual release and
branch-preview publication.
- Document the cloud feature-switch prerequisite and coordinated
rollback.
## Verification
- `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs`: 405 pass.
- Focused readiness, routing, preview, and artifact tests: 249 pass.
- Workflow lint and `git diff --check`: pass.
- `pnpm test:release-registry`: 139 pass after installing this
worktree's dependencies.
- All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed. Greptile is 5/5 with no
unresolved comments.
- Application source is unchanged. Common-source local typecheck and
build passed. The full local application suite has the documented macOS
read-only-directory rename limitation from #13454 (13 failures in two
unchanged suites); Linux CI is the final application gate.
- Live readiness verification of master
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
058c55bf8f |
fix(ci): overlap preview migrator publication waits (#13454)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work.
> - Cloud deploys an application image with a migrator from the same
source commit.
> - The migrator consists of the DB package and its matching shared
package.
> - npm can accept a package several minutes before readers can see it.
> - The publisher waits for shared visibility before it submits the DB
package.
> - This change submits both validated packages before polling their
visibility.
> - Their availability delays can then overlap while the final gate
still requires both packages.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Related: #13334. No duplicate open migrator-publication fix was found.
**What happened?**
The cloud migrator publisher waits up to ten minutes for the shared
package before submitting the DB package. The two registry delays
therefore accumulate. A shared visibility timeout can prevent the DB
package from being submitted at all.
**Expected behavior**
Submit both valid packages, then wait for both to pass the existing
exact-source metadata checks. Report which package remains unavailable.
**Steps to reproduce**
Return 404 for shared metadata after npm accepts the shared archive.
Observe that the old publisher never submits the DB archive until shared
becomes visible. The new regression test requires both submissions
before the first visibility sleep.
**Paperclip version**
Base commit
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
44f6312cd8 |
fix(ci): reuse one available Cloud registry cache (#13334)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud needs a verified image for each merged source commit. > - Fresh builders restore compiled native dependencies from registry caches. > - The current workflow imports up to eleven historical cache manifests at once. > - Live builds missed native layers that a fresh builder reused from one manifest. > - This PR selects the nearest available cache and tests reuse across fresh builders. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13329 and #13330. A search of open cache PRs found no duplicate of this change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Remote Docker cache reuse on fresh Cloud image builders. **Current behavior** [Cloud run 34714483272](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34714483272/job/103609096836) imported the previous cache manifest successfully but rebuilt `cargo-chef` and Rust dependencies. The dependency compile took 3m43s. The preceding image build had already exported those layers. A controlled [fresh-builder diagnostic](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715336530) used the same source and registry cache. The single-manifest job reused both layers immediately. The multiple-manifest job rebuilt them and failed the cache assertion. Both jobs used GitHub-hosted runners with read-only access. **Proposed behavior** Inspect cache manifests in first-parent order and import only the nearest available one. Keep full-SHA cache exports, the ten-commit search bound, and the legacy fallback. If caches cannot be read, permit a cold build. **Reason and benefit** Avoid the observed cache misses without changing image contents or builder sizes. Expected savings include about four minutes of native tool/dependency compilation when those inputs are unchanged. The final merge-to-deployable gain still needs a post-merge measurement. **Breaking changes** No image, artifact, deployment, or runner-routing contract changes. ## What Changed - Select one available ancestor cache after Docker login and Buildx setup. - Preserve separate writable cache tags for each full source SHA. - Test cache ordering, missing caches, registry errors, and workflow integration. - Add the selector tests to the existing release-registry suite. - Export a local test cache, remove the first builder, and verify a source rebuild on a fresh builder. - Document cache selection and the stronger Docker check. ## Verification - Passed 456 focused workflow, routing, readiness, preview-artifact, and cache-selector tests. - Passed shell syntax, ShellCheck for the changed probe, actionlint workflow validation, and `git diff --check`. actionlint's shell checks were disabled for the workflow validation because unchanged migration-label commands trigger existing SC2012 notes. - The fresh-builder registry diagnostic proves the single-cache behavior. The [permanent two-builder probe passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715771048/job/103612624090), including a changed real binary and dependency-declaration invalidation. - Passed all 35 latest-head checks (green or intentionally skipped), including full typecheck, test, build, and browser suites in [PR CI run 34715771217](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715771217). - The real selector CLI inspected registry metadata and chose the nearest available ancestor cache. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no open findings. The PR title was corrected to meet the source-change naming rule; the review check passed after that correction. - Local full-suite runs and Docker builds are unavailable because the local Docker daemon is unresponsive after disk exhaustion. CI provides the Linux verification. ## Risks - Missing or unreadable caches cause a slower cold build. The selector logs that condition and preserves image publication. - Inspecting several missing ancestors adds lookup time. Each lookup has a ten-second timeout and the search is bounded. - The Docker test now exports a local cache. It removes the first builder before starting the second to release disk space, then cleans up its builders and files. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
932c8bec56 |
fix(ci): bake the managed runtime identity into cloud images (#13210)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed deployments start from the image built by the Cloud workflow. > - The managed runtime requests user and group 1001. > - The image currently builds the node user as 1000. > - Startup must remap that user, which can walk a large mounted home directory. > - This pull request uses the existing Docker build arguments to bake user and group 1001 into Cloud images. > - Matching the runtime identity removes that startup work and helps avoid health-check retries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13208, #1923, and #7861. Searched open and closed PRs for the Cloud UID change. The older #7861 addresses build context and volume ownership repair. This change uses the existing identity arguments in the Cloud workflow and preserves ownership repair. **What happened?** A measured rollout had a container log `Updating node UID to 1001` after startup. The container stayed at this step for at least 2 minutes 55 seconds before rollback stopped it. The baked node identity was 1000, while the managed runtime requested 1001. A health check timed out and the target required a second deployment attempt. **Expected behavior** Cloud images should already have the managed runtime identity. A matching image should skip user and group remapping. Fresh or mismatched volumes must still receive ownership repair. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Build the current Cloud image with its default build arguments. 2. Start it with `USER_UID=1001`, `USER_GID=1001`, and a populated home volume. 3. Observe the startup user remap before the application starts. **Paperclip version or commit** `fc06f7f05f42c675be71ff0927b6334405d520ed` **Deployment mode** Docker on managed hosts. ## What Changed - Pass `USER_UID=1001` and `USER_GID=1001` to the Cloud image build. - Check the pushed digest's baked identity before the entrypoint can repair it. Then check the normal entrypoint's effective identity and writable home before publishing the verified full-SHA tag. - Add a workflow regression and two entrypoint cases for a matching Cloud identity, including a mismatched volume. - Document the runtime identity and the first-build cache cost. ## Verification - Focused workflow and artifact tests: 27 passed. - Entrypoint tests: 11 passed. Actionlint passed. Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Full local `pnpm build` passed. The manual [Cloud image build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34575473213) passed on the exact PR head. It checked Sentry, baked and effective identity, writable home, orphan reaping, and full-SHA publication. The new identity check took one second. All 30 PR checks passed; the Storybook workflow was intentionally skipped. Greptile reviewed commit `114d408f637a0b53e2e2b1339c263779b1e4ae54` at 5/5 with no findings or open threads. - The full local suite for the same application source was already run in #13205. Its macOS general-server phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged files. Those failures included missing Runner fixtures, filesystem errors, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-count mismatch. After configuring Cargo and rebuilding fixtures, 37 of 38 native tests passed; one unchanged native-resume assertion still failed. Linux PR CI passed. This change adds entrypoint tests and does not change application code. ## Risks - The first build must rebuild layers that depend on the base image identity. Later builds can reuse them. - A future managed runtime identity change must update these build arguments and checks together. - The Dockerfile's self-hosted defaults remain 1000. Runtime overrides and mounted-volume ownership repair remain supported. - The observed startup delay supports this change, but fleet timing also includes provider startup, image pull, canary order, and retries. No fixed end-to-end gain is claimed before a live rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and tool use. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused workflow tests; full-suite limitations are listed above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d56be3f3fc |
fix(ci): verify deployable cloud artifacts independently (#13192)
Verify source, build the cloud image, and wait for exact-source migrator packages concurrently. Emit Cloud deployable v1 only when every prerequisite succeeds for the merged full SHA. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5cc51fad06 |
