3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	64c074fb8d	docs: record runtime qualification and catalog review ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 20:33:39 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	88bf4c6c1d	refactor(storybook): organize folders and navigation by feature map (#16049) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product areas and verification entry points. > - Storybook has 223 story suites that show production components, proposals, and retained history. > - The parent PR maps those suites to features, but their folders and sidebar still use unrelated groups. > - This pull request puts the existing suites under feature folders and uses the feature map's names and order in the sidebar. > - Explicit meta IDs preserve existing story links while the titles change. > - Contributors can find stories through the same product structure without losing examples. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16046. This is the requested follow-up. Parent #16046 is merged. This PR now targets master, with its single follow-up commit rebased onto the parent squash merge. The Storybook implementation is unchanged by that rebase. Related open Storybook PRs were checked; this change organizes existing suites and adds no product capability. ## What Changed - Move all 223 story files into folders named for their primary feature area. Keep useful scenario groups below the feature's sidebar label. - Order the sidebar by the eight feature-map sections. Put Overview first and shared Foundations last. Leave areas with no stories out of the sidebar. - Move 19 support files into `ui/storybook/support/` and update relative imports and active documentation. - Preserve all 2,210 story IDs and the single docs ID through explicit CSF meta IDs. Keep all entry names and story exports. - Record stable IDs and sidebar titles in the downstream catalog. Validate feature folders, title prefixes, and IDs. Update the maintenance skill and review evidence. ## Verification - Storybook build passed. Built index comparison against parent `75bd3c977cd828d5222823850339e8204f40eb47` found the same 2,211 entries, IDs, and names. - UI typecheck passed (`ui/node_modules/.bin/tsc -b` from `ui`, invoked as `./node_modules/.bin/tsc -b`). - UI Vitest project: 728 files and 8,176 tests passed. - Catalog checker and its nine tests passed. Feature-map checks, token gates, and the maintenance-skill validator passed. - Chromium: nine existing play cases and one render case reached `storyFinished: success` with no page exceptions. The guide rendered, sidebar sections followed map order, and a search for `steering/queue` opened its preserved story link. - Source comparison found only meta title/ID changes, rebased relative references, and updated fixture path text in story files. - To inspect: build Storybook, start `node scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs --port 6136`, and open the Overview guide. Expand feature folders and use existing story links. - The complete repository suite was not repeated for this organization change. The parent records a backend timeout that passed in isolation, without a complete broad-suite pass. Visual comparisons remain blocked by the unpublished empty baseline. The separate fixture-server story was not run. ## Risks - Open branches that add stories under old paths will need to choose a feature folder and update the catalog. Cross-feature suites have one primary home and retain related capability references. - Sidebar paths change; story and docs IDs remain stable. Automated references to source paths may need the new location. - This is one requested follow-up with 258 changed files, mostly moves. It exceeds the usual review-size guideline because splitting it would leave the sidebar and folder convention partly migrated. - Browser verification samples ten stories, not all 2,210. Existing production/prototype classifications and review gaps remain unchanged. - Required CI gates and a 5/5 review passed on the original head. Fresh checks and review are running for the rebased head. Catalog validation and all nine checker tests passed after rebase; UI, map, skill, and checker contents are identical to the original reviewed head. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and local browser automation. ## 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>	2026-10-12 22:29:22 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	9e721264e9	feat: maintain Storybook through a downstream feature catalog (#16046) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Storybook supports review of its production UI and proposed designs. > - Its 223 story files have no consistent link to product capabilities or record of component and mock provenance. > - Old compositions can drift while they still look like current product examples. > - This pull request adds two maintenance skills and a catalog that consumes the existing feature map. > - The first audit preserves all stories and fixes proven fixture drift. > - Contributors can now find examples by feature and see what still needs review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Storybook maintenance, feature discovery, and the accuracy of isolated UI examples. **Current behavior** Stories are already centralized under `ui/storybook/`, but their sidebar has 51 top-level groups. Production components, local prototypes, and historical designs are not consistently distinguished. The old guide uses manual coverage claims. GitHub searches found no duplicate feature-map catalog change. **Proposed behavior** Keep existing story locations and IDs. Add a downstream catalog keyed to stable feature capabilities. Record product status, rendered subject, data boundary, and declared review dependencies separately. Use dedicated maintenance and review skills to reconcile drift and report evidence. **Reason and benefit** The catalog makes existing examples reusable without treating mock behavior or old designs as production acceptance. The feature map remains independent of Storybook. ## What Changed - Add `maintain-storybook` and `review-storybook` skills with contributor guidance. - Inventory all 223 story files. Generate a feature index and provide searchable navigation in the existing Overview story. Track direct subjects through relative imports and local wrappers, including the primitives demonstrated by foundation suites. - Add a checker for inventory, capability references, duplicate IDs, and declared-source drift, with eight regression tests. The parser test covers real nested CSF files, export filters, explicit IDs, and play counts. - Preserve historical designs and classify mixed wrappers. Record the initial audit and remaining parity work. - Align the question-dismiss/send fixture with production behavior. Add dismissal and confirmation-reopen regressions and repair the editor selector. - Exclude three exported fast-response fixtures from story discovery and add the missing render-time callback spy. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs`, `node --test scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs` (8 tests), and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`. - Passed: validators for both new skills, `pnpm check:token-gates`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`. - Passed: final Storybook build; nine selected browser `play` cases; three fast-response render cases; feature-guide search/link navigation; question-fixture reset on reload. - Built-index comparison preserved all 2,208 original story IDs and added only two new regression cases. - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui` (728 files, 8,176 tests). - The full `pnpm test:run` has reported a 15-second timeout in the untouched backend case `connects advertised Workspace gmail.read without mutating definitions in authenticated`. The exact test passed standalone without changing code, expectations, or timeouts. The remaining broad run was stopped after this failure. The full suite is not verified. - Visual comparison is blocked by the existing empty baseline manifest. The managed-accounts API/DB fixture was not started. See `maps/storybook-map/REVIEW.md` for exact scope. ## Risks - This is an initial inventory and targeted audit. 188 suites still require deeper state and fixture parity review. - Review hashes cover declared dependencies. They do not follow all transitive production imports or prove semantic correctness. - The catalog requires upkeep when stories, mapped recipes, or declared subjects change. Shared mocks still need feature-by-feature contract review. - No production application source, database schema, or upstream feature-map contract changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. Used reasoning, shell tools, file editing, and Chromium browser verification. The exact runtime 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 - [ ] 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 17:20:00 -05:00