mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
4fde92107e53dbdf7f6ab80a56417b58dc96c776
4316
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4fde92107e |
fix(ci): reuse cloud source verification for npm canaries (#13233)
Reuse the exact master source-verification result before npm canary publication, removing a duplicate verification matrix while preserving fail-closed release checks. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
52811c6ce6 |
fix(tasks): require resume before sending to paused tasks (#13232)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task execution controls let board users pause a task or its subtree. > - The composer still accepted messages while a pause hold was active. > - A paused task must require an explicit resume before the user can send another message. > - This pull request replaces the composer with an amber pause card and checks board comment writes on the server. > - The user keeps their draft and resumes through the existing task controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13104. Refs #13119. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The task composer and existing task/subtree pause controls. **Current behavior** A paused task can still receive a board message. The pause notice sits outside the composer, which leaves the send action available. **Proposed behavior** Show an amber takeover in both task chat and the classic composer. Preserve the draft. Require the user to resume the task or the ancestor subtree before sending. Reject board comment writes through either supported write route while the pause hold is active. **Breaking changes** Board comment writes to a paused task now return HTTP 409. Agent run reports remain supported during a pause. There is no schema migration. ## What Changed - Add a shared amber composer takeover with task, subtree, saved draft, pending, and error states. - Use effective ancestor pause state in both composer interfaces. Refresh it after pause events, task updates, and rejected sends. - Preserve draft text and attachments. Hide editor, send, queued edit, and pending question controls while paused. - Check active pause holds before board comment writes can mutate tasks, store comments, or wake agents. - Connect the approved Storybook examples to the production component and update the design and behavior docs. - Add browser coverage for both composers, draft persistence, resume, inherited holds, and rejected writes. Update ACP continuation coverage for the explicit resume requirement. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - Passed: `pnpm build-storybook`. - Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check`. - Passed: focused UI tests (398 tests) and server route tests (127 tests). - Passed: `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/paused-composer.spec.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` (5 tests). - Passed: manual browser walkthrough in a disposable local instance. Pause with a draft, refresh while paused, resume, send, and reopen. The draft returned, and one message persisted. The amber card and resume dialog were readable with no clipping. - Full local `pnpm test:run` did not pass: the general-server stage recorded 9,072 passing tests, 6 database setup failures from macOS shared-memory exhaustion, and 4 failed tests. This stopped the script before its later groups. Latest-head CI runs those groups independently. - Local follow-up: the Git file-resource load test passed on rerun (4 tests); native finalization migration passed after clearing the abandoned browser-test database allocation. Building the native debug fixtures fixed the missing fake provider. The remaining native-session recovery assertion also reproduces on untouched base commit `87b3e5fc6` (36 pass, 1 fail on both base and PR). It expects a settled-session error but receives a semantic-input-digest error. - The final UI build, UI typecheck, token gates, both thread suites (182 tests), and all five browser tests passed after the queued-action review fix. All 31 latest-head CI checks passed, including all server, workspace, browser, build, release, and security gates. Two optional Storybook jobs were skipped by workflow policy. Greptile reviewed `32d8fb5f5` at 5/5 with no open findings. - Review the Paused Composer and Tasks / Execution Controls stories. Pause a task with a draft, verify the amber card, resume, and verify the draft can be sent once. ## Risks - Clients that used board comments to continue paused work must resume first. The response is an explicit HTTP 409. - Pause state can change while a page is open. Live updates refresh the composer, and the server rejects stale sends before their side effects. - Resume keeps the existing dialog and optional agent wake behavior. Agent reports from interrupted runs remain allowed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with design, implementation, code execution, and browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning and tool calls. ## 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 the relevant tests locally and they pass; the full local-suite limits are documented above - [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>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.10 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
96bba78fba |
feat: add readable Storybook branch bookmarks (#13231)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Maintainers use Storybook previews to review the board UI. > - Branch previews need stable bookmarks that people can read. > - The current publisher only provides a hashed branch path. > - This pull request adds a readable branch bookmark after each successful upload. > - Existing branch and build links keep working. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13226. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Manual Storybook publication for repository branches. **Current behavior** The stable branch path contains a hash. The expected `/storybook/branches/master/` URL does not exist. **Proposed behavior** Each publication updates a readable bookmark. The action summary and Markdown artifact link it. Master uses `/storybook/branches/master/`. Other names use a safe path segment that preserves case and escapes special characters. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can save and share a readable URL that opens the latest published branch build. **Breaking changes** None. Existing hashed branch entries still update. Existing build URLs remain valid. **Additional context** This follows the publisher in #13226. A duplicate search found no related bookmark change. It does not overlap planned core work in ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Generate readable branch bookmarks without collisions with existing build directories. - Upload the bookmark only after the full build and compatibility entry uploads succeed. - Link the bookmark in the existing summary and Markdown artifact. - Document branch-name escaping and test path isolation, stable links, and upload order. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 20 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - `git diff --check`: passes. - [Master bookmark publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613344758): passed. Opened `/storybook/branches/master/` in the browser and confirmed a story renders. Downloaded the Markdown report and verified its bookmark link. - [Feature branch bookmark publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613449034): passed. Its separate bookmark uses `codex~2Fstorybook-bookmarks`. - Greptile: 5/5 on `dccaf10413ecf447cb34e622b6b3c505791abb51`, with no unresolved review threads. All current-head Paperclip CI gates pass, including typecheck, tests, build, browser suites, and the canary dry run. - Full local repository checks were not repeated for this focused publisher change. The preceding run passed typecheck but encountered unrelated native-session test failures. ## Risks - Special characters in branch names use `~HH` byte escapes. For example, `feature/foo` becomes `feature~2Ffoo`. - Names that could overlap an existing hashed build directory escape the final hyphen. Very long names retain a hash suffix. - The two branch entries update separately. If the final upload fails, the workflow fails and a rerun can repair the bookmark. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and live deployment verification. The exact runtime 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3b03c4b9eb |
perf(ui): keep long task chat responsive during streaming (#13229)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets operators manage agent work through tasks. > - Task chat keeps responses and run history together. > - A live update rendered every historical bubble and hidden tool row again. > - New image callbacks also forced unchanged markdown to parse again. > - Long conversations saturated the browser main thread. > - This change reuses unchanged history and mounts folded tools on first inspection. > - Operators can read and reply while work continues. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Chat-style tasks with substantial scrollback became almost unusable. A deterministic browser reproduction with 200 long responses and 4,000 tools consumed 97.8% of the main thread during live updates. It delivered only 8 updates during the sample. **Expected behavior** The task should remain responsive during streaming. Historical markdown and unopened run details should not repeat expensive render work. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install dependencies with `pnpm install`. 2. Run `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/perf/task-chat/playwright.config.ts`. 3. Compare the attached performance JSON. The new test fails against the original rendering code. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced at `a05b828bc`. The branch is rebased on current master. **Deployment mode** Local Chromium and Vite with deterministic fixtures. No database or agent credentials are required. Related work: #10463 reduces the issue-page bundle. This change addresses repeated rendering after the page loads. No duplicate scrollback fix was found. ## What Changed - Keep the bubble image callback stable so unchanged markdown can skip parsing. - Memoize the settled history separately from the header and streaming tail. Keep the brief renderer and default attachment array stable. - Mount folded tool history on first expansion. Keep it mounted afterward to preserve child state and closing motion. Runtime request receipts remain visible. - Add deterministic rendering tests to the normal Vitest suite and an opt-in Chromium regression fixture. - Document the reproduction, commands, scope, and local measurements. ## Verification - Browser reproduction: 97.8% main-thread utilization before; 11.6% after for tail-only updates; 31.5% after when projection recreates history objects. Both fixed cases delivered 32 updates. - Browser checks pass for scroll-position retention, typing, return to latest, tool inspection, and retained expansion state. - Focused component suite: 155 tests passed. Post-rebase thread/performance rerun: 101 tests passed. - Recursive typecheck, build, Storybook build, and token gates passed. UI typecheck passed after the final edits. - Local UI/CLI lane: 5,910 tests passed; ten files hit worker-start timeouts, then all ten passed with two workers (20 tests). Shared/adapter lane: 3,128 tests passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and is **not green**: its server lane recorded 10,517 passes and 11 failures plus fixture/setup errors. Queue (31 tests), Cursor/Git-load (9 tests), and missing-binary failures cleared on isolated reruns / building the runner test binaries. Two native suites still cannot initialize embedded PostgreSQL on this host. - The remaining native-session recovery assertion was reproduced in a clean worktree at base `a20ecce40` (1 failed, 67 passed across the native/queue suites). It expects a settled-session error but receives a semantic-tool-input digest error. No server or runner files changed in this PR. - All substantive CI jobs have passed, including build, typecheck, all server/workspace test shards, all three e2e shards, and the canary dry run. The unchanged Slack ordering test exhausted its one-second wait on the first run; its shard passed on rerun. Final aggregate verification passed: **31 passing checks**, no failures or pending checks; two optional Storybook deployment/visual checks were skipped. Greptile is **5/5**, with no unresolved review threads. - The supplemental local serialized route run was stopped after CI passed all five serialized shards; it had reported no failures. - The browser fixture uses the real chat rendering components with a plain textarea. It does not test the full composer or server transport. Timing results are local samples; deterministic render-count tests provide normal CI coverage. ## Risks - Closed tool content becomes available to DOM search only after first expansion. Visible run summaries and runtime request receipts remain available immediately. - Opened run history remains mounted to preserve child state. The first full markdown render still scales with conversation size. - Memo dependencies must stay current when adding render inputs. Tests check content edits and replacement gallery callbacks. - No API, database, or permission changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. No sub-agents were used. ## 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 — targeted/UI/workspace checks pass; the full local server suite has the baseline/host failures documented above - [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
|
1616046c24 |
fix(runner): prevent trace scans from delaying live events (#13228)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The native runner sends events that keep task state and steering
controls current.
> - Debug trace correlation reread and parsed the full trace for each
pending event.
> - Repeated scans blocked event delivery and left task state minutes
behind the provider.
> - This pull request indexes appended trace records once and reuses
those correlations.
> - Operators get current run state while native trace evidence remains
available.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Native runs appeared live after their provider turn ended. Steering was
unavailable while the board still showed an active run. A CPU profile
attributed 93% of sampled time to trace lookup and file reads.
**Expected behavior**
Debug trace correlation must not delay run events or task state by
minutes.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Enable native provider trace capture for a Codex run.
2. Produce a long event stream with pending correlations.
3. Compare provider event times with persisted run event times.
**Paperclip version**
Reproduced on source build
canary/v2026.911.0-canary.9
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
87b3e5fc61 |
fix(adapter-utils): stage selected skills into the sandbox for a remote Claude ACP run (#13196)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A user selects skills for an agent, and the host materializes those skills into a bundle the agent reads > - An agent can run in a remote sandbox, where the host must stage every file the agent needs > - On the Agent Client Protocol lane the host built that bundle and then named its host path in the prompt, but it never staged the bundle into the sandbox > - The agent therefore read a path that does not exist inside the sandbox, and the run failed on the missing skill file > - The command-line lane of the same adapter already stages a `skills` asset and reads the in-sandbox directory back from the staged runtime > - This pull request carries that proven pattern to the Agent Client Protocol lane, so a selected skill reaches the agent in a remote run ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this change. The description follows. **What happened?** A remote run of the Claude adapter on the Agent Client Protocol lane could not read any selected skill. The host builds the skill bundle in its own state directory, then writes that host path into the prompt as `Skill root: <path>`. The remote seam of that lane staged one asset only, the configuration seed. It staged no skills asset, so no skill file crossed into the sandbox. The agent then tried to read the skill file at the host path, and the read failed with a missing-file error. **Expected behavior** A remote run receives the skills the user selected, and the prompt names the directory that holds those skills inside the sandbox. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Select one or more skills for an agent that uses the Claude adapter. 2. Start a run for that agent in a remote sandbox on the Agent Client Protocol lane. 3. Ask the agent to read the skill file at the path the prompt names. The file is not there. **Agent adapter(s) involved** The Claude local adapter, on its Agent Client Protocol lane. The shared engine in `packages/adapter-utils` carries the prompt rewrite. **Additional context** The command-line lane of the same adapter already stages a `skills` asset and remaps onto the staged directory. This change reuses that mechanism instead of adding a new transport. One other adapter shows the same host-path shape on its own Agent Client Protocol lane. That lane is tracked separately and this pull request does not change it. ## What Changed - Return the host skill bundle directory from the Claude skill runtime step, and carry it through the remote managed-home context to the staging seam. The value is null for a non-Claude agent, for a run that selects no skill, and for a run whose selected skills all fail to materialize. - Stage that bundle as a `skills` asset on the Claude Agent Client Protocol remote seam, and only when the run selected a skill. - **Stage that asset with `followSymlinks: false`.** The bundle holds an owned copy of each selected skill, and the copy step never copies a symbolic link at the root or at any depth. So the bundle contains no symbolic link, and staging has none to follow. Refusing to follow one also stops a link planted in the bundle directory after the copy from pulling an unrelated host file into the sandbox. A regression test walks the real adapter sources and pins the reviewed `followSymlinks` value at every skills staging site, so a new or changed site fails the test. - **Drop a skill whose staged copy has no usable `SKILL.md`** from the prompt, the skill identity, the command notes, and the bundle, and log which skill was dropped and why. Without this, a skill whose copy failed, or whose `SKILL.md` is a symbolic link the copy step skips, stayed advertised in the prompt while its file was absent — the same missing-file symptom this change exists to fix. - Rewrite the `Skill root:` prompt line, the skill identity, and the command notes onto the in-sandbox directory. The rewrite runs in the engine, after the workspace placement returns the staged runtime. A compatible session resume reuses the cached staged runtime, so the rewrite runs on that path too. - Keep the session fingerprint on the host-independent skill identity. A change to the selected skill set still invalidates a warm session, and the volatile sandbox path stays out of the hash. - A local run, and a run with no selected skill, keep their current behaviour. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local src/server/acp.test.ts` — 28 of 28 pass. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts src/skills-staging-follow-symlinks.test.ts` — the new engine tests and the staging-site tests pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit`, and the same check on the adapter package — both exit 0. - The end-to-end test drives the lane against a local sandbox stand-in. It reads the skill root out of the prompt the runtime received, and then opens the skill file at that path. That is the reported symptom, proved closed. - The new tests carry a sensitivity control. Restoring only the production files to their previous content fails 7 of the 9 new tests. The other 2 do not depend on production code: one is a parser unit test for the source scanner. ## Risks Low risk, and the change is a two-way door. A revert restores the previous behaviour exactly. - **Scope.** The change touches one adapter lane. It does not change the local lane, and it does not change any other adapter. No existing staging site changes its `followSymlinks` value. - **The staged bundle and the workspace.** The staged skills land under the runtime directory inside the workspace. The workspace restore excludes that whole runtime directory, so the staged skills never return to the host worktree. A test proves the exclusion end to end. - **Session reuse.** The rewritten path never enters the session fingerprint, so it cannot invalidate a warm session, and a compatible resume applies the same staged path. - **Direction of data.** Files move from the host into the sandbox only. The change adds no path that writes sandbox content onto the host. - **A dropped skill.** A skill with no usable `SKILL.md` is now absent from the prompt instead of named but unreadable. The run logs the skill and the reason, so the cause is visible. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), with extended thinking and tool use, through Paperclip agents. ## Test plan - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local src/server/acp.test.ts` passes — 28 tests. - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts src/skills-staging-follow-symlinks.test.ts` passes. - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit` exits 0. - [x] All continuous-integration gates are green. - [x] The automated review reports no open finding against the current head. ## Required 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 described the issue in-PR following the relevant bug report 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 Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run the targeted tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect this change - [x] I have considered and documented the risks above - [x] All continuous-integration gates are green - [x] The automated review score is 5/5 with no open current-head findings - [x] I have addressed every reviewer comment that applies to the current head **Note on the branch history.** This branch first carried a different change: a filename-based admission filter that refused to stage files such as `.env` from a skill directory, together with a switch from symbolic-link bundles to copied bundles. That approach was rejected and **reverted** on this branch. It does not match the documented trust boundary, because the host already delivers credentials into the sandbox on purpose, and replacing the symbolic-link bundles broke live editing of a skill. The revert is in this branch's history. The file that work changed, `packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.ts`, is byte-for-byte identical to `master` here and is not part of this diff. Earlier review findings that name that file target the reverted code. All of them are resolved, and the automated review passes on the current head. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
974949a39b |
ci: spread cloud server verification across ten runners (#13227)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud waits for source verification before deploying a new image. > - The slowest server verification job spends about ten minutes running tests. > - Each job uses one test worker to preserve test isolation. > - This pull request distributes those suites across ten standard hosted runners. > - The benefit is a shorter verification path with the same test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Current behavior** In [readiness run 34572340764](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34572340764), the slowest server job ran for 638 seconds. Test execution used 594 seconds. This held readiness behind the image job. **Proposed behavior** Use ten general server jobs in the reusable release verification workflow. Keep the three chat jobs and every existing prerequisite. The complete partition test verifies that no server suite is omitted or duplicated. **Reason and benefit** Reduce merge-to-deployable time on the existing runner type. The next longest prerequisite was Runner verification at 526 seconds, so the initial expected total gain is about two minutes rather than a halving of readiness time. Measure actual queue and execution time before claiming a result. Related: #13198 introduced the separate chat lane. #12577 refreshes duration estimates; this change leaves that manifest alone. ## What Changed - Increase the general server matrix from five jobs to ten. - Verify the ten-way partition covers the complete server suite when combined with the chat lane. - Document runner demand and the unchanged local and PR grouping. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 29 passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`: passed. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed, including the complete Linux test partition, build, typecheck, and browser gates. Greptile: 5/5 with zero open findings. - [Ten-shard timing probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34606772388): all 16 jobs passed; slowest server job 6m 23s versus 10m 38s in the earlier five-shard sample. This compares the server lane, not total readiness, and is not a controlled same-source A/B. - The full local `pnpm test:run` is also running. It has reproduced previously observed macOS-only failures in unchanged skill-cache and native-session suites; the corresponding Linux CI suites passed. Final local results will be attached separately. No affected-workflow test failed. ## Risks Five additional concurrent jobs per release verification run increase runner demand and repeated setup work. Queueing can offset the gain. Test workers, timeouts, permissions, and readiness requirements stay unchanged. Revert the matrix and its partition test to restore the previous split. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed by 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 the affected workflow tests locally and they pass; full-suite macOS limitations are disclosed above - [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
|
a20ecce409 |