fix(release): publish exact-source cloud migrators on merge (#13188)
Publish exact-source shared and database migrator packages for each master merge through the existing trusted Release workflow, independently of the full release and image build. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5c660a32f3 |
ci: build cloud images independently for each merge (#13189)
Build cloud images independently for each master commit through a reusable workflow. Preserve production release dependencies and image runtime checks, and write cloud registry caches per commit with bounded ancestor imports to prevent overlapping builds from replacing each other's cache. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
399daa1f25 |
ci: publish verified full-SHA cloud image tags (#13187)
Publish the full-source-SHA cloud image tag only after the pushed digest passes runtime, revision, and platform checks. This makes verified images directly resolvable by Cloud. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0cc796b7bd |
Build isolated preview artifacts for exact-source deployments (#13041)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Managed deployments need a cloud image and a database migration package. > - Branch commits can lack both artifacts until a normal release runs. > - Operators need to test an exact commit without advancing release aliases. > - This pull request adds a preview build mode to the existing release workflow. > - Builds use an immutable source SHA and publish isolated, reusable artifacts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Release automation, cloud Docker images, and shared/database npm packages. **Problem or motivation** An operator cannot deploy an unpublished branch with new migrations using only the normal release artifacts. Publishing it through a normal lane would also advance shared release aliases. **Proposed solution** Dispatch the trusted release workflow on master with a full source SHA and a request UUID. Build missing SHA images and, when needed, deterministic preview shared/DB packages. Publish packages under the preview dist-tag with exact workspace pins. Reuse matching artifacts on retries. **Roadmap alignment** This extends release tooling for operator validation. It does not add a core product feature or duplicate a planned product capability. Related PR searches found no duplicate preview deployment workflow. ## What Changed - Add the preview channel, request correlation, artifact checks, and result artifact. - Compile source packages in a separate job from the npm publisher. The publisher uses trusted master code and disables package lifecycle scripts. - Publish only SHA cloud image tags. Preserve release aliases. Use full-SHA tags and no shared build cache. - Verify full source identity for reused packages and images. Both image and npm publishers use isolated jobs and the externally master-restricted npm-canary environment. Fail on registry authentication errors, outages, or artifact identity mismatches. - Let bundled-package preparation use patches from the requested source checkout. - Document publishing configuration, artifact contracts, and deployment order. ## Verification - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. - Passed `pnpm test:release-registry`: 107 tests, including eight preview tests. - Passed `actionlint -shellcheck= .github/workflows/release.yml`. - Built real shared and DB preview tarballs from an isolated exact-SHA checkout. Verified package source identity and all 244 SQL files and journal entries. - Verified the full revision behind an existing published SHA cloud image. - `pnpm test:run` exposed missing local embedded PostgreSQL library symlinks. The package's postinstall repair restored initdb; all 12 previously affected suites passed on rerun (95 tests). Additional local matrix reruns are in progress. The complete PR CI matrix is green, including general/serialized tests, e2e, typecheck, build, release registry, canary dry run, and the required verify gate. - Live preview publication and staging deployment require this workflow on master and the compatible control-plane backend. They have not run yet. No production deployment was performed. ## Risks Preview npm versions are immutable public artifacts. Both packages must retain their trusted publisher for release.yml in environment npm-canary. Source builds must remain separated from privileged npm publishing. The deploying control plane must verify source identity, integrity, and migration compatibility before use. Normal release jobs retain their existing conditions. Roll back by stopping preview dispatches and reverting the workflow/tooling. Published preview versions remain isolated from normal release tags. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository tools, code execution, and test runs. The session does not expose a more specific model version 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 the available 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 - [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the feature template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket identifier - [ ] I have run the full tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added tests for the new behavior - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open recommendations or follow-ups - [x] I will address review comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |