mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-02 16:58:52 +01:00
4e97daafa06a54f02027335437c4f48e50b84236
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
d9354bbfc3 |
Add a portable agent question and answer resumption journey (#18346)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps people manage agent work and keep human decisions
attached to tasks.
> - Product E2E journeys verify the browser, native agent, saved state,
and cleanup.
> - The classic suite already checks a choice question followed by a
text question.
> - Deployment-targeted journeys need the same behavior on an attached
instance.
> - Production questions can use provider input, the dedicated semantic
tool, or the authenticated native API fallback.
> - The basic journey must verify the original card and native
continuation for each supported path.
> - This pull request shares the scenario and browser actions, adds
strict API receipt evidence, and verifies the saved document after
reload.
> - Separate tool-documentation qualification and the original failed
measurements keep their existing scope and outcomes.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
It adds portable coverage for answering agent questions and resuming the
same task on an attached deployment.
**Current behavior**
The classic suite has the two-question scenario. The portable catalog
does not expose it. Its shared native-path grader recognizes provider
and dedicated semantic receipts, but rejects a valid completed native
API creation receipt.
**Proposed behavior**
Expose `question-answer-resume` as a deployment-targeted journey. Answer
one choice question and one text question in the browser. Require
server-owned creation evidence, unchanged forms, exact board answers,
bound continuation, an agent-authored task document, and readback after
reload.
**Reason and benefit**
The same story can qualify local and hosted targets through their normal
provider setup and cleanup. It catches lost answers, duplicate or
foreign work, premature output, and stale documents.
## What Changed
- Register the journey with a three-run maximum and positive model
allowance. Accept one to three attributed work runs at both collection
and retained-result boundaries.
- Share the existing two-question scenario, browser answer actions, and
behavioral grader. Keep separate tool-documentation grading unchanged.
- Recognize a completed native API creation receipt only when its HTTP
201 result retains the original pending card, exact
task/company/agent/source run, idempotency key, and full normalized
form. Require the receipt to remain unchanged after the answer and
through the final checkpoint. Missing, pending, foreign, or altered
proof still fails.
- Check signed-in board ownership, each native continuation, no
premature or extra output, document authorship, and the saved revision
after reload.
- Wait for the authenticated product region before screenshots. Recheck
origin and path after readiness. Bound readiness and capture by the
campaign deadline.
- Add closed stage-specific errors, catalog coverage, sanitized receipt
calibration, and documentation. Include the provider-form and
browser-question presentation helpers in the definition fingerprint.
## Verification
- Fresh QA staging qualification passed at
`7f7de8be286a436010a48af89aba1727b4451493`: all 11 required checks
passed, cleanup passed, and all three native runs used the configured QA
target and model. The [sanitized run
report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41121966520-1/)
records the measured pass. This is one successful qualification, not a
reliability claim.
- Final integration head `ae0d9d289831c770a413658d3520fb1dc8ad60e3`
contains the one main merge through
`fd008979f5794fda3d5f54151d36acd31d0de140` and an exact cherry-pick of
the four-file qualified search fix
`4edd10804e2b42941aa2038e90c362c13a0b98dc` from #18370. Patch identity
matches. It preserves the project and search registrations and atomic
search readback. The question live qualification ran at the earlier SHA
above; the final integration head has separate local and CI
verification.
- Eighteen question journey, helper, and test file blobs are identical
between the qualified and integration SHAs. This includes clarification
flow and evidence, question grader and browser helper, the sanitized
receipt fixture, screenshot helper, provider-form helper, browser
question presentation, continuation scenario/readiness/flow, shared
agent validation, and user actions. The question run-count contract and
dispatch branch are also unchanged. Reviewers can compare those paths
directly between the two commits.
- All 622 selected Product E2E, catalog, question-resumption,
necessary-question, report, and readiness tests pass after the main
merge. After the exact search delta, all 145 narrow
question/search/project/contract tests and all nine real Chromium search
regressions pass. Map checks, combined credential-free preview, source
fingerprints, and the earlier workspace-link preflight pass. The local
TypeScript attempt reports stale Runner declaration errors for
`onAccountingEvent` in unchanged native-session code; fresh official CI
provides the clean-build type gate. The three search source/test blobs
match the qualified search merge, and the three project source blobs are
unchanged.
- An in-memory probe executes the actual launcher fingerprint
expression. Each project, search, and question implementation input
changes the digest. Separate red probes first reproduced the omitted
provider-form and browser presentation helpers; both pass after their
source inputs are added.
