3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	c32e1ba6da	fix(onboarding): keep approved child task handoffs runnable (#18160) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work through tasks, agent runs, dependencies, and human decisions. > - The first-task workflow asks for approval before it creates an execution task. > - File-producing work must run on a child task before onboarding can finish. > - A child blocked by its onboarding source cannot start while the source waits for that child. > - This change rejects that dependency during task creation and later edits, and gives the agent a correction. > - The shipped recipe shows the dependency direction and requires the actual approved inputs in the child instructions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After human approval, an onboarding run could create a child with the onboarding source in `blockedByTaskIds`. Creation saved a blocked child with no wake. The parent could then wait for that child. A handoff could also refer to input from the parent conversation without including the input in the child description. **Expected behavior** The approved child can execute before its waiting parent. Invalid first-task dependency input fails before task creation and leaves the same command key available for a corrected call. The child instructions include the required approved input and constraints. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept a proposal on a server-created first task. 2. Call native `create_task` with `status: "todo"` and the onboarding source in `blockedByTaskIds`. 3. Observe a blocked child with no scheduled wake. Block the parent on that child to expose the stalled handoff. **Paperclip version or commit** The regression reproduces on `f8484a9f8d1f68e9534fee4f29e00e716dc680f4`. The repair is based on current master. **Deployment mode** Core native and REST task creation. The same server boundary serves self-hosted and hosted instances. Related: #18080 fixed remote delivery of the selected first-task skill. This change handles the later child handoff boundary. ## What Changed - Reject a task blocked by its authenticated first-task source during creation and later dependency edits. Later agent edits also check the locked target's server-owned onboarding parent, protecting a child running under its own execution. Compare UUID identity in PostgreSQL so alternate supported UUID spellings cannot bypass the check. The error explains the correction. - Add a native child/dependency recipe with self-contained approved input guidance. Clarify the general `create_task` input descriptions and update their generated contracts. - Cover native and REST rejection, corrected retry, preserved valid dependencies and replay, and an executable recipe with exact input bytes read from the child's own context. Thread the authenticated run through native dependency edits. Keep blocker corrections independent of a new proposal decision. - Update execution semantics and the existing onboarding map entries. ## Verification - Red on `f8484a9f`: the new native regression received a created blocked child instead of the expected rejection. - Review regressions were red on the original PR head: uppercase, unhyphenated and braced source UUIDs created blocked children; a later child PATCH returned 200 and saved the reversed blocker. - Review follow-up reproduced both native and REST child-own-run bypasses on `75fa75a6`: the native dependency call applied the reverse edge; the child's own PATCH returned 200. The regression uses the actual authenticated child execution and an already checked-out task. - All 95 tests across first-task admission, assets, and the full native tool-authority suite pass. The shipped recipe is validated against the native schemas and exercised through real task/dependency services with disposable PostgreSQL. Rejected PATCH tests preserve existing authorization and attempt-audit behavior and require no requested task-field, relation or wake change. Compatibility controls retain ordinary manual parent blockers, explicit board edits, other blockers and empty-list corrections. - Runner TypeScript build, generated contracts, capability inventory, protocol manifest, and map checks passed. - Server typecheck and all 95 focused tests pass with the child-run follow-up. All latest checks pass on `f24509ae`: 55 successful checks, one neutral review check, four skipped checks, and a successful legacy security status. Both automated reviews are 5/5 on this exact commit. - Prior-head CI failures are preserved: the Runner close fixture had unconfirmed provider drain while suspension succeeded; its exact fake-provider subprocess row passed locally with unchanged sources. The browser outage test lost its title textarea before any outage write. A bounded local control with a fully loaded composer passed every original outage assertion. The prior failure is an editor-readiness race; its exact asynchronous ordering remains unproved. No UI, browser-test, or timeout change is included. Neither failure is counted as a pass or silently discarded. - The first `f24509ae` CI attempt had two interrupted jobs: Typecheck and General server 9/12. Their logs record runner shutdown signals. The server job also records lost runner communication. The same-head failed-job rerun passed both jobs and the required aggregate. It reused the other successful results. No source, test, or timeout change was made for the rerun. The failed attempt remains preserved. Full repository checks pass in CI; the local full repository typecheck, test, and build commands were not repeated. - No external model or provider calls are used by these checks. Real-provider acceptance at this revision remains separate. ## Risks - The new rejection uses the authenticated run and the server-owned onboarding origin. Ordinary tasks, other blockers, empty-list corrections, and already committed creation replay retain their existing behavior. Blocker edits do not reapply the creation approval gate. - Nonempty blocker edits perform two indexed identity reads; the task lookup covers at most the run source and locked structural parent. Other patches and empty-list corrections add no source lookup. The update guard adds no parent row lock behind a child. Existing REST authorization checkout and attempt auditing remain in place before the domain mutation guard. - The explicit input recipe guides the model. Schema and persistence tests do not prove that a future model follows every instruction. - The tool guidance changes the generated semantic catalog identity. The maintained generated files are synchronized in this change. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex, with `ultra` reasoning effort, repository tools, code generation, and test execution. The context window is not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used and stated the available runtime detail - [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 described the issue in-PR following the bug issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal 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 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>	2026-10-29 10:57:31 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d40f9ac377	fix: enforce first-task completion decisions and retain E2E evidence (#17940) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people delegate work to agents and approve proposed work. > - The onboarding first task asks for scope, proposes a task, and waits for a human decision. > - An answer to its opening question supplies scope. It does not approve a proposal. > - Task creation already checks the saved proposal decision. > - Native completion used the general completion policy and could mark the onboarding parent Done without that decision. > - This PR checks the trusted decision before completion feedback and again when the native status is committed. > - The first task stays in review until a saved human decision permits closure. Ordinary completion and acknowledged refusal keep their current behavior. > - The Product E2E guard also retains closed scalar evidence so future failures show which boundary condition was observed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17914. Profile compatibility follow-up to #17922. **What happened?** A native onboarding run can submit a valid low-risk Done result after only the opening answer. The native finalizer then marks the first task Done even though no human has accepted or rejected a proposal. **Expected behavior** The opening answer must not permit completion. A trusted saved proposal decision must permit it. A saved rejection permits acknowledgment and closure, but does not authorize new work. A later pending proposal must keep the task in review. **Steps to reproduce** Create a server-owned onboarding first task with an answered opening question, no proposal decision, and a valid low-risk completion contract. Pass a Done result through native completion feedback, the control-plane port, and the finalizer. Before this fix, the persisted status is Done. The regression expects In review. Ordinary completion and acknowledged rejection pass as controls. ## What Changed - Share the trusted latest-proposal and human-response checks with completion admission. Keep task creation acceptance-only. - Refuse premature native completion feedback. Keep an already saved premature result in review during finalization. - Check the decision again under the existing task and run locks before committing Done. - Cover accepted decisions, saved refusals, forged context, pending or changed proposals, and a real database race. - Retain a closed scalar receipt when the existing E2E pre-acceptance guard fails. Validate and display it without task content, IDs, filenames, or raw rows. Preserve the original failure, blocked dependents, and historical reports. - Include the evidence module in the journey definition hash. Bind the receipt to its exact failure code and check its closed keys against the full type. - Repair base-branch profile drift found by the full harness check: include the active Copilot v66 fixture in image hashing and update stale Pi version/hash expectations from #17922. Keep all older image inputs and strict hash checks. - Update the onboarding feature and agent access maps and E2E evidence documentation. ## Verification - Semantic regression before implementation: one failure and two passing controls on PostgreSQL 18. The failed assertion observed Done instead of In review. - The local database uses an owned disposable container with an immutable image digest. Actual migrations, feedback, control-plane port, finalizer, and status commit run against PostgreSQL. A temporary test adapter replaces only the embedded database transport because this host has exhausted its PostgreSQL semaphores. - Native control-plane suite: 55 tests passed, including 17 new controls. Existing task-creation admission: 25 passed. Existing completion feedback: 19 passed. - Credential-free E2E support: 206 Vitest suites passed, 4,407 tests passed, and two skipped. All 137 Node support checks passed. Harness typecheck passed. - The failure-receipt regression had 11 failed assertions before capture was implemented. Two failure-code binding assertions fail without their gate. Eight placement/binding cases first validate the receipt-free control, then reject the misplaced receipt. - The untouched base reproduced the three profile compatibility failures. The narrow repair passed all 83 affected tests before the full harness run. - Private workflow preparation and credential-free onboarding preview: nine compatibility checks passed. Ownership, recovery, evidence, shared-contract and workflow compatibility: 77 passed. The actual provider preview also confirms immediate success deletion, earlier declared failure eligibility, limits, and zero retries without credential access. Map checks and git diff checks passed. - Required repository typecheck passed for the product fix. The combined branch build passed. The local full repository suite was stopped after repeated PostgreSQL startup failures; a separate initdb probe confirmed host SysV semaphore exhaustion. No shared IPC resources were changed. [Hosted CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40591020873) passed the full database suites, typecheck, build, runner checks, serialized suites, and browser shards on final head `1ac4c23605a03bfd1f1f8a017b14ce29fda85f6b` (55 success, two expected skips, one advisory neutral). - Independent source review approved the product guard, atomic race regression, evidence contract, and maps with no actionable findings. Both automated reviews are 5/5 on final head `1ac4c23605a03bfd1f1f8a017b14ce29fda85f6b`; prior findings are fixed and resolved. Final CI is green and the PR is conflict-free. - No Cloud workspace, provider call, release publication, or deployment is part of this verification. These tests do not identify a historical Cloud failure or qualify live onboarding. - Local dependency installation uses the existing CI-generated lockfile from #17811. No lockfile change is included. ## Risks - Existing onboarding runs without a trusted saved proposal decision remain in review even when the agent reports success. This is the intended approval boundary. - Decision changes can race completion. The status commit checks the decision under its existing locks and uses the existing status-race recovery path. - A saved refusal permits closure only. Creation admission still rejects it. - Evidence readers reject malformed receipts and unrelated failure codes. The version-1 key registry is checked against every receipt field at compile time. Existing attempts do not gain evidence after the fact. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol (`gpt-6.1-sol`), ultra reasoning, through Codex. Used repository inspection, code execution, and collaborating coding agents. The runtime did not report a 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 references) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket 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>	2026-10-27 17:07:50 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	50b932a142	fix(server): require approval before onboarding task creation (#17914) ... <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/78/changes/paperclip/78 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and human decisions. > - Onboarding asks the first agent to propose a task before it starts work. > - The first-task skill requires human acceptance before task creation. > - The native tool could create and schedule that task without acceptance. > - REST task creation had the same gap. > - This change checks saved acceptance in the shared creation transaction. > - Valid approvals and ordinary delegation keep their existing behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent could create a task from the canonical onboarding first task before the user accepted its proposal. A real journey caught this after the agent read the first-task skill. A local database regression reproduces the missing check in the native tool and both REST creation endpoints. **Expected behavior** New task creation must wait for saved human acceptance of the latest ordinary proposal. A different parent or a standalone task must not bypass that check. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Bind an authenticated agent run to a server-created onboarding first task. 2. Leave its proposal unaccepted. 3. Call native `create_task`, `POST /api/companies/:companyId/issues`, or `POST /api/issues/:issueId/children`. 4. Before this fix, creation succeeds. After this fix, it is denied before a child or wake is committed. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `3be54534c24fc279533ff421e62a77ad15b72954` before the fix. ## What Changed - Add a shared check for new task creation from an authenticated onboarding run. - Read the latest ordinary confirmation across both confirmation kinds under the source task lock. - Require a human card decision or validated conversational acceptance. Require the current revision for a saved plan. - Preserve ordinary delegation, committed replay, and dispatch recovery. - Add database regressions and update execution and onboarding map documentation. ## Verification - Real PostgreSQL regression before the fix: 17 failures and four passing approval/delegation controls. No skips. - Exact published source: 102 tests passed across admission, conversational confirmation, and project tools, including all 25 admission regressions. Real Linux PostgreSQL, no skips. - `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` passed locally. - Map checks and `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted locally. Existing suites failed because the host exhausted PostgreSQL semaphore sets. The remaining owned test process was stopped; its failed log is preserved. No unrelated database was stopped. Current-head Linux CI passed, including build, typecheck, and browser E2E. The first CI attempt lost runners; its evidence is preserved, and interrupted jobs passed one CI rerun. - The live Cloud attempt remains failed. Local tests do not qualify Cloud onboarding, artifact delivery, or native tracing. No deployment or model retry is part of this change. ## Risks A stricter creation check could reject a valid approval. Tests cover direct, conversational, checkbox, dismissed-card, and clock-skew cases. The check applies only to new tasks from the canonical onboarding run. It does not change existing task updates, execution policy, or wake recovery. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific serving 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>	2026-10-27 12:30:50 -05:00