feat: publish CODEOWNER-approved Storybook branch previews (#13226)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Maintainers use Storybook to review the board UI. > - Reviews need public previews of selected repository branches. > - Each branch needs its own URL so previews do not replace each other. > - This pull request adds manual, CODEOWNER-controlled publishing to S3 and CloudFront. > - The action returns stable branch links and permanent build links in its summary and a Markdown artifact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The existing Storybook build and manual visual-review workflow. **Current behavior** The repository has no manual branch-preview publisher. A single GitHub Pages site cannot support independent publishers without combining their output. **Proposed behavior** A CODEOWNER selects a source branch and approves publication. Each branch has a stable CloudFront URL. A completed build becomes the branch target only after its upload succeeds. The action attaches `storybook-deployment.md` with the preview links and source commit. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can share multiple branch previews at the same time. Branch builds have no repository token permissions or AWS credentials. Dependency caching and install hooks are disabled. The publisher cannot write runner dashboard files or delete objects. **Breaking changes** None. Normal visual checks keep their existing behavior. This does not change application code or GitHub Pages settings. **Additional context** Searched public issues and PRs for Storybook deployment work. No duplicate deployment proposal was found. This is maintainer infrastructure, not a roadmap-level core feature. ## What Changed - Add `Storybook Deploy` with a source-branch input and a manual entry through `Storybook Visual`. - Check the original actor and rerunner against default-branch CODEOWNERS. Require a protected deployment environment with CODEOWNER reviewers. - Separate public-source builds with no repository permissions from an OIDC publisher restricted to the Storybook S3 prefix. - Publish distinct branch URLs and retain build URLs. Preserve Storybook deep links across the branch redirect. - Add the run summary, a downloadable Markdown deployment report, focused tests, and operator setup docs and IAM policies. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 19 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - [Feature branch live publication and deployment-only rerun](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533202273): passed. - [Master branch live publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533204743): passed. - Both public branch URLs render a component story without browser errors. A deployment-only rerun updates only the selected branch entry and preserves the previous build URL. - AWS policy simulation allows Storybook uploads and denies dashboard writes and object deletion. - Full local typechecking passes. Full local tests, build, and current-head PR checks are running. - [Revised build and Markdown artifact validation](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34605623088): passed. Downloaded the report and verified its branch URL, build URL, and source commit. - The public verifier also checks that the stable branch URL points to this build and rejects stale targets. ## Risks - Storybook previews are public. Maintainers must publish only public UI fixtures. - Retained builds accumulate until an operator prunes them. - Environment reviewers must stay synchronized with CODEOWNERS. The workflow fails closed if its environment loses required protection. - The existing CloudFront distribution is shared with runner reports. Separate S3 prefixes and a dedicated role prevent the publisher from overwriting those reports. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and browser verification. The exact runtime 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d10cbde815 |
fix(recovery): reject stale productive continuation wakes (#13173)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and runs. > - Recovery continues assigned work when no live execution path remains. > - A recovery sweep can read an in-progress task before its run completes. > - The sweep can then observe the successful run after completion has changed the task status. > - This pull request checks current status and assignment under the existing enqueue lock. > - A stale continuation leaves a skipped wake receipt and creates no run. > - Task chat also omits an empty continuation cancelled before it started because its task had become terminal. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related public work: #10779 and #8419. Those older open changes address terminal disposition across other recovery paths. This change uses the existing scheduler guard for productive successful-run continuation and adds real database lock contention coverage. **What happened?** Recovery could combine an old in-progress task snapshot with a newer successful run. It queued an automatic continuation after the task was done. Dispatch cancelled that run before it started, but task chat displayed “Couldn't start” below the successful answer. This can happen after the native runner's finish result has already been accepted. It does not require a missing comment. **Expected behavior** Productive continuation must remain eligible when enqueueing acquires the task lock. Completion, cancellation, reassignment, or a move away from in-progress must prevent creation of the run. Actual execution stops must remain visible. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let recovery select an assigned in-progress task whose latest run succeeded with productive progress. 2. Hold the task row lock in another transaction and change the task to done. 3. Let recovery attempt to enqueue while that transaction holds the lock. 4. Commit completion. Before this fix, recovery creates a redundant run from the stale snapshot. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master at `4042eb1c4` with deterministic integration tests. **Deployment mode** Built from source with PostgreSQL. The bug is in core recovery and is not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Pass the existing status-and-assignee guard for productive terminal continuation recovery. - Preserve a skipped wake receipt with the expected and actual task state, without creating a run. - Test actual PostgreSQL lock contention for native and legacy completion, cancellation, backlog, review, blocked state, and reassignment. - Omit empty redundant pre-start cancellations from native and legacy task chat. Preserve stop markers for runs that started. - Document recovery eligibility at enqueue time. ## Verification - All seven new race cases failed before the guard was connected. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Task chat suite: 98 tests passed. - Recovery integration suites: 290 tests passed, including 31 stale-queue tests. - Full CI verification passed on `7ea71f04d`: all 31 active checks succeeded, including all test shards, browser tests, build, typecheck, and canary release dry run. Storybook visual regression was skipped by its path filter. - Greptile reviewed this commit at 5/5 with no review threads. - The local `pnpm test:run` aggregate reported a setup failure in the unchanged `tool-access-service.test.ts` suite. Its isolated rerun passed all 231 tests without edits. The duplicate aggregate was stopped after the complete CI matrix passed; it is not counted as a successful local full-suite run. ## Risks Low risk. The backend guard applies only to productive successful-run recovery. It requires the task to remain in-progress with the same agent. Other wake sources keep their current policy. The UI change only suppresses empty redundant cancellations; run records remain available. No schema change or migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code edits, and local test execution. The exact deployment snapshot and context window are not exposed by 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 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
|
a05b828bcd |
Reduce run polling and workspace inspection amplification (#13174)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and shows run progress to operators. > - Run lists, live events, transcripts, and workspace details must remain responsive as usage grows. > - Run-list redaction rereads the full context for every run. Hidden tabs can still trigger requests through live events and manual timers. > - Workspace detail reads repeat Git inspection even when concurrent callers request the same state. > - This pull request batches registry reads, pauses hidden-tab refreshes, and caches Git inspection for display. > - Cleanup keeps fresh Git checks, and redaction keeps company and run boundaries. ## Linked Issues **What happened?** Run-list responses perform one extra database read per run and parse full context JSON to obtain small secret registries. Hidden tabs continue transcript reads and event-triggered refetches. Workspace detail requests repeat Git scans. **Expected behavior** A run list reads registries once. Hidden tabs stop recurring run reads and reconcile when visible. Concurrent workspace detail reads share a short-lived Git result. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open run lists and task transcripts in several tabs while agents run. 2. Hide some tabs and observe transcript and event-triggered requests. 3. Request a 200-run list and count redaction database queries. 4. Request the same workspace detail concurrently and count Git inspections. Related: #5255 adjusts polling cadence. This change addresses hidden-tab lifecycle, batched registry reads, and workspace inspection reuse. No duplicate with this scope was found. ## What Changed - Batch heartbeat and live-run redaction into one company-scoped registry query. Select only registry JSON for run and issue redaction. - Resolve duplicate secret values once per request. Preserve each run's registry and remove registry material from responses. - Suspend company event sockets and transcript reads while hidden. Refresh active queries and resume transcript offsets on return. - Prevent queued event invalidations and developer health polling from fetching in hidden tabs. Gate legacy run-log readers in both UI variants. - Exclude legacy plugin placeholder connections from remote health probes. Select only due connection IDs in SQL before the sweep limit. Preserve existing plugin records. - Cache concurrent Git display inspections for five seconds, with at most 256 entries. Leave close-readiness and cleanup checks uncached. - Add regression coverage and document the performance behavior. - Stabilize the existing Rust descendant-lineage fixture: allow a bounded 30 seconds for 300 durable notifications under concurrent test load, retaining every correctness assertion and adding timeout diagnostics. ## Verification - Regression coverage verifies one registry query for 200 runs, per-run isolation, request-local secret resolution, decryption failures, Git cache expiry/bounds, hidden-tab pause, and visibility recovery. - Real PostgreSQL redaction/run-route suites passed all 57 tests; workspace-service coverage passed. The health-sweep regression verifies plugin placeholders and chat connections remain untouched and do not consume the sweep limit. - Both legacy transcript viewers retain history and resume their byte offset after visibility changes. The related visibility/progress/chunk suites passed all 29 tests. Other focused UI suites and token gates passed. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. Affected-package typechecks/builds passed after review fixes. The concurrent Rust provider suite passed 84 tests (two ignored), and Rust formatting passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` stopped after the general-server group: 10,538 passed, 65 skipped, four failed. Fresh chat-delivery and health-sweep reruns passed; building the debug runner fixture cleared the native-event test. One unchanged native-session recovery assertion still fails locally with a semantic-digest error instead of the expected settled-session message. The full local command is therefore not green. CI runs the later groups separately and skips the two native-session tests requiring a prebuilt runner binary (confirmed in its 37-test native-session suite). - All CI gates pass on final head `ee610e737`: typechecking, general and serialized tests, browser tests, runner verification, build, and canary dry run. One server shard passed on its single retry after exposure fixtures encountered port 42001 where they assumed 42000; that suite also passed locally (25 passed, three platform-specific skips). - Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5 with no actionable findings. ## Risks - Workspace delivery display can lag local Git changes by five seconds. Destructive operations still inspect current state. - Hidden tabs do not receive company live-event notifications until visible. Active queries refresh on return. - This change preserves legacy plugin records and does not repair instance-specific workspace rows. There is no database migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact model identifier 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 (targeted regressions; full-suite limitation documented above) - [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>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.8 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
932c8bec56 |