- The sanitized retained native API response-shape regression fails
before the grading correction and passes afterward. Negative controls
reject missing, pending, foreign, changed, spoofed, or wrongly bound
receipts, answers, continuation, model, environment, and document
evidence. All nine provider/semantic/API path combinations pass
calibration.
- The real local Chromium screenshot probe fails before the readiness
repair and passes afterward. Login redirects and sign-in pages at task
URLs remain excluded with no screenshot files.
- The two original attached failures remain retained: the first stopped
at early screenshot capture; the second stopped before answering at the
former API provenance gate. An earlier sandbox run also retained one
report subprocess failure; the full selected tests then passed with
local subprocess IPC access.
- The prior integration CI had an unchanged canary mock `EADDRINUSE`
failure. That history is retained; its documented retry is owned by the
coordinator. No application API, schema, production UI, model, runtime
policy, credential, or deployment configuration change is included.
Final integration head
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
428b617fc9 |
test(evals): qualify native question resume paths (#15616)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets agents pause tasks for human answers and continue the work. > - Native questions can yield a run or pause inside the provider's running turn. > - Those paths have different run identities and different forms. > - The documentation-placement test requires a semantic three-turn journey. > - A valid provider question therefore needs separate behavioral qualification. > - This pull request adds an opt-in two-answer journey with exact source and resume checks. > - Qualification exposed a Vite startup crash in idle-handler traversal, so the branch also distinguishes Connect mount paths from Express Route objects. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Product E2E evaluation of native task questions and answer delivery. **Current behavior** The semantic documentation case rejects the provider adapter's optional Other field before answering. Its three-run expectation also cannot prove a provider question that resumes within the same run. **Proposed behavior** Keep that semantic test intact. Add a separate opt-in case that classifies each recorded question by authoritative identities. Accept the optional Other field only for a verified provider question. Require both user answers, the correct continuation, and one saved final document. Related: #15564 added strict lifecycle checks. #15522 introduced idle-request tracking; this PR corrects its Connect/Vite compatibility after reproducing the startup crash. #14591 changes ACP question drafts and provider support; this PR has no overlapping files with that change. ## What Changed - Add the explicit-only `question-resume` suite for native Codex and ACPX Claude. Reuse the existing neutral choice-then-text task request. - Bind each question to its company, task, agent and run. Require an applied semantic tool receipt or the exact provider request identity. - Require a provider answer to continue the same run. Require a semantic answer to start one new run with the matching interaction and source-run wake fields. - Preserve question forms and both real board answers through the final checkpoint. Reject missing inputs, duplicate answers, extra runs and substituted identities. - Keep the existing lifecycle, output, task ownership and budget checks. Limit the new case to one attempt and one to three runs. - Add mutation calibrations and document the separate qualification claims. Keep production guidance, scheduling, provider code and the historical semantic case unchanged. - Fix startup with Vite middleware: treat Connect string mount paths separately from Express Route objects when traversing idle-request handlers. A real-Vite regression verifies startup and retained async work through an idle hold. ## Verification - 81 focused continuation, question and calibration tests passed before review. After the reference-preservation correction, all 50 question/resume tests pass, including two new negative cases that failed against the previous grader. - Final eval support suite passes: 1,921 Vitest tests and 128 Node tests, with one intentional skip. - Eval and workspace typechecks pass. Workspace build passes. - Catalog discovery finds only the two declared opt-in cells. Existing continuation remains 23 cells; default paid scope is unchanged. - Original [campaign 37831726391](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37831726391), source `1ac4b2873466896ff2892f49be82904927b6c57d`, failed during server startup before any test or provider run. Its original `transient_infrastructure` result and `cleanup: not_started` are preserved. Local reproduction identifies the Connect string route traversal crash; the question grader was never reached. - Setup-corrected [campaign 37833872898](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37833872898) measures source `9781a772389d41421df55759004676e1b905e512` with trusted workflow `8e59efc50b162126f33816841e06509634eba65c`. The workflow bytes are unchanged from the first dispatch. Same single selected native Claude cell, one attempt, at most three runs, ten-minute cell deadline, and 1,000-cent company/agent hard stops. Original result **PASS**, 24/24 checks and cleanup pass. Exactly three successful native Claude runs: two applied Paperclip `request_human_input` questions and one finishing run. Both real board answers persist, exact interaction/source-run response wakes match, one revision-1 task document contains Afternoon and the supplied reference, and final task state is done with no active lock, retry, recovery, monitor, pending interaction or child task. No model retry. - Current review head `3c08cb7d26e7f9ac16469eeb07d1f31d828ec02e` differs from the measured source only in the question/resume grader and its tests (11 insertions, 3 deletions). The saved document must contain the complete submitted reference, including its prefix and punctuation. Separate provider-free replay of the retained successful campaign passes all 24 continuation/lifecycle checks under this stricter grader. The original result and its measured source remain unchanged; no new provider run was made. - Observed paths were **semantic → semantic**. The provider built-in question/optional Other path was not exercised by this new live attempt. Its form acceptance has retained-original calibration; same-run answer/resume has deterministic positive/negative calibration. This neutral-task pass alone does not qualify the provider path; the subsequent explicit bridge trial below is separate evidence. Neither trial regrades the old Claude failure or establishes a causal behavior/performance comparison. - Subsequent explicit provider-path [campaign 37841107684](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37841107684) measures the final PR source `3c08cb7d26e7f9ac16469eeb07d1f31d828ec02e`, using trusted workflow `2a5f65c9ae501b49b2a38ce7edd04209b806c9d0`. Exact cell: `continuation.runner-acpx-claude.local.provider-question-bridge`, Claude `claude-sonnet-5`, suite fingerprint `fc77203bf85fd99b06ebc53cd52982186c0ae0dc369fcc38a9ec3c737e9a31e5`. **Original PASS, 15/15 checks, cleanup passed, one actual provider run and zero eval rerolls.** The built-in question produced one choice plus its optional Other companion. The browser selected the requested reference, left Other blank, and submitted. Exact runtime request/response IDs and the selected option match the saved interaction; the same paused native run created one revision-1 document and finished Done with no pending interaction, lock, retry, recovery, monitor or child task. Independent evidence and runtime-receipt audits pass; marked initial/final screenshots were visually checked. [Original public report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-37841107684-1/index.html). - This separate provider-directed trial qualifies one choice-answer bridge and traversal of an empty optional Other field. It does not establish natural tool selection, a typed Other answer, two consecutive built-in questions, free-text-only input, restart recovery or general reliability. No production, prompt or grader change was made for this dispatch. The old failure and the separate neutral semantic-path result retain their original grades. - Preserve within-run friction: one `write_task_document` input-schema rejection and two HTTP 409 “Document does not exist yet” responses preceded a successful `write_document` call. These are three unsuccessful tool calls inside the same run, not three extra provider runs; no flawless document-tool behavior is claimed. Billing reports token usage but remains unpriced/incomplete, so actual charges are unknown and local/hosted runtime is unmetered. Both company and agent hard stops were 1,000 cents, with one attempt, one selected cell, concurrency one and a ten-minute cell deadline. - Billing records all three model runs with token usage, but no priced dollar receipt (`unpriced`, `complete: false`). Actual charges are unknown; local/hosted runtime is unmetered. Numeric zero reported cost does not mean free. - Startup repair: real-Vite reproduction passes; 35 targeted idle-tracking tests pass, 34 database-dependent checks skip because embedded PostgreSQL is unavailable locally. Workspace typecheck and build pass again after the repair. - Full local repository database tests were not repeated because embedded PostgreSQL was unavailable in the preceding workspace verification. Full Linux CI now passes on the final review head. - Final-head [CI run 37837804284](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37837804284) passes. Complete current-head audit: 53 successful check-runs, two intentional Storybook skips, and separate Snyk success. The ready transition’s contributor and security checks also pass (security scan: no findings). [Fresh review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15616#issuecomment-6068092601) is 5/5 on `3c08cb7d26e7f9ac16469eeb07d1f31d828ec02e`; zero unresolved threads and no merge conflicts. ## Risks This is a new behavioral definition. The neutral two-question trial records semantic-tool use; the separate provider-directed trial records one built-in question. They do not establish consistent tool selection, documentation placement, default hiring, remote environments, crash recovery or general reliability. The separate explicit bridge trial covers one provider choice, an empty optional Other companion and same-run completion. Typed Other, two consecutive built-in questions and free-text-only provider input remain unqualified. The observed document-tool schema rejection and two 409 responses are retained as a separate follow-up, without attributing their cause. The historical case and its original grades remain intact. The reference question must still be text-only; the oracle does not turn an arbitrary extra question into an optional companion. Missing or unfamiliar identity evidence fails closed. The only production change distinguishes Connect string mount paths from Express route objects during idle-handler traversal. Unknown route objects still fail closed. No API, schema, migration or workflow change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6-based, with tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [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> |