mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 01:27:09 +01:00
4e97daafa06a54f02027335437c4f48e50b84236
10
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
ac4f13d205 |
fix(e2e): report committed child blockers promptly (#18306)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Product E2E checks the ordinary onboarding conversation and its delivered work. > - A native run can finish successfully while its task remains blocked for a human. > - The onboarding journey kept waiting for such a child until the campaign deadline. > - This pull request reports the committed child blocker when no owned work remains pending. > - The journey still requires the same independent checks before it can pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An approved child can stop with a committed current-track blocker owned by the board. Its native run succeeds, but the child task stays blocked. The onboarding journey reports a deadline failure instead of the observed child blocker. **Expected behavior** Report `onboarding_child_task_blocked` when the latest child run commits that blocker at the child's current status version. Keep waiting for parent dependencies and pending native or workspace recovery. **Steps to reproduce** Use the existing onboarding fixture with an approved blocked child. Give its latest native run a succeeded status, committed finalization, blocked work disposition, and the matching task status version. The old journey waits until its deadline. The new journey fails at that settled blocker without downloading or accepting any delivery. Related public context: #18298. Public issue and PR searches found no duplicate blocked-child harness fix. This change reports the failure boundary; it does not repair artifact delivery. ## What Changed - Check the owned child's board blocker after the existing run and recovery checks. - Require a unique latest producer, native committed results, and the current task status version. - Preserve parent dependency waits and all artifact, document, download, link, scope, and budget checks. - Add a behavioral regression and controls for active work, native recovery, workspace replacement, stale versions, newer producers, and agent-owned blockers. - Document the distinct failure code and the existing control-plane writers for its metadata. ## Verification - The new behavioral regression failed on the old code with `onboarding_first_task_deadline`; 147 controls passed. - The current head passed all 148 onboarding tests, including the valid agent-owner object control. - The initial implementation passed 305 tests across all 10 Product E2E files. The later update changes only writer links and the owner control; its 148 focused tests and harness typecheck also pass. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passed after building the isolated checkout's workspace declarations. - `git diff --check` passed. - All required CI checks passed on `1b3bd04d193fc98d0d9f2eb3b826a4ef4bdb6dea`, including full tests and build. They were not repeated locally. Greptile reviewed that exact head at 5/5. - The full Cloud journey remains unverified by these source and CI checks. This change does not claim that the underlying artifact delivery issue is fixed. ## Risks The early failure depends on the public task and run projections. Missing, stale, or ambiguous producer metadata keeps the existing bounded wait. A pending recovery or newer producer prevents the old blocker from ending the journey. No success requirement changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-6.1-sol`, reasoning effort `ultra`. The model used source inspection, code editing, and local test tools. The runtime did not expose its context window size. Root supplied the model and effort metadata for this agent 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8f50704135 |
fix(e2e): wait for pending native recovery (#18298)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agents and their work.
> - Native runs can retain a bounded automatic recovery on the same run.
> - Product E2E observes those runs before it checks the delivered work.
> - The onboarding journey treated every failed run as a final failure,
even when the server had saved its next recovery attempt.
> - This pull request waits only for the explicit agent-owned native
recovery projection.
> - The journey still requires successful execution and the same
independent delivery checks.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The onboarding journey can stop after a native turn completes without
its semantic result. The server marks that attempt failed and saves a
same-run retry. The journey rejects the failed row before the saved
retry is due. This also affects a native child that follows a proven
workspace deferral.
**Expected behavior**
Observe the saved automatic recovery within the original campaign
deadline and run cap. A pending recovery cannot satisfy completion.
Ordinary failures and exhausted, terminal, or board-owned recovery must
still fail.
**Steps to reproduce**
Use the existing onboarding fixture with a native failed row whose
nativePhase is retryable_failure. Give it the server-owned
native_session_interrupted cause, an agent-owned retry_scheduled
projection, a valid retry time, and attempt 1 of 3. Transition that same
row through reconnecting and running to success. The old journey rejects
the first row.
Related public context: #18292. A search of related native-recovery PRs
found no duplicate harness fix.
## What Changed
- Observe the authenticated native recovery state in the existing
workspace-deferral module. Require matching nonempty cause strings and
every owner, phase, attempt, schedule, deadline, scope, and successor
guard.
- Apply it to the proposal wait, failed native rows, workspace successor
tails, and final settlement.
- Keep defensive rejection of known permanent, permission-declined, and
exhausted causes. Diagnostic cause strings are not a positive retry
policy.
- Add behavioral recovery, deadline, and rejection controls to the
existing workflow tests.
- Document that this wait preserves the original campaign and final
delivery requirements.
## Verification
- Baseline workflow regression: 4 expected premature failures with 90
controls passing. The final structural calibration rejected 20 valid
pending-recovery cases before the correction, with 120 controls passing.
- Final regression: 140/140 pass, including existing and new diagnostic
causes on direct and workspace-successor paths. Known terminal,
ambiguous, malformed, mismatched, and exhausted states still fail.
- Focused Product E2E compatibility: 297/297 pass across 10 files.
- pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck: pass after building the normal SDK and
Runner TypeScript dependencies.
- git diff --check: pass.
- Final source passed these checks before the reviewed commit.
- Full repository tests/build and live Cloud acceptance were not run
locally for this harness-only change. Required CI run 41049692194 passed
on
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8035f8b245 |
test: require saved onboarding approval cards (#18292)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product E2E tests exercise real user workflows through the browser. > - The onboarding journey requires a human to accept one proposed child task. > - A live agent tried to create the child before it saved a proposal card. The product correctly rejected that action. > - The scripted request named the required result but did not name the proposal tool or require its saved receipt. > - This pull request makes that handoff explicit. It keeps the existing human approval and independent result checks. > - The benefit is a clearer scripted workflow without a change to product authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18288 and #18266. **What happened?** The agent treated the opening task request as a step toward acceptance without first saving a proposal. It then stopped after child creation was denied. Its visible response referred to a pending proposal, but no proposal card existed. **Expected behavior** The agent saves a native confirmation card, checks its receipt, and waits for the human to accept it through the browser. It must not record its own approval. Only an accepted card authorizes the child task. **Steps to reproduce** Run the scripted Cloud onboarding journey. Give the canonical onboarding task its first task request. The observed agent skipped the saved proposal and tried to create the child. Model behavior varies, so this is a fixture guidance change rather than a deterministic product defect claim. **Paperclip version or commit** Fixture base: `7a7ade4b9360aaf8e1a2808bb2b1a752c080f564`. The serving product was Core `965184d2968f40b1183803529b88f288264c832f`. **Deployment mode** Testing Cloud workspace with native Codex. This pull request selects no product release or deployment. ## What Changed - Name the existing `request_human_input` confirmation or revision-bound checkbox contract and `wake_assignee` policy in the parent request. - Require a saved pending-card receipt. Require corrections when tool arguments are rejected. - Forbid self-approval. Require the actual accepted human card decision before child creation. - Document this scripted handoff. Keep the child brief, final download links, browser actions, and all grading assertions. ## Verification - Focused onboarding and Cloud journey tests: 79 passed. - Shared evidence, campaign, and contract tests: 66 passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`: passed after building the existing workspace type dependencies. - Credential-free preview under a network-deny guard: passed with zero external calls. Its preparation plan matches the base fixture. - `git diff --check`: passed. - No prompt-string test was added. Existing tests continue to enforce approval order, child scope, independent file checks, and real result links. - Full local repository build and database suites were not repeated for this fixture text change. Required PR CI must pass before merge. - The original live result remains unchanged. This local work does not prove that a later model run will comply. ## Risks - The model can still ignore the instructions. A new real campaign must prove the workflow. - More explicit guidance makes this a scripted product journey. It is not a model discovery benchmark. - There are no product runtime, schema, credential, model, budget, or approval-policy changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, exact model `gpt-6.1-sol`, ultra reasoning effort. Parent runtime metadata confirmed this model. Context window size was not reported. Used source inspection, local code execution, and an independent agent review. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7a7ade4b93 |
test: require real onboarding result links (#18288)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people assign work to agents and use their saved results. > - The Cloud onboarding journey tests this handoff through a real parent and child task. > - The child can publish a correct file while the parent names that file without linking it. > - The existing journey correctly rejects that reply because the user cannot download the named result from it. > - This pull request makes the scripted parent request explicit about real Markdown links and returned attachment paths. > - The independent artifact and parent-link checks remain unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18266 and #18258. **What happened?** A Cloud onboarding attempt produced a correct child artifact and saved document. The parent then named the child, document key, and filename in inline code. It omitted the attachment URL. The attempt failed with `onboarding_parent_result_links_missing`. **Expected behavior** The parent's final reply must link the saved child results. The file link must use the real published attachment reference. **Steps to reproduce** Run the existing explicit Cloud onboarding journey. A reply that only names the file must remain a failure, even when the child artifact is correct. **Paperclip version or commit** The branch starts from `965184d2968f40b1183803529b88f288264c832f`. ## What Changed - Ask the parent for real Markdown links in its final reply. Use the published attachment's returned content or download path. Do not invent IDs or URLs. - Add a filename-only reply to the existing negative oracle cases. - Document this scripted fixture requirement. ## Verification - Focused onboarding tests: 79 passed. - Shared task, campaign, and contract tests: 66 passed. - Existing artifact and native-completion Node checks: 137 passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Harness typecheck, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`: passed after building the existing workspace dependencies. The initial missing-declaration and local-IPC setup failures remain recorded. - The full local database test suite was not rerun. Required repository CI runs the broader suites on Linux. - Required repository CI passed on the exact PR head. No paid model calls or Cloud operations were run for this patch. - [Initial CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41027635545/attempts/1) failed one unchanged retention timing test (3310 ms versus the strict 3000 ms bound). The unchanged case passed once on an isolated local Postgres17 fixture. One failed-jobs-only rerun passed in [attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41027635545/attempts/2). The original failure remains visible. No timing threshold or retention source changed. - The previous live attempt stays failed. Local tests do not prove that a model follows the revised request. A new bounded live attempt must establish that result. ## Risks - The extra instruction can still be ignored by a model. The unchanged oracle will reject missing links. - This changes the fixture definition hash. Historical attempts retain their original source and result. - No product runtime, API, approval policy, model profile, budget, or cleanup behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, ultra reasoning, with code execution and repository tools. Model metadata was confirmed in the parent task. The context window size is not exposed. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
145214201d |
test: preserve the onboarding child brief at delegation (#18266)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product E2E journeys check onboarding through the real app. > - The onboarding story asks a parent agent to delegate a file and document task. > - A parent can preserve the goal but omit the exact tool instructions from its child description. > - The child can then publish a note instead of the required JSON file and task document. > - This pull request asks the parent to copy the full child brief without changing it. > - The existing independent checks still decide whether the result passes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18258. Includes merged prerequisite #18270 for the existing retention scheduling failure found by required CI. **What happened?** The scripted onboarding request gave the parent an ordered tool recipe. It did not require the parent to keep that recipe in the child description. A delegated child could compute the result but publish a Markdown note and omit the Paperclip task document. **Expected behavior** The child receives the full approved brief. It must publish `connection-proof.json`, save its Paperclip task document with the returned file link, and report completion through the current contract. **Steps to reproduce** Run the explicit Cloud onboarding journey. Inspect the approved child description and its published result when the parent summarizes the request. **Paperclip version or commit** This change is based on public master `b3c2172d417ea6b783e0c796aaed4a91e1f9d381`. **Deployment mode** Scripted Product E2E against a live Cloud testing workspace. ## What Changed - Put the existing ordered instructions in one marked child brief. - Require the parent to copy that brief verbatim into `create_task.description`. - State the exact JSON filename and workspace-relative content reference for `register_deliverable`. - State that a Markdown workspace note does not replace the `write_document` step. - Document this scripted scope in the Product journey guide. ## Verification - Existing focused Product journey tests: 227 passed in 10 files. - Credential-free Product journey discovery passed through the direct tsx loader. - Source comparison confirms that all code after the opening reply is unchanged. The download, calculation, hash, provenance, document, parent-link, approval and run-limit checks retain their original behavior. - No prompt word-matching tests were added. This is an instruction-only change. - `pnpm build`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passed. - Full support Vitest check: 5,042 passed, 2 skipped, 2 failed. Both failures occur during embedded PostgreSQL startup in the controller database lifecycle fixtures. The log includes a missing bundled `libzstd.1.dylib`. The separate Node support checks passed all 137 tests. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted. It reached the general server suite and repeated embedded PostgreSQL startup failures. I stopped only this owned local test process group. The full local test command is incomplete. Required Linux CI remains the merge gate. - The first harness typecheck ran before workspace build outputs existed and reported missing workspace modules. It passed after the full build. The earlier failure remains recorded. - The initial CLI discovery wrapper hit a local tsx IPC permission error. The direct loader passed with the same source and arguments. - The original required CI run found an existing skill-retention page delay. Its unchanged test passed once against a dedicated local PostgreSQL fixture. Separate PR #18270 added a deterministic regression and fixed the scheduler. After that PR merged, this branch received one normal merge from master. Its diff remains two fixture files. The original failed CI run remains preserved. - After the branch refresh, all 70 onboarding first-task tests and 7 retention/deadline controls passed. Harness typecheck passed. Fresh required CI and review passed on head `608e266c6567c19981fd3f8a07305c785346753b`. - The refreshed CI run passed the retention shard but failed one unchanged Antigravity authentication fixture. The same Runner lane passed on the prior fixture head and the merged prerequisite. The exact test passed once locally. Source review identified a possible stdout/stderr ordering race, but the failed run did not retain its exact error subtype. The one approved retry of the failed CI job and its verification aggregate passed on unchanged source. The original failure remains preserved. This proves recovery, not its cause. - The live Cloud journey has not been rerun with this source. Historical failed attempts retain their original results. ## Risks - An agent can still fail to follow the brief. Existing independent assertions will reject the wrong file or missing task document. - The fixture definition changes. A later live attempt must record this new harness revision. - No application, model, effort, budget, cleanup or acceptance rule changes. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, ultra reasoning effort, with repository tools and code execution. The parent verified this model ID from current runtime metadata. The context window size is not exposed. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
59b76777db |
test: clarify onboarding artifact completion instructions (#18258)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - Product E2E journeys test that work through normal browser and API controls. > - The Cloud onboarding journey asks one native child to publish a file and save a document. > - Its task request did not explain the completion report format or make each output step distinct. > - A live attempt published the file, then submitted an invalid finish report and declared a blocker. > - This change orders the scripted request and explains the existing completion contract. > - The agent must still produce the result and pass the same independent checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17940. Refs #18228. **What happened?** The scripted onboarding request left completion details implicit. A live child published its proof file, then submitted a finish payload without verification and with an invalid schema value. Its later blocked report also listed local paths as artifacts. This does not establish a Core validator defect. **Expected behavior** The request should explain the existing tool contract. The child must publish the file, save the document with its returned link, then submit a valid completion report. Argument correction must not replace artifact verification or bypass approval. **Steps to reproduce** Run the explicit Cloud onboarding Product E2E journey through its private target provider. Approve the proposed child through the UI. Inspect the native finish report and the independently checked attachment, document, and parent links. **Paperclip version or commit** The observed deployment used public Core `6a674716447e8fa268c5cdeb1db1020319368a77`. This fixture change starts from `a8e07500db68f187b19de83823eb7fabf1196021`. **Deployment mode** Cloud testing with the scripted Product E2E harness. ## What Changed - Order the child request: create files, publish the proof, save its document, then finish. - Require verification for actual checks and omit the optional schema field. - Explain receipt-derived references in evidence and file artifacts. Keep local input paths in verification details. - Document same-attempt argument correction and preserve historical failed results. ## Verification - Existing onboarding-first-task and artifact-evidence suites: 83 checks passed. - The maintained harness unit wrapper also passed 137 Node contract checks. - Independent source review found no contract, privacy, or oracle change. - Full `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` passed at the preceding commit `c3900cf2`. The only later change names the filename required by the existing document assertion. - Current `d75180b4`: the 83 fixture/artifact checks, 137 contract checks, and `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passed again. - Credential-free `--list --suite product-journeys` passed. - The local full repository Vitest run at `c3900cf2` was stopped before the filename correction. It is incomplete and is not reported as a pass. Current-head CI passed: 54 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. The separate advisory review is still running and is not reported as passed. Initial fresh-worktree dependency and sandbox IPC failures remain recorded. - No paid model, Cloud workspace, release, or deployment was run for this change. These checks establish harness compatibility, not a live model pass. The prior failed campaign remains failed. ## Risks The model may still submit an invalid report or fail another step. A fresh live journey is required to measure the instruction change. This PR changes fixture text and documentation only. It supplies no result, checksum, real attachment ID, or successful status. Models, limits, validators, and independent assertions stay the same. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, ultra reasoning. The model identity comes from confirmed parent runtime metadata. Context window size is unavailable. Tools and code execution assisted the change and review. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3bd0d81c7b |