fix(ci): bake the managed runtime identity into cloud images (#13210)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed deployments start from the image built by the Cloud workflow. > - The managed runtime requests user and group 1001. > - The image currently builds the node user as 1000. > - Startup must remap that user, which can walk a large mounted home directory. > - This pull request uses the existing Docker build arguments to bake user and group 1001 into Cloud images. > - Matching the runtime identity removes that startup work and helps avoid health-check retries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13208, #1923, and #7861. Searched open and closed PRs for the Cloud UID change. The older #7861 addresses build context and volume ownership repair. This change uses the existing identity arguments in the Cloud workflow and preserves ownership repair. **What happened?** A measured rollout had a container log `Updating node UID to 1001` after startup. The container stayed at this step for at least 2 minutes 55 seconds before rollback stopped it. The baked node identity was 1000, while the managed runtime requested 1001. A health check timed out and the target required a second deployment attempt. **Expected behavior** Cloud images should already have the managed runtime identity. A matching image should skip user and group remapping. Fresh or mismatched volumes must still receive ownership repair. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Build the current Cloud image with its default build arguments. 2. Start it with `USER_UID=1001`, `USER_GID=1001`, and a populated home volume. 3. Observe the startup user remap before the application starts. **Paperclip version or commit** `fc06f7f05f42c675be71ff0927b6334405d520ed` **Deployment mode** Docker on managed hosts. ## What Changed - Pass `USER_UID=1001` and `USER_GID=1001` to the Cloud image build. - Check the pushed digest's baked identity before the entrypoint can repair it. Then check the normal entrypoint's effective identity and writable home before publishing the verified full-SHA tag. - Add a workflow regression and two entrypoint cases for a matching Cloud identity, including a mismatched volume. - Document the runtime identity and the first-build cache cost. ## Verification - Focused workflow and artifact tests: 27 passed. - Entrypoint tests: 11 passed. Actionlint passed. Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Full local `pnpm build` passed. The manual [Cloud image build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34575473213) passed on the exact PR head. It checked Sentry, baked and effective identity, writable home, orphan reaping, and full-SHA publication. The new identity check took one second. All 30 PR checks passed; the Storybook workflow was intentionally skipped. Greptile reviewed commit `114d408f637a0b53e2e2b1339c263779b1e4ae54` at 5/5 with no findings or open threads. - The full local suite for the same application source was already run in #13205. Its macOS general-server phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged files. Those failures included missing Runner fixtures, filesystem errors, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-count mismatch. After configuring Cargo and rebuilding fixtures, 37 of 38 native tests passed; one unchanged native-resume assertion still failed. Linux PR CI passed. This change adds entrypoint tests and does not change application code. ## Risks - The first build must rebuild layers that depend on the base image identity. Later builds can reuse them. - A future managed runtime identity change must update these build arguments and checks together. - The Dockerfile's self-hosted defaults remain 1000. Runtime overrides and mounted-volume ownership repair remain supported. - The observed startup delay supports this change, but fleet timing also includes provider startup, image pull, canary order, and retries. No fixed end-to-end gain is claimed before a live rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and tool use. 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 (focused workflow tests; full-suite limitations are listed above) - [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>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.7 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
fc06f7f05f |
fix(ci): isolate chaos verification by caller workflow (#13208)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud deployments require verified artifacts for the merged source commit. > - Cloud readiness and the npm release independently run the same source checks. > - Their shared chaos workflow used only the source ref as its concurrency key. > - One caller could cancel the other caller's required job for the same commit. > - This pull request scopes that key to the caller workflow and source ref. > - Both callers can finish their checks without blocking deployment readiness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13192 and #13205. Searched for related open issues and PRs; no duplicate fix was found. **What happened?** The master push for `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f` started Cloud readiness and Release together. GitHub cancelled the Cloud readiness chaos job before it acquired a runner. Its annotation reported a higher-priority waiting request for the same concurrency group. The required readiness gate cannot pass after that cancellation. **Expected behavior** Cloud readiness and Release must each finish source verification for the same SHA. Standalone chaos evals must also have a separate group. **Steps to reproduce** Merge a commit to master while the npm release queue is empty. Both callers reach the reusable chaos workflow with the same source SHA. See [the cancelled job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34569569760/job/103168603926). **Paperclip version or commit** `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions on master. ## What Changed - Add the caller workflow name to the chaos workflow concurrency group. Retain source isolation and cancellation of duplicate calls within the same workflow. - Add a regression test that evaluates the group for Cloud readiness, Release, and standalone evals at the same source SHA. - Document the concurrency boundary in the readiness runbook. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/preview-artifacts.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passed: 26 tests. - The new regression test fails against the previous concurrency key and passes with this fix. - `actionlint -shellcheck= -pyflakes= .github/workflows/runner-chaos-evals.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml .github/workflows/cloud-readiness.yml` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - The full local typecheck passed for the same application source in #13205. Its macOS general-server test phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged application test files: missing Cargo/Runner test binaries, filesystem permissions, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-test count mismatch. Linux CI test checks passed. The full local build passed with Cargo on PATH. This PR changes workflow configuration, its test, and documentation only. - All CI checks pass on the final head, including typecheck, tests, browser suites, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. After merge, verify both callers' chaos jobs complete for the same master SHA and record the resulting readiness time. ## Risks - Two callers may now run chaos tests at the same time. This uses two existing GitHub runners, which is the intended cost of independent verification. - Renaming a caller changes its concurrency group. The fixed prefix keeps this child group separate from caller-level concurrency groups. - The readiness gate continues to require every verification prerequisite. No gate is bypassed. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, and command/API tools. Exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed by 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 (26 focused workflow/artifact tests) - [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>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.6 nightly/v2026.911.0-nightly.0 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
398d304e15 |
docs: measure cloud deployment through target health (#13205)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Hosted deployments need a verified image and migrator for the same source commit. > - The cloud readiness workflow certifies those inputs before a deployment consumer acts. > - Its completion time does not show when a tenant runs the new commit. > - This pull request documents each milestone from merge through target health and fleet completion. > - Operators can use the evidence to find the slow stage and measure a complete deployment. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13192, #13188, and #13189. Searched related issues and PRs; no duplicate timing documentation change was found. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `doc/cloud-build-readiness.md`, Timing and rollout. **What's wrong?** The timing instructions stop at the readiness job. That omits consumer queues, artifact resolution, and target deployment. An image can be ready while the tenant still runs an older commit. **Suggested fix** Record separate merge, image, readiness, canary health, and fleet completion timestamps for the same full source SHA. Keep preparation-only runs out of deployment results. ## What Changed - Define the evidence needed for each merge-to-deployment milestone. - Explain how consumer queues can hide upstream build gains. - Require target source identity as well as health, and report exclusions, retries, cache state, and queue conditions. ## Verification - `git diff --check` passed. - `node --test scripts/preview-artifacts.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passed: 25 tests. - Cross-checked the readiness identity and artifact prerequisites against the current workflows and consumer contract. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passed using the session's installed Rust toolchain. The full local test suite and subsequent build are still running. - All CI checks pass and Greptile is 5/5 on the exact head, with no unresolved findings. This changes one documentation file and adds no runtime behavior. ## Risks - Low risk: documentation only. Timing must still use trusted run evidence and the actual target commit. A single measured run is not a latency guarantee. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, and command/API tools. Exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed by 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 (25 focused workflow/artifact tests; full checks pending) - [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>canary/v2026.911.0-canary.5 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d56be3f3fc |
fix(ci): verify deployable cloud artifacts independently (#13192)
Verify source, build the cloud image, and wait for exact-source migrator packages concurrently. Emit Cloud deployable v1 only when every prerequisite succeeds for the merged full SHA. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5cc51fad06 |
fix(release): publish exact-source cloud migrators on merge (#13188)
Publish exact-source shared and database migrator packages for each master merge through the existing trusted Release workflow, independently of the full release and image build. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
6a7025ebe3 |
ci: skip cloud runner cleanup when disk headroom is ample (#13191)
Skip cloud runner disk cleanup when both the Docker and workspace filesystems have at least 64 GiB free. Preserve the existing cleanup for low, unavailable, or invalid measurements and verify the actual shell behavior across eight scenarios. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5c660a32f3 |
ci: build cloud images independently for each merge (#13189)
Build cloud images independently for each master commit through a reusable workflow. Preserve production release dependencies and image runtime checks, and write cloud registry caches per commit with bounded ancestor imports to prevent overlapping builds from replacing each other's cache. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
59d74b68b2 |
ci: cache the native Runner in a separate Docker stage (#13195)
Compile the native Runner from its complete Cargo and protocol inputs in a separate cached Docker stage. Preserve Cargo validation and generated-contract checks during the normal application build, normalize input timestamps across checkouts, and compile the isolated target in PR CI. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
42961b6ef1 |
fix(ci): split release chat verification into test shards (#13198)
Split release chat verification into three validated test-line shards and balance other server suites across five runners using the measured native Runner integration cost. Retire each chat case's fixtures after assertions, preserve complete test coverage, and exercise the real shard CLI in PR tests. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
9e970df4c5 |
ci: cache Rust dependencies in release Runner verification (#13194)
Cache external Rust dependencies in trusted master release verification after selecting the package-owned toolchain. Keep source compilation and all validation unconditional; restrict both restore and save to the matching master push. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
3fd556b8f6 |
ci: preserve weekly Docker tool cache across commits (#13190)
Keep stable Docker tool installation layers independent of application build version and commit metadata. Preserve the existing weekly tool refresh and runtime build stamp. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
399daa1f25 |
ci: publish verified full-SHA cloud image tags (#13187)
Publish the full-source-SHA cloud image tag only after the pushed digest passes runtime, revision, and platform checks. This makes verified images directly resolvable by Cloud. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Tonio
|
f70accd3a4 |
fix(onboarding): answer the Claude paste at once, and show the code as dots (#13193)
The Claude card's button only moved to Connecting once the login was stored - a submit, a status poll and a completion read after the paste - so for about a second the customer had done their part and the button still read Waiting for code. The panel now reports the submit as it starts (onCodeSubmitted) and the step shows Connecting from that moment. That could not simply move the phase earlier: the two-second hold started when Connecting did, so it would have hired whether or not a credential existed. The hire now waits for both the stored login and two seconds of Connecting counted from the paste. onSubmitFailed gives the button back when a submitted code does not become a stored login, the field locks while a code is out, and Cmd+Enter no longer hires mid-connect. Reports that land after Back are ignored. The panel stays mounted through Back's exit, so a late failure reopened the card being left, and a late success hired a customer who had backed away. The second predates this change; its test fails the same way against master. The authorization code shows as dots. The OpenAI card is untouched.canary/v2026.911.0-canary.2 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Sonnet 5
|
9effe51b63 |
fix(server): let the cloud-harness sandbox environment self-heal past operator-drift protection (#13177)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every cloud-harness-managed stack gets one platform-owned "Paperclip Computer" sandbox environment, reconciled from `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` on boot > - That reconciler deliberately refuses to overwrite a row it classifies as operator-modified, to protect a self-hosted operator's hand-edited environment (#10979) > - But for the cloud-harness-managed row specifically, no operator has any path to hand-edit it at all — so a hash mismatch there can only be drift between two platform-driven reconciliation passes, never a real customization > - Roughly 10 staging stacks got stuck on a broken sandbox image because of exactly this: a `sandbox_image` campaign correctly delivered a fixed snapshot, but the reconciler classified the row as operator-modified and silently skipped applying it > - This pull request adds an explicit `platformFullyManaged` flag so the cloud-harness caller can assert that guarantee and let its own drift self-heal, without weakening the protection for every other caller (self-hosted kubernetes-execution-mode, tests, admin routes) where an operator genuinely can edit the row > - The benefit is that a sandbox-image rollout can no longer get silently stuck fleet-wide, while self-hosted operator customization keeps exactly the protection #10979 built ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this internal-instance-discovered bug; opening directly per CONTRIBUTING.md path B, following the bug report template fields. **What happened?** After a `sandbox_image` campaign delivered a fixed Daytona snapshot fleet-wide, ~10 of 79 active staging stacks kept booting agents against the old, broken snapshot. Their `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` env var and the reconciler's own bookkeeping (`built_in_managed_resources`) both correctly showed the new snapshot — but `environments.config.snapshot`, the field the runtime actually reads to acquire a sandbox lease, was never updated on those rows. **Expected behavior** A `sandbox_image` campaign (or any `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` delivery) to the cloud-harness-managed sandbox environment should always converge that row's `config` to the newly-desired value, since no operator can have a competing edit to protect. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Boot a cloud-harness-managed stack; let the reconciler create the managed sandbox row and record its stock hash in `built_in_managed_resources`. 2. Somehow cause the row's live content hash to no longer match the recorded binding hash without an operator ever touching it (in the field, this happened via drift between two platform-driven reconciliation passes carried out across a catalog-version bump — the exact trigger wasn't fully pinned down, but is irrelevant to the fix). 3. Deliver a new `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` (e.g. via a `sandbox_image` campaign). 4. Observe `ensureManagedSandboxEnvironment` classify the row `operator_modified` and skip writing `config`, even though `updateAvailable: true` is reported and the binding itself already advanced to the new stock hash. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` as of this PR. **Deployment mode** Cloud-managed stacks with `enableManagedSandboxOnly` declared (any Paperclip Cloud–provisioned staging or production stack). Related PR for context (not a duplicate — this is additive to it, not a revert): #10979, which introduced the `operator_modified` classification this PR narrowly opts the cloud-harness path out of. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/environments.ts`: added `platformFullyManaged?: boolean` to `ManagedSandboxEnvironmentInput`. When set, a plain content-hash mismatch against a real prior binding (i.e. `operator_modified` that isn't an archive-reaffirmation) is reclassified as `stock_update_available` before the skip-vs-apply branch, so it flows through the normal update path instead of being frozen. - `server/src/services/managed-environments.ts`: pass `platformFullyManaged: true` from both `ensureManagedSandboxEnvironment` call sites — the main boot ensure and the provider-recovery reactivation path. These are the *only* two callers driven by `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`; `ensureKubernetesEnvironment` (self-hosted `kubernetes-execution-mode` bootstrap) and every other caller are untouched and keep the original protective default. - `server/src/services/managed-environments.test.ts`: updated the two `toHaveBeenCalledWith` assertions that now include the flag. - `server/src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts`: two new tests — one confirming the bypass applies drift under `platformFullyManaged`, one confirming archive-reaffirmation still wins even under the flag. Archive-reaffirmation is deliberately *not* bypassed even under `platformFullyManaged`: a `sandbox_image` update must never resurrect a row something else deliberately kept archived after Paperclip's own provider-unavailability archival. That's a distinct, still-real signal, orthogonal to config drift. ## Verification - `vitest run` on `managed-environments.test.ts` and `managed-resource-drift.test.ts`: 26/26 pass, including the two updated assertions. - `environment-service.test.ts` — the file both new tests live in, and the file holding the two pre-existing tests this change must not regress ("classifies operator drift, preserves the row, and exposes the pending stock update" and "preserves an existing unmanaged sandbox row holding the desired name") — requires a real embedded-Postgres instance (`describeEmbeddedPostgres`) not available in the sandbox this was developed in; `getEmbeddedPostgresTestSupport()` reports unsupported there, so the whole file is skipped locally. I traced the reconciliation logic by hand against all four relevant tests (the two new ones plus the two pre-existing ones) line by line to confirm the expected outcomes, but **CI running this suite for real is the actual gate here**, not this description — please don't merge on a green run of everything else alone if this suite doesn't show as executed. - `tsc --noEmit`: zero errors in any of the four touched files. The pre-existing ~229 errors elsewhere in `server` are unrelated missing-module issues from packages needing a build step first, confirmed unchanged by this diff. - Manually reproduced the underlying bug against real staging data (a `paperclip-cloud`-managed stack whose `environments` row was stuck exactly this way) before writing the fix, and confirmed via direct SQL inspection that the recorded `built_in_managed_resources` baseline already held the correct desired snapshot on every affected stack — i.e. the reconciler already *knew* the right answer, it was just refusing to apply it. That data point is what ruled out "the campaign didn't actually deliver the update" as the cause. ## Risks - Scope is intentionally narrow: only the two `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`-driven call sites pass the new flag; every other caller of `ensureManagedSandboxEnvironment`/`ensureKubernetesEnvironment` is byte-for-byte unchanged. The two pre-existing regression tests that specifically cover self-hosted operator-edit protection don't pass this flag and are unmodified. - The main residual risk is the unresolved root cause of *why* the hash drifted in the first place (a race between two close-together reconciliation passes, or a catalog-version-dependent change to what gets hashed, most likely) — this PR makes that drift self-healing rather than fixing whatever produces it. If the drift is being caused by a genuine concurrency bug (rather than an expected, occasional side effect of a stock-field/catalog-version change), that bug still exists and could recur; it just no longer gets stuck when it does. - Low risk of behavior change for real self-hosted deployments: none of them can reach the new code path, since only the two now-flagged call sites exist inside `managed-environments.ts`, itself gated to `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG` (which self-hosted `kubernetes-execution-mode` explicitly refuses to run alongside — see the existing mutual-exclusivity check this PR does not touch). ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 5 (`claude-sonnet-5`), via Claude Code, with tool use (file edits, shell/git, `gh` CLI, direct Postgres inspection of live staging data via `psql`/`pg`, Railway SSH for on-host diagnosis). No extended-thinking mode. Standard Claude Code context window. ## 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 — see Verification: the file holding the four load-bearing tests can't run in this sandbox (no embedded-Postgres support); traced by hand instead, CI is the real gate - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — none applicable beyond the inline doc comments this PR adds - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green — pending CI run on this PR - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — pending review - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
c5c80e1feb |
ci(release-verify): split server tests five ways like pr-trusted (#13185)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every master push publishes a canary through release.yml, gated by release-verify.yml — the fleet's staging deploys and the nightly/beta/stable chain all start from those canaries > - release-verify splits the server test suite across three shards with a 20-minute job cap, while pr-trusted splits the same suite across five > - The server suite grew on 2026-09-10 and the three shards moved to 17-19 minutes; that evening every push-triggered canary run was cancelled by the 20-minute cap mid-verify, and no canary published after 18:50 UTC > - This pull request mirrors pr-trusted's five-way server split in release-verify, putting shards back at the 10-15 minute range with real headroom > - The benefit is a canary lane that reports test verdicts instead of dying on an infrastructure cap ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Push-triggered Release runs stopped publishing canaries on 2026-09-10. Runs at 19:34, 22:30, and 22:37 UTC were all cancelled by "The job has exceeded the maximum execution time of 20m0s" on a `verify_canary / General tests (server (N/3))` shard. No canary published after 18:50 UTC, which also starves the staging fleet's continuous deploys. **Expected behavior** release-verify's server shards finish well inside the 20-minute cap and runs conclude with a test verdict, as pr-trusted's five-way split of the same suite does (10-15 minutes per shard). **Steps to reproduce** 1. Compare server shard durations in the `verify_canary` job across 2026-09-10: 11-14 minutes in the morning, 17-19 minutes from 15:06 UTC, over 20 minutes by evening. 2. Observe runs 34521169020, 34537798488, and 34538332689 cancelled at the cap. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `d1ba17eec` (current tip; its canary run was one of the cancelled ones). ## What Changed - `release-verify.yml`: the `general-server` matrix goes from three shards to five, byte-for-byte the shape `pr-trusted.yml` already runs, with a comment recording why. ## Verification - The identical five-way split runs green on every pr-trusted run (10-15 minutes per shard today, including on PRs merged this evening). - The suite's own growth (slower chat-connector tests) is being addressed separately; this PR only removes the artificial cliff. ## Risks - Low risk: two more runners per verify run; no test content changes. If shard durations regress further, the cap fires again — which is the correct signal once shards have honest headroom. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking, tool use via Claude Code CLI. ## 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 mergecanary/v2026.911.0-canary.1 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
2585ed0550 |
test(server): settle three contention flakes that killed canary verifies (#13186)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Every master push publishes a canary through release-verify; the staging fleet and the nightly/beta/stable chain start from those canaries > - The server suite grew substantially on 2026-09-10 and now runs under real contention in CI, where three tests assert timing properties that only hold on an idle machine > - Each of the three failed a release-verify canary run that day (runs 34497348802 and 34517515849), and together with the shard timeouts (#13185) they kept any canary from publishing after 18:50 UTC > - This pull request makes the three assertions contention-tolerant without weakening the invariants they prove > - The benefit is a canary lane whose verdicts reflect the code, not the load on the runner ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Three server tests failed release-verify canary runs on 2026-09-10 under CI load: 1. `chat-channels.integration.test.ts › returns a retryable webhook failure when the delivery insert fails before durable receipt` — the duplicate-redelivery request drew the retryable 503 instead of an immediate 200 (run 34517515849). 2. `chat-channels.integration.test.ts › returns ephemeral guidance for exact Slack controls in channels without creating tasks or actions` — a `provider_effect` row was read before its async settlement reached `processed` (run 34497348802). 3. `runner-connection-eval-fixtures.test.ts › resets paired attempts…` — the fixture's `TRUNCATE companies CASCADE` was chosen as a deadlock victim (40P01) against the helper app's own background sweeps (run 34497348802). **Expected behavior** Verify runs fail only for real regressions. A momentary-contention 503 on a duplicate redelivery, an in-flight settlement row, and a deadlock-victim reset are all recoverable states the code handles by design. **Steps to reproduce** Run the three tests under a loaded 3-shard release-verify split; the timing assertions flake. Under `pr-trusted`'s lighter shards they usually pass, which is why the PRs that introduced them were green. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `d1ba17eec`. ## What Changed - The duplicate-redelivery assertion retries on 503 the way Slack itself would (bounded, 250 ms apart), then asserts the 200 and the unchanged dedup invariants: duplicate count increments, still exactly one issue. - The channel-controls settlement read is wrapped in a bounded `vi.waitFor`, the same pattern the file's durable-receipt paths already use. - The runner eval fixture retries its TRUNCATE on Postgres error 40P01, bounded at five attempts, and rethrows anything else. ## Verification - All three run green locally: the two chat tests via `-t` filters, the eval fixtures file in full (6 tests). - Each change is assertion-shape only; no product code is touched. - Observation for a follow-up, not this PR: the chat integration file costs ~15 s transform + ~28 s import per vitest worker before any test executes — splitting it would give back real shard time. ## Risks - Low risk: the retries and waits are bounded, so a genuine regression (permanent 503, settlement that never lands, persistent deadlock) still fails within the same timeouts as before. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Claude Fable 5), extended thinking, tool use via Claude Code CLI. ## 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 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
d1ba17eeca |
fix(adapter-utils): fail fast when the sandbox control channel is lost mid-turn (#13158)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Adapter utilities run agent turns and report their results to the control plane > - A lost sandbox control channel can leave an agent turn without a result > - The host then waits for the full adapter timeout instead of reporting the loss > - This pull request adds a push loss signal and a bounded host wait > - The benefit is a prompt failure terminal when the agent stops answering ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A sandbox control channel loss during an Agent Client Protocol turn left the host waiting for the four-hour adapter execution timeout. **Expected behavior** The host should detect the terminal channel loss, stop the turn, and report a safe failure without waiting for the agent. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an Agent Client Protocol turn through a sandbox adapter. 2. Close the duplex control channel while the turn remains active. 3. Observe the host response before the adapter timeout expires. **Paperclip version or commit** Test the pull request commit set at `10b6bbc5525a79fd575298607dd5a25ae448fc8a`. **Deployment mode** The change applies to sandbox-backed adapter execution. ## What Changed - Add `onLoss(listener)` to the duplex bridge handle. - Register the loss listener at turn start and read losses latched before turn start. - Cancel the turn on loss and arm a 30-second host deadline. - Close the stream locally when the deadline wins and create a host terminal. - Derive the public error from the closed `DuplexLossReason` enum. - Add tests for loss order, cancellation, timeout, and safe error output. ## Verification - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec tsc --noEmit`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run src/acpx-engine/execute.test.ts -t "run-disposition seam"`. - Confirm that the full pull request workflow passes. ## Risks The new deadline changes a lost-channel path from a long wait to a host-built failure after 30 seconds. Orderly completion keeps its existing behavior. The deadline race against a pending `turn.result` has no direct test. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific deployment version 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> |
||
|
|
60ee13a0f7 |
feat: allow operator UI snippets on Cloud instances (#13168)
Adds an optional Cloud-only HTML snippet so operators can load Plain’s standard chat bubble. **6 files, 16 implementation lines added; 102 additions including tests and docs.** ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip serves Cloud and self-hosted users. > - Closed beta users need a way to report problems. > - Plain provides a ready-made chat widget. > - Cloud operators can load it through a generic deployment setting. > - Self-hosted instances ignore that setting. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Server-served UI HTML. **Problem or motivation** Enable a chat bubble in Cloud without adding a support feature to the React app. **Proposed solution** Insert trusted `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET` HTML before `</body>` when the existing Cloud-managed predicate is true. The setting is off by default. Related Cloud-gated integration: #12190. ## What Changed Review the [final diff](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13168/files) in this order: 1. `server/src/cloud-ui-snippet.ts`: the eight-line Cloud gate and HTML insertion. 2. `server/src/static-index-html.ts` and `server/src/app.ts`: apply it to static root/index, SPA routes, and Vite HTML. 3. Two test files and `doc/cloud-ui-snippet.md`: boundary checks and setup instructions. React UI, customer identity, and database behavior are unchanged. The existing feedback flag remains. Plain chat is anonymous; no Paperclip name, email, or organization is supplied. ## Verification - **Greptile: 5/5**, no actionable findings, reviewed commit `04bb44515`. - **[CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34535763243)**, including build, typecheck, server tests, and end-to-end tests. - Local: six focused tests, full typecheck, and build passed. The full local suite has not produced a final result; CI is the completed full verification. - Staging deployment and live chat testing remain to be done. ### Staging setup Set **one server environment variable**, `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET`, to: ```html <script> (function(d) { var script = d.createElement('script'); script.src = 'https://chat.cdn-plain.com/index.js'; script.onload = function() { Plain.init({ appId: 'liveChatApp_01M26J213F6RR53YRARZVAFCZZ' }); }; d.head.appendChild(script); })(document); </script> ``` This is the public staging app ID. **No API key or signing secret is needed.** Deploy to staging and restart the app with this setting. Test `/`, `/index.html`, and an organization dashboard; send a message and confirm a support reply returns. Production rollout is separate. [Plain embed docs](https://www.plain.com/docs/product/channels/chat) · [Configuration and rollback](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/04bb4451510b124f21b6771b7a8163faad61d8ec/doc/cloud-ui-snippet.md) ## Risks Only trusted operators should set this value. The HTML is public and scripts execute in the app origin; do not include secrets or user-provided HTML. Plain owns the anonymous browser session, with no Paperclip account-switch integration. To roll back, unset the variable, restart, and refresh open tabs. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with repository inspection and code execution. Exact runtime model identifier and context 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 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
4042eb1c48 |
test(release-smoke): follow the connect-step source question and the first-task chat (#13166)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release pipeline promotes canary → nightly → beta → stable, and the nightly lane is gated by the Docker release smoke, a Playwright walk of first-run onboarding against the exact published artifact > - Onboarding changed twice since the smoke was last updated: the connect step now opens as a model-source question (#12796, #12801), and the seeded first task now opens as a chat with the lead that deliberately creates no run until the user answers (#13068) > - The smoke still waited for an immediate "Connect" button and then polled for an assignment-triggered heartbeat run, so it failed every scheduled nightly since 2026-09-03 and blocked all nightly and beta promotions > - This pull request updates the smoke to follow the current arc: pick the Claude source tile, press Connect, launch, then assert the seeded chat greeting, the opening question card, and the absence of heartbeat runs > - The benefit is a release pipeline that can promote current master again, with the smoke asserting the product's current contract instead of a removed one ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The scheduled nightly lane of `release.yml` has failed every night since 2026-09-03. The `smoke_nightly / smoke` job fails in `tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts` at `expect(connectButton).toBeVisible()`. No nightly has published since `2026.902.0-nightly.0`, so no beta can promote recent master. **Expected behavior** The release smoke follows the current onboarding arc and passes against a healthy published artifact. The nightly lane promotes the newest green canary each night. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.910.0-canary.5 SMOKE_DETACH=true ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`. 2. Run `pnpm run test:release-smoke` against the container with the previous spec. 3. The spec times out waiting for a "Connect" button. The step now shows a model-source tile row first, and after launch the seeded task is a chat with no heartbeat run. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against published `paperclipai@2026.910.0-canary.5`; spec updated on current `master`. ## What Changed - The spec answers the connect step's model-source question: it asserts the "Connect a model" heading, picks the Claude tile from the "Model source" radiogroup, and only then waits for the "Connect" footer button (#12796, #12801 rebuilt the step around that question). - The spec replaces the assignment-run poll with the first-task chat contract from #13068: it asserts the deterministic greeting ("Welcome to Paperclip!"), the opening question card ("What would you like to do?"), and that the lead has zero heartbeat runs, because launch must not wake the assignee before the user answers. ## Verification - Launched the CI harness locally: `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` with `PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=2026.910.0-canary.5` (the newest canary, the one the next nightly would promote). - `pnpm run test:release-smoke` against that container: 1 passed. - The previous spec against the same container reproduces the CI failure mode first (Connect-button wait), and after the connect-step fix, the run-poll failure — both match the nightly logs. ## Risks - Low risk: the change touches only the release smoke spec. If onboarding's copy for the greeting or the question card changes, the smoke fails loudly at that assertion, which is this suite's job. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), via Claude Code CLI, extended thinking and tool use enabled. ## 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 |
||
|
github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot
|
6728e133f8 |
chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#13165)
Auto-generated lockfile refresh after dependencies changed on master. This PR only updates pnpm-lock.yaml. Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
daea92b647 |
feat(server): accept a Cloud control assertion on the task-drain endpoint (#13125)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server has a task-drain admission hold so operators can stop new agent work and wait for quiescence before maintenance > - Cloud deploys restart tenant containers, but the Cloud control plane has no sanctioned credential for the drain routes, so agent runs are killed mid-restart > - The only Cloud credential this server trusts is the runtime identity assertion, deliberately scoped to the one-time bootstrap health call > - This pull request adds a disjoint, action-bound Cloud control assertion accepted only on the task-drain endpoint > - The benefit is that Cloud can hold new work and drain a stack before it restarts the container, through the same authorization and audit paths a human operator uses ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12485 (the task-drain admission hold this makes reachable for the Cloud control plane). **Problem or motivation** Cloud deploys restart the container without stopping agent work first. The task-drain hold from #12485 exists for exactly this, but its routes require instance-admin board authority. The Cloud control plane holds no such credential: the runtime identity assertion is accepted only on `GET /api/health`, by design. So in-flight runs die at every deploy. **Proposed solution** A second, deliberately disjoint use of the same Cloud signing key (`PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_RUNTIME_IDENTITY_JWKS`): a control assertion with its own JWS type (`paperclip-cloud-control+jwt`), its own audience, an `action` claim, a request id, and a short maximum lifetime. A new middleware accepts the `x-paperclip-cloud-control` header only on `/api/instance/task-drain`, binds each method to one exact action (`task-drain:read` / `task-drain:start` / `task-drain:stop`), verifies the assertion against the configured JWKS and `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_STACK_ID`, and installs a synthetic instance-admin board actor so the existing route authorization, validation, transactional audit, and activity publishing run unchanged (audit rows record actor id `paperclip-cloud`). The header is rejected with 400 anywhere else, so it can never become an ambient credential. The board mutation guard exempts the new `cloud_control` source exactly like the other non-browser lanes. **Alternatives considered** Widening the existing runtime identity middleware would conflate a one-time bootstrap claim with a repeatable management credential and weaken both. A per-stack minted instance-admin API key would work with no auth change but adds a long-lived privileged credential per tenant to store and rotate. The action-bound short-lived assertion keeps authorization per-call and stateless. **Additional context** Self-hosted instances have no `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_STACK_ID` and reject every assertion — the feature is inert off Cloud. A runtime identity token cannot replay as a control token or vice versa (disjoint `typ` and `aud`, covered by tests). The Cloud-side caller (drain before deploy, bounded quiescence wait) lands separately in the Cloud control plane. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/cloud-runtime-identity.ts`: `verifyCloudControlAssertion` plus the control header/audience/type/action constants, reusing the existing JWKS resolution, JWS parsing, and lifetime discipline. - `server/src/middleware/cloud-control.ts` (new): accepts the header only on the task-drain endpoint, per-method action binding, installs the synthetic instance-admin actor on success, 401 on invalid assertions, 400 anywhere else. - `server/src/app.ts`: mounts the middleware directly after the actor middleware, so a valid assertion replaces whatever actor the request otherwise resolved to. - `server/src/middleware/board-mutation-guard.ts`: `cloud_control` joins the non-browser exemptions. - `server/src/types/express.d.ts`, `server/src/services/authorization.ts`: `"cloud_control"` added to the actor source unions. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/cloud-control-task-drain.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-scheduling-suppression.test.ts server/src/__tests__/cloud-runtime-identity.test.ts` — 87 tests, all passing. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` reports no new errors against the base commit's known pre-existing set. - The new suite covers: acceptance per method, cross-action rejection, unknown-action rejection, runtime-identity-token replay rejection, wrong-audience rejection, wrong-stack and self-hosted rejection, expiry and oversized-lifetime rejection, unknown-key rejection, request id validation, endpoint containment (400 elsewhere, 400 on unbound methods), pass-through without the header, and the mutation-guard exemption. ## Risks Low risk, additive. No behavior changes without the header; the header grants nothing outside the one endpoint; each assertion authorizes one action for at most five minutes; the existing route-level validation, queued transitions, and audit writes are unchanged. The browser-facing Cloud proxy strips Cloud headers, and possession of the shared tenant-session token cannot mint an assertion (signing key never leaves Cloud). ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic) — Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code. ## 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 (module doc comments carry the contract) - [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 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Sonnet 5
|
c1b55537ba |
fix(paperclip-runner): bump claude-agent-acp pin to 0.73.0 (#13162)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Claude local adapter can run agent turns through an ACP (Agent Client Protocol) server, `claude-agent-acp`, instead of the plain CLI > - Two separate packages each pin their own copy of that dependency: `packages/adapters/claude-local` (the server-side adapter) and `packages/paperclip-runner` (which builds the provider pack baked into every managed sandbox image) > - `claude-local` moved to `^0.73.0` in #12730, but `paperclip-runner` was never bumped past `0.70.0` — nothing keeps the two in sync when only one changes > - That split means a sandbox image built from `paperclip-runner`'s provider pack ships a `claude-agent-acp` the server-side adapter was never actually compatible with > - This pull request bumps `paperclip-runner`'s pin to `0.73.0`, the only version that satisfies both packages' declared ranges at once, and fixes the matching hardcoded version assertion in `docker/daytona-runner/Dockerfile` > - The benefit is one consistent, compatible `claude-agent-acp` version across both the server host and every sandbox image built from this source, instead of a silent split that only surfaces as a runtime failure ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this specific split; opening directly per CONTRIBUTING.md path B, following the bug report template fields. **What happened?** `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json` pins `@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp` at an exact `0.70.0`. `packages/adapters/claude-local/package.json` requires `^0.73.0` (added in #12730, 2026-09-02). Nobody re-synced `paperclip-runner`'s pin after that change — the two packages' dependency graphs are independent, so a bump in one doesn't propagate to the other. `paperclip-runner`'s copy is what the fleet sandbox image's provider pack actually ships, so every managed sandbox built from current source carries a `claude-agent-acp` version the server-side adapter's own declared compatibility range excludes. **Expected behavior** The two packages' `claude-agent-acp` pins should stay within a mutually compatible range, so a sandbox image built from this source always ships a version the server-side adapter actually supports. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Check `packages/adapters/claude-local/package.json`'s `@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp` range (`^0.73.0`). 2. Check `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json`'s pin for the same package (`0.70.0` before this PR). 3. Note that `^0.73.0` on a `0.x` version only admits patch releases (`>=0.73.0 <0.74.0` per semver caret rules), so `0.70.0` falls outside it. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` as of this PR (paperclip-runner still at `0.70.0` prior to this change; claude-local's `^0.73.0` requirement landed in #12730). **Deployment mode** Any deployment that runs `claude_local` agents through the ACP engine against a sandbox image built from `packages/paperclip-runner`'s provider pack (managed cloud sandboxes in particular). Related PRs for context (not duplicates — none of these touch `paperclip-runner`'s pin): - #12730 — introduced the `^0.73.0` requirement in `claude-local` - #11873 — the last time `paperclip-runner`'s pin moved (`0.69.0` → `0.70.0`) - #13105 — separately made an unavailable ACP engine a hard failure instead of a silent CLI fallback, which is what turned this version split into a visible, run-blocking error rather than a quiet downgrade ## What Changed - Bump `@agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp` from `0.70.0` to `0.73.0` (exact pin, matching this package's existing pin style for its other agent-CLI dependencies) in `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json`. - Update the corresponding hardcoded version assertion (`test "$(claude-agent-acp --version)" = "0.70.0"`) in `docker/daytona-runner/Dockerfile` to `0.73.0`, so its own build-time check stays accurate instead of failing on the next build for an unrelated reason. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally **not** included — `pr-trusted.yml`'s `Validate dependency resolution and regenerate stale lockfile` step already regenerates it for the merge tree and hands it to downstream `--frozen-lockfile` jobs as an artifact, so a manual lockfile commit here would just be stale the moment CI runs. ## Verification - `0.73.0` is a real published version on npm (confirmed via `npm view @agentclientprotocol/claude-agent-acp versions`), and it's the *only* version satisfying claude-local's `^0.73.0` range, so this isn't a guess at compatibility — it's the unique intersection of both packages' declared ranges. - `grep -rn "0\.70\.0" docker/ packages/paperclip-runner/package.json` after this change shows no remaining stale references to the old pin. - I did not run a full local install/test pass against a hand-updated lockfile, since regenerating one locally would conflict with leaving `pnpm-lock.yaml` untouched per the note above; CI's own lockfile-regeneration step is the intended verification path for a manifest-only dependency bump like this one. - Downstream/full verification (does a sandbox image actually built with this pin work end-to-end) is tracked separately in `paperclip-cloud` — an unrelated internal-only repo, so not linked here — where a sibling fix restores the ACP servers to the runtime `PATH` in the fleet sandbox image itself; both fixes are needed together for a working sandbox, but this PR is scoped to the version pin alone. ## Risks - Low risk: single-line dependency version bump plus a matching test-assertion update, no code changes. `0.73.0` is a patch release within claude-local's own already-declared-safe range, so there's no reason to expect it changes behavior tenants depend on. - The main risk is unknown breaking changes between `claude-agent-acp` 0.70.0 and 0.73.0 that aren't caught by the version-string assertion alone (that check only confirms the binary reports the right version, not that its behavior is unchanged). I have not audited that package's own changelog between those versions. - `docker/daytona-runner/Dockerfile` is a parallel/reference image (per its own header comment, meant to stay aligned with the private `paperclip-cloud/fleet-sandbox-image/Dockerfile`, which is out of scope here) — this PR does not touch that other Dockerfile. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 5 (`claude-sonnet-5`), via Claude Code, with tool use (file edits, shell/git, `gh` CLI, `npm view` for version verification). No extended-thinking mode. Standard Claude Code context window. ## 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 — see Verification: a manifest-only bump with the lockfile intentionally left to CI's own regeneration step; no local test run applicable - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — version-pin bump only, no new behavior to test - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — none applicable - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green — pending CI run on this PR - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — pending review - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e9828f8bf4 |
fix: reuse saved model connections during agent setup (#13161)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent setup connects each agent to a model provider. > - The organization can already hold subscription logins and API keys. > - The simplified setup flow did not consistently offer those saved credentials. > - This pull request restores reuse and selects a saved connection by default. > - Agents keep secret references, so reuse does not copy or rotate credentials. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related change: #13011. Searched public issues and PRs; no duplicate fix found. **What happened?** Onboarding and new-agent setup could ask for a new API key or sign-in despite an existing saved connection. A general environment auth signal could also be mistaken for the owner's saved Claude subscription. **Expected behavior** Offer saved credentials from the selected organization. Default to a saved subscription when one exists. Otherwise select a saved API key. Keep the option to enter a new key or sign in to another account. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save a Claude or OpenAI API key, or complete a supported subscription login. 2. Add another agent with the same provider. 3. Open the provider connection step. 4. Check whether the saved credential is available and selected. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
86c2e0ac4a |
