mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-15 12:28:10 +02:00
4a641d0980fdaffc4c4e805f6f0a8809eb5702f2
6
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
6c198d616e |
fix(issues): preserve human handoffs from the active agent run (#16082)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks have one owner, and the server records assignment changes. > - An agent can finish its work by handing the task to a human for review. > - The assignment route stops the active run before it saves that handoff. > - When the caller is that run, a slow workspace restore can exceed the stop timeout and prevent the assignment from saving. > - Recovery can then mark the task Blocked while its comment says the handoff succeeded. > - This pull request lets the authenticated legacy run save a human handoff and finish its turn normally. > - Other actors and transfers to executable agents keep the verified stop requirement. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13730. Related: #13782, #14700, and #15094. **What happened?** An agent posted its review handoff, then sent `PATCH /api/issues/{id}` to assign the task to its human creator with status `in_review`. The route cancelled that same run before saving the assignment. Workspace restore took 66 seconds. The stop limit is 60 seconds. The assignment never committed. Recovery marked the task Blocked, and it stayed assigned to the agent. **Expected behavior** The authenticated active legacy run can hand its own task to a human and finish normally. The human assignment and requested review status must save without waiting for workspace restore. Native runs, board reassignment, agent API keys, and transfers to another agent still require a verified stop. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a legacy agent on its assigned task with a signed run token. 2. Send a task PATCH from that run with a human `assigneeUserId`, a null `assigneeAgentId`, and status `in_review`. 3. Make stopping the sandbox take more than 60 seconds. Before this fix, the handoff fails before the task update. With this fix, the update saves and the run finishes normally. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in hosted execution. The patch is based on master at `56a0bf0d492`. **Deployment mode** Hosted authenticated server with a legacy agent in a remote sandbox. The same route serves local deployments. PR #13782 proposes a broader exemption for all self-handoffs. This focused change limits the exemption to human recipients and legacy runs. It checks the exact active run, agent, company, and task, and it retains the stop requirement before an executable successor can take ownership. PRs #14700 and #15094 address later wake and recovery behavior after a reassignment stop. ## What Changed - Skip the reassignment cancellation only for an authenticated legacy run handing its own task to a human. - Reject later mutations from the outgoing run against its human-owned task, both in route authorization and under the update transaction locks. - Keep assignment permission checks, goal control, and queued human response protection. - Add route regressions for slow stops, active-run lookup, actor and runtime boundaries, recipient types, permission denials, and follow-up edits, completion, and reassignment. - Update the real HTTP low-trust handoff test to prove the run stays alive, its late edit fails, and the human wake receipt remains invalidated. - Add Postgres tests for saved assignment, former-owner rejection, and review state after the outgoing run succeeds or fails. - Document the handoff rule and update the task feature and agent access maps. ## Verification - 328 relevant tests passed across the route, issue service, low-trust HTTP, and legacy recovery suites. The route suite passed all 160 tests, and all 13 low-trust HTTP tests passed after updating the obsolete cancellation expectation. - Removing the production guard makes both slow-shutdown handoff regressions fail with HTTP 500. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - All 54 current-head checks passed; 2 optional Storybook checks were skipped. The CI lanes cover the full Vitest suite, typecheck/build, Runner checks, and product E2E checks. - Apex reviewed `c68fbfb356c3d80eb7136babb49940709a3c3459` at 5/5 with no findings; both earlier review threads are resolved. - The complete test lanes passed in CI. The duplicate local full `pnpm test:run` was stopped after CI completed; it did not finish locally. All 328 focused local tests and full local typecheck/build passed. ## Risks - The outgoing legacy turn stays alive after the human takes ownership. Route and transactional ownership checks reject its later mutations of the human-owned task. Read and comment access follows normal policy. Goal control still runs before the handoff. - This exemption does not apply to native runs or another agent as recipient. Those paths still stop the old execution before assignment. - This fix prevents future failed handoffs. It does not infer or replay old assignment requests. - There is no schema change or API shape change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific runtime 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> |
||
|
|
83e13db8fa |
fix(inbox): keep automatic recovery cleanup out of personal participation (#16063)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The personal inbox uses issue activity to identify a person's participation. > - Issue reads can cancel stale recovery actions and record that cleanup as the reader's action. > - This adds unrelated tasks to the inbox and refreshes their activity timestamps. > - A workspace owner hold can also alternate between creation and cancellation after a task finishes. > - This pull request corrects cleanup attribution, excludes historical read cleanup, and retains one exact owner hold. > - Agents can read authorized issue activity to diagnose the same problem themselves. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15742 excludes logs by the execution-recovery actor from activity timestamps. This PR covers reader-attributed stale recovery cleanup, personal inbox participation, exact workspace owner holds, and sandbox issue activity access. I searched open issues and PRs for recovery inbox and activity bridge fixes. I found no duplicate for this defect. **What happened?** Loading issue lists cancels stale recovery actions under the reader's identity. The personal inbox treats those rows as user participation. One completed issue had hundreds of such rows and no edits or comments by the affected reader. A retained native workspace owner repeatedly creates a verification action that read projections then cancel. Sandbox agents cannot inspect the issue activity because the reverse bridge rejects the route. **Expected behavior** Automatic cleanup belongs to the system and does not add an issue to a reader's inbox. Historical cleanup rows remain auditable but do not count as participation or recent activity. An unresolved physical workspace owner keeps one stable verification action. Agents can inspect activity only for issues their identity may read. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Finish a task whose native run retains an unverifiable workspace owner receipt. 2. Repeat workspace recovery checks and GET requests for issue detail, compact lists, and recovery actions. 3. Observe new recovery action IDs and reader-attributed cancellations in the activity history. 4. Query the personal inbox for that reader and observe the unrelated task. 5. From a sandbox agent, request GET /api/issues/:id/activity and observe Route not allowed. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed at |
||
|
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
|
||
|
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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7d9b93aee2 |
docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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> |