fix(e2e): follow proven workspace deferrals during onboarding (#18008)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product E2E journeys verify the user outcome through the browser and scoped APIs. > - An onboarding child can wait while its parent owns their shared workspace. > - The server records that no provider work started and schedules a durable replacement. > - The journey rejected that expected wait, and feedback counted it as unknown legacy execution. > - This pull request follows the exact replacement and records the distinct no-provider evidence. > - The child must still finish through native execution and produce the independently checked download. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17940. **What happened?** The fresh-workspace journey failed with `onboarding_first_task_failed` when a child encountered shared-workspace contention. The cancelled admission had an explicit `workspace_wait` receipt with `providerWorkStarted: false`. Its linked replacement was still scheduled. The runtime had not been selected. The default `legacy` value did not represent a provider execution. **Expected behavior** Keep both rows and their run-limit cost. Follow only the unique replacement for the same company, agent, and issue. A pending replacement must not pass. Real failures and contradictory execution evidence must still fail. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native onboarding parent and accept its child-task proposal. 2. Observe the child admission while the parent still holds their workspace. 3. Present the server's no-provider cancellation and its durable scheduled replacement to the journey and feedback collectors. ## What Changed - Add a shared predicate for the explicit no-provider workspace-deferral receipt. Reject runtime, process, output, usage, and cost evidence that contradicts it. - Follow exact, unique retry lineage during onboarding. Wait for active or scheduled replacements without repeating browser actions. Preserve the campaign deadline, run cap, native artifact attribution, and download oracle. - Retain per-run feedback inspection classifications: `native_events`, `provider_not_started`, or `incomplete`. Require exhaustive event reads. Keep pending work and uncertain execution partial. - Add causal regressions and document the evidence contract. Historical failed attempts keep their original grades. ## Verification - Red: the new journey regression failed with the observed `onboarding_first_task_failed` before the repair. The new feedback cases also failed before the repair. - Green: 70 journey tests and 74 feedback-family tests passed. The final affected journey/feedback gate passed 275 tests plus 137 Node checks. Five retry-lane reset cases failed before the review correction and passed after it. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passed after the retry-counter correction. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed before the final rebase. - The full local `pnpm test:run` and harness unit gate encountered embedded PostgreSQL startup failures. The harness gate passed 4,574 tests and failed its database-startup test. The final focused journey/feedback gate and all 137 Node checks passed. CI will provide independent full-suite results before merge. - Current-head CI passed 55 checks; two checks skipped and one was neutral. Greptile is 5/5, with zero unresolved review threads. - Live Cloud verification will use the reviewed harness and Operations revisions. This PR does not claim that a fresh Cloud campaign has passed. ## Risks A broad cancellation exemption could hide real failures. The exemption requires the server's explicit receipt, unresolved runtime selection, no contradictory execution evidence, and exact durable lineage. Missing successors remain pending until the existing deadline. A successful native child and valid downloaded bytes remain required. No server behavior, approval policy, or budget policy changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, source inspection, tool use, and code execution. The host does not expose its configured 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> |
||
|
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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a967d479bd |
fix(e2e): retain verified onboarding artifact evidence (#17370)
Retain the bounded verified onboarding download and independent oracle in private normalized results before cleanup. Preserve the receipt when later readback or trace checks fail without marking the journey as passed. Refs #17262. Refs #17253. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5ef385f7e6 |
Run reusable Product E2E journeys across deployment targets (#17262)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their work. > - Product E2E tests check complete user journeys. > - The current harness prepares self-hosted instances. > - Hosted workspaces need separate authentication, setup, and cleanup. > - The same in-app story should run on either deployment. > - This pull request adds deployment targets and explicit prerequisites. > - The private Cloud adapter owns fleet access and lifecycle operations. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Product E2E harness, fixture registry, and reports. **Problem or motivation** Self-hosted test setup cannot qualify a deployed Cloud workspace. Copying each story into a second harness would make its assertions diverge. **Proposed solution** Add explicit deployment targets, setup recipes, and ordered campaigns. Reuse a no-model task-properties story on both deployments. Let fresh Cloud onboarding provide verified context for that same story. Keep Cloud lifecycle and credentials behind a private target provider. **Roadmap alignment** This supports Cloud deployment qualification and the existing agent eval system. It adds no application endpoint or scheduler. Related work: #17112. The separate onboarding gateway UI prerequisite is #17253. ## What Changed - Add explicit target configuration and a credential-free preparation preview. Keep historical selectors and the current `--all` matrix unchanged. - Resolve requested fixture prerequisites, including a run-owned backlog task prepared before measurement. Reuse verified onboarding context without counting recipe setup as onboarding coverage. - Add task assignment persistence and the actual onboarding parent/child first-task journey, with an independent artifact oracle and native trace requirement. - Preserve failed boundaries and blocked dependents, deployment identity, costs, phase outcomes, and private evidence in the existing dashboard. - Validate success assertions and accounting before successful cleanup. Bound collection by the campaign deadline and cleanup/evidence hooks by a separate ten-minute grace, with cancellation and stop-only fallback. - Stage dashboard rendering separately so a timed-out renderer cannot overwrite retained failure results. Add evidence finalization hooks so the private provider can save evidence before target deletion and lease release. - Reject private journey bundles in the public history publisher. Browser-only results have no model or provider. ## Verification - The unchanged task-properties story passed on managed self-hosted and a registered testing Cloud workspace. Authentication, setup, journey, collection, and cleanup passed. Model calls: zero. Earlier attempts remain private and retained. - Final journey and report tests: 96 passed in eight files. Catalog compatibility: 39 passed. The wider focused run exposed three stale master catalog expectations; these now match the already shipped case-handoff v4 metadata and four-cell matrix. The default 385-cell selection is unchanged. - Review regressions reproduced premature success for a zero-request receipt and a missing required assertion. Both now fail before success cleanup while retaining cost receipts. The initial lifecycle fixes passed 33 checks. A subsequent review exposed a late renderer write that could erase saved failures; rendering now writes into isolated staging and publishes HTML only after it settles. Combined campaign, fixture-contract, and retained-report checks: 67 passed, including late writes, delayed timer callbacks, stalled collection, release, stop, evidence hooks, and browser close. Harness typecheck passed after the fixes. - A broader harness unit attempt completed 3,601 passing cases, two failures, and two skips. The failures exposed a stale Pi count and an omitted active Copilot fixture in the Daytona image input closure. The focused compatibility fixes passed 83 tests. After all source fixes, the full harness support suite passed: 160 files, 3,621 tests, two skips, plus 128 native-source checks. The earlier failures remain recorded. - Harness typecheck, repository typecheck, repository build, map checks, and Storybook catalog checks passed on the rebased branch. - The required full `pnpm test:run` attempt timed out after 35 minutes. It had 1,195 completed passing cases and one chat integration failure before its first suite completed. That case and nine adjacent cases pass in isolation. The original failure remains unresolved and retained; this is not a full-suite pass. - Current-head remote checks (`39b2a1ed8c49222fabd1ba8e225cac81bff5c6f7`): 53 passed, two skipped, none pending or failing. Greptile completed successfully at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. - Fresh paid Cloud onboarding, dependent reuse, and disposable cleanup have not been qualified live. They require deployment of the separate UI prerequisite and actual Cloud gateway budget admission. The trusted Cloud workflow remains disabled. - Final live verification at `39b2a1ed8c`: the unchanged shared story passed on managed self-hosted and the registered testing Cloud stack using the prepared backlog-task recipe. Both cleaned up successfully with zero model calls. Independent private S3 checks confirmed final evidence and released QA identity/stack leases. Cloud evidence remains private. ## Risks - A deployed UI or Cloud control-plane change can invalidate selectors or provider contracts. Version drift fails the attempt. - Cloud evidence and lifecycle recovery are private-provider responsibilities. A pending cleanup or evidence upload must keep the target unavailable for reuse. - No release is deployed or pinned by this change. No automatic story retry is added. The initial pilot retains its explicit $10, one disposable workspace, and 30-minute bounds. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and delegated agents. The runtime does not expose a more specific deployment model identifier 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 - [ ] 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> |