feat(server): log an activity row for each queued-comment queue mutation (#13159)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server records actions that change issues and their queued comments > - The queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard routes changed queue state without activity rows > - Operators could not inspect these queue mutations in the activity feed > - This pull request adds one identifier-only activity row for each successful queue mutation > - The benefit is a durable audit trail with no comment text in the activity log ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard routes now record their successful mutations in the activity feed. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (server and ui). **Current behavior** The three queue mutation routes change queued comments but do not write an activity row. The activity feed has no label for these actions. **Proposed behavior** Each successful route writes one activity row with the actor fields, entity fields, queue identifiers, and queue revision. The discard row also includes the cancelled run identifier. The activity feed shows a label for each action. **Reason and benefit** Operators need a durable record of queue changes. Identifier-only details support audit and troubleshooting without storing comment text. **Breaking changes** None. The routes keep their existing response and authorization behavior. **Additional context** Each mutation writes its activity row on the same locked transaction that applies the mutation, so the two commit or roll back together. The route publishes the live activity event only after that transaction commits. The separate comment-cancel route opts out of this write and keeps its existing single activity row. ## What Changed - Add activity rows for queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard mutations. - Include queue identifiers, revisions, ordered comment identifiers, and cancelled run identifiers as applicable. - Add activity-feed labels for the three new actions. - Add route and activity-format tests for the new behavior. - Write each activity row on the same transaction as the mutation it records, through a new port method that the adapter implements. - Keep the comment-delete route opted out of that write, so a cancellation does not log two rows. ## Verification - [x] `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` passes. - [x] `npx vitest run ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts` passes. - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` exits 0. - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` exits 0. - [x] `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passes. - [x] The full CI suite is green. ## Risks Low risk. The change adds activity rows after successful mutations and does not change route responses, authorization, or stored comment text. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 Codex. The model used repository inspection, Git operations, and command execution. The context window and reasoning mode are not exposed by this runtime. ## 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>nightly/v2026.910.0-nightly.0 canary/v2026.910.0-canary.6 beta/v2026.910.0-beta.0 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
0d8bbf7cf4 |
refactor(server): move the queued-comment queue mutations into the wake-queue module (#13145)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server coordinates issue execution and agent wake events > - Queued comment mutations belong to the wake queue that owns their state > - Route-local database writes split queue rules across two layers > - This pull request moves those mutations into the wake-queue module and keeps route authorization and response mapping > - The benefit is one transaction boundary with company-scoped writes and a shared checked response contract ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard endpoints write queue state directly from the route layer. **Subsystem affected** server/ — REST API and orchestration services. **Current behavior** The route layer owns database transactions, locks, queue writes, and wake-row writes for queued comments. **Proposed behavior** The wake-queue module owns these operations. The routes keep authorization, input checks, error mapping, and response mapping. **Reason and benefit** The module gives all queued-comment callers one transaction boundary and applies company predicates to every adapter read and write. **Breaking changes** None. The endpoints keep their existing paths and response behavior. ## What Changed - Move queued-comment edit, reorder, and discard operations into the wake-queue module. - Add company predicates to seven queue writes. - Use the shared queue contract type for mutation responses. - Add module tests and route tests for the moved operations. ## Verification - `server/src/modules/wake-queue`: 128 tests pass across 6 files. - `server/src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts`: 19 tests pass. - The server TypeScript check reports the same 141 pre-existing errors before and after this change. - GitHub Actions must pass the required pull-request checks. ## Risks The change moves transaction and lock ownership across module boundaries. The new adapter, use-case, and route tests cover the moved behavior. No database schema changes occur. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, current agent runtime, tool use and code review support. ## 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
|
889947c238 |
feat: add experimental native chat connectors (#13038)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools. > - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized source. > - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or expose private data. > - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data contracts. > - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable control plane. > - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery in Paperclip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs. Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite #13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML galleries. ## What Changed - Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its normal setup path. - Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks, runs, permissions, and audit records. - Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts. Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel. - Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials, runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs, credentials, or tool arguments. - Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup credentials in Paperclip secret storage. - Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot launch a provider. - Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order. Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo unrelated access changes. - Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable. - Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout, runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued comments are adopted after Stop. - Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run. Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop, agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a false cancellation receipt. - Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion path. - Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction, simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the accompanying deferred-wake merge. ## Verification Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594) is **5/5**, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341) passes **all 24 jobs**, including Build and both required aggregates. Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no human approval is present. Normal **squash auto-merge is enabled** as of September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified; no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor. - Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36 agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed attempts remain recorded below. - Latest test-only qualification: 141/141 route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome, test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858) passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail. Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are retained. - Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all 995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes remain frozen. The preceding [CI attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777) passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass. - Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries, stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained; its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it, and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics. - The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed [all 24 CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958) and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review prevented its normal merge before master advanced again. - Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear. - The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820), including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and required this reconciliation. - Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI, server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear. - Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already terminal run. - Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree, retained input, and no error toast. - Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or retries, on a fresh database. - The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11. Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency evidence. - Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests do not prove live provider behavior. - Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification log](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md). The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds. Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion, deadline, or CI gate was weakened. Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh disposable databases. See the [browser runbook](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md) for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps. ## Risks - This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open. - Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient visibility. - Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible. Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and quarantine during future changes. - Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox. - The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented in the [temporary handoff](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md). ## Model Used OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are included. ## 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>canary/v2026.910.0-canary.5 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
bce976d60d |
feat: bind an agent to a Codex login whose account differs from the company default (#13067)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The `codex_local` adapter signs agents in to OpenAI, and a company keeps one default Codex identity in its shared company home > - A login with a DIFFERENT account than the company default is deliberately kept out of the shared home — one agent's sign-in must not switch every unbound agent's credentials — but that left the cross-account login inert: nothing connected the agent the operator was configuring to the credential the login stored > - The stored credential and its company secret already exist; only the last mile — an agent actually using them — was missing > - This pull request reports a non-secret binding claim on the authenticated login and lets the agent page bind that one agent's `CODEX_HOME` to the account's secret, exactly and only when the identities differ > - The benefit is that multi-account Codex becomes one click on the agent that needs it, with company-wide identity untouched ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** On an agent's detail page, "Sign in with Codex" using a different OpenAI account than the company default succeeds but changes nothing for that agent. The credential lands in the per-identity store and a company secret names it, but the agent keeps using the company default. The Test keeps reporting that authentication is needed, and no repeat login helps. **Expected behavior** When the operator deliberately signs an agent's page in with a different account, that agent starts using that account. Agents that were not part of the action keep the company default. A same-account login keeps working through the shared company home with no per-agent pinning. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a company whose Codex home holds account A. 2. Open a `codex_local` agent's detail page with a sandbox environment and complete "Sign in with Codex" using account B. 3. Press Test. Before this change the agent still resolves account A and the authentication-needed check returns. ## What Changed - `packages/adapters/codex-local` — the prerequisite shield: `isCodexAuthCachePath` recognizes per-identity credential-store entries, and `seedManagedCodexHome` refuses to symlink, heal, or API-key-overwrite an entry's `auth.json`. The seeding pass runs before every probe and execute; without the shield, an agent bound to an entry would have its stored login silently swapped for the host credential. Static shared config files still copy in. Rotation already survives binding: the sandbox copy-back writes rotated credentials into the identity-keyed store slot. - `server` — the promotion records whether the company default home ended on a different account than the login (any read failure degrades to `false`, so the client can never be told to bind wrongly). After the terminal commit, the routes layer remembers a non-secret claim — the opaque account-home secret id plus that verdict — in a bounded in-memory map, and merges it into the owner read of an `authenticated` `codex_local` session. A restart drