2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
6 people	d30c8f42b8	feat(ui): keep writes durable through temporary disconnects (#17960) ... <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/123/changes/paperclip/123 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People save tasks, write documents, make decisions and send board messages. > - A disconnect can hide a response after the server accepts a write. > - Recovery must keep the original account, task and request key. > - The merged connection foundation in #15754 handles reads and shared outage state. > - This change adds bounded write recovery and explicit actions when recovery stops. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Temporary failures could lose edits, report accepted writes as failures, or require people to copy and send input again. A retry could target a newly selected task or account. Restoring attachments could create a second task. **Expected behavior** Keep the draft, its owner and its target. Retry only operations with a server contract that prevents duplicate writes. Verify uncertain results. Show conflicts and permanent failures, with an explicit resend or cancel action. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save a task title during an outage, then open another task before recovery. 2. Restore a task creation that needs files, selecting those files in another order. 3. Lose a document or decision response, then interrupt the verification read. 4. Switch accounts while a create, upload or connected-channel publication is pending. 5. Type and erase a new-task draft before the first account lookup completes, then reopen it. This PR carries the write layer from #15769 and its review fixes. It targets master after #15754 merged. Related test cleanup #16952 already covers the unchanged copy-link toast test; this PR does not duplicate that work. ## What Changed - Add bounded autosave and submit jobs for supported writes, with pending, conflict and manual retry states. Retain admitted autosaves after navigation and preserve newer task revisions. - Keep each job with its original account, task and operation. First account resolution adopts admitted startup work; a later account change cancels old work. Remount inline and document editors when their owner or document subject changes. - Preserve task-creation keys and immutable request snapshots through file reattachment. Restore generated document keys before comparing reselected files. Reject changed requests instead of creating a second task. - Check the original account scope before creates and each upload. Save successful upload receipts before stopping on an account change. Identify attachments by content digest and metadata. - Verify uncertain document and decision results. Replay only plain, keyed comments automatically; combined reassignment, reopen and run-setting changes require receipt reconciliation or cancel. Settle each request once when a receipt races its retry. - Scope drafts and connected-channel publication reads to their owner. Keep unowned older records unread and unreplayed, with an explicit confirmed discard action after Activity inspection. Preserve typing through the first session lookup, keep erased text erased, and report browser persistence only when storage succeeds. - Wait for the first account lookup before sending startup status changes or decisions. Retry failed required lookups with a fixed limit and surface exhaustion to the original action. Preserve uncertain comment keys on account cancellation. Check the account generation before a comment retry calls its sender and again immediately before POST after asynchronous preparation. Retire only that request’s optimistic echo on completion. - Return an ordinary comment’s accepted same-company, same-task, same-user receipt before workspace reopening, task status changes or wakeups. Reused keys with changed text still conflict. Complete reference and activity records through the same finalizer for initial sends and accepted retries. It locks the task before its comment, matching task and company deletion, comment removal and tombstoning, rejects removed or tombstoned comments, repairs references and inserts a missing activity record in one transaction, and publishes after commit. - Remove reader-only record and comment-body size caps so accepted browser writes remain readable, including JSON-escaped comment requests in local and session storage. Update four existing Storybook fixtures to use owned draft keys. - Document the write contracts and add regression and real browser recovery coverage. - Add the exact reviewed-save recovery regression for both composer implementations and reloads. Align receipt completion, both comment deletion methods and company deletion with task deletion by locking tasks first. Cover real task and company deletion races. ## Verification - The exact reviewed-unknown-save regression fails in all four cases on original commit `1ed0af4186`. It passes with this PR for both composers, before and after reload. Cancel keeps the text and uploaded receipt. The retained draft sends, and the next message also sends. Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/composer-recovery.test.tsx`. - The new real PostgreSQL task-deletion race fails with SQLSTATE `40P01` on parent commit `f3253a00c4`. The company-deletion race also fails with `40P01` on `e8cf0e02dd`. All six receipt tests pass after the final lock-order fixes. They cover company deletion, task deletion, comment removal, tombstoning, concurrent cross-task references and interrupted reference repair. Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-receipt-postgres.test.ts`. - The full UI run passed 9,656 of 9,659 tests across 816 files. Three cases failed under that run: two large-tree timeouts and one plugin-panel assertion. All 67 tests in those two files passed in an isolated rerun. These failures remain recorded; this does not claim a clean full UI run. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, token gates and map checks pass on the final change. The local full repository test command was started, then stopped when the delivery moved to this existing PR. Fresh PR CI must provide the full-suite gate. - A local Storybook walkthrough used the real rich editor. Cancel kept the restored text, Send cleared it after the simulated save, and a new draft enabled Send again. Storybook simulates submission; it is not staging acceptance. - Earlier verification on `f3253a00c4` recorded five browser journeys for title saves, cached-task offline recovery, startup recovery, accepted comment replay and session lookup failure. Those results remain prior-head evidence. No new staging deployment is claimed. - On `e8cf0e02dd`, all CI checks passed after one browser-shard rerun. Its first failure copied page text instead of YAML in an unrelated agent-configuration test. On final commit `35131d4380`, Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. The first CI attempt has two failures outside this diff: runner close-attachment suspension and scheduled-retry teardown. The scheduled-retry file passes all 14 tests in isolation; the isolated runner test still fails locally. The single standard CI rerun passed both jobs, and the aggregate verification gate passed. All CI checks are green on `35131d4380`; Apex is 5/5 on that same commit with no unresolved findings. ## Risks - Automatic replay requires server duplicate prevention or result verification. Uncertain combined mutations require receipt observation or cancel and a fresh intentional send. - Old unowned form drafts remain stored but are not assigned to an account. Unowned channel records can be retired after Activity inspection; this never cancels an accepted remote update. - Browser storage and hashing can be unavailable. Storage failure is reported honestly. Without a digest, replay can duplicate an upload rather than silently drop a selected file. - Detached autosaves remain bounded and check account ownership on each attempt. Conflicts or exhaustion retain the draft for explicit recovery. - No schema, credential or agent permission change is included. This PR does not claim staging deployment or original-task acceptance. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) produced the original implementation with tool use. OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, assisted with restoration, integration, verification and review fixes. This Codex session does not expose its exact 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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Amy (Opus) <claude@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>	2026-10-28 10:52:06 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	88bf4c6c1d	refactor(storybook): organize folders and navigation by feature map (#16049) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product areas and verification entry points. > - Storybook has 223 story suites that show production components, proposals, and retained history. > - The parent PR maps those suites to features, but their folders and sidebar still use unrelated groups. > - This pull request puts the existing suites under feature folders and uses the feature map's names and order in the sidebar. > - Explicit meta IDs preserve existing story links while the titles change. > - Contributors can find stories through the same product structure without losing examples. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16046. This is the requested follow-up. Parent #16046 is merged. This PR now targets master, with its single follow-up commit rebased onto the parent squash merge. The Storybook implementation is unchanged by that rebase. Related open Storybook PRs were checked; this change organizes existing suites and adds no product capability. ## What Changed - Move all 223 story files into folders named for their primary feature area. Keep useful scenario groups below the feature's sidebar label. - Order the sidebar by the eight feature-map sections. Put Overview first and shared Foundations last. Leave areas with no stories out of the sidebar. - Move 19 support files into `ui/storybook/support/` and update relative imports and active documentation. - Preserve all 2,210 story IDs and the single docs ID through explicit CSF meta IDs. Keep all entry names and story exports. - Record stable IDs and sidebar titles in the downstream catalog. Validate feature folders, title prefixes, and IDs. Update the maintenance skill and review evidence. ## Verification - Storybook build passed. Built index comparison against parent `75bd3c977cd828d5222823850339e8204f40eb47` found the same 2,211 entries, IDs, and names. - UI typecheck passed (`ui/node_modules/.bin/tsc -b` from `ui`, invoked as `./node_modules/.bin/tsc -b`). - UI Vitest project: 728 files and 8,176 tests passed. - Catalog checker and its nine tests passed. Feature-map checks, token gates, and the maintenance-skill validator passed. - Chromium: nine existing play cases and one render case reached `storyFinished: success` with no page exceptions. The guide rendered, sidebar sections followed map order, and a search for `steering/queue` opened its preserved story link. - Source comparison found only meta title/ID changes, rebased relative references, and updated fixture path text in story files. - To inspect: build Storybook, start `node scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs --port 6136`, and open the Overview guide. Expand feature folders and use existing story links. - The complete repository suite was not repeated for this organization change. The parent records a backend timeout that passed in isolation, without a complete broad-suite pass. Visual comparisons remain blocked by the unpublished empty baseline. The separate fixture-server story was not run. ## Risks - Open branches that add stories under old paths will need to choose a feature folder and update the catalog. Cross-feature suites have one primary home and retain related capability references. - Sidebar paths change; story and docs IDs remain stable. Automated references to source paths may need the new location. - This is one requested follow-up with 258 changed files, mostly moves. It exceeds the usual review-size guideline because splitting it would leave the sidebar and folder convention partly migrated. - Browser verification samples ten stories, not all 2,210. Existing production/prototype classifications and review gaps remain unchanged. - Required CI gates and a 5/5 review passed on the original head. Fresh checks and review are running for the rebased head. Catalog validation and all nine checker tests passed after rebase; UI, map, skill, and checker contents are identical to the original reviewed head. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and local browser automation. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-12 22:29:22 +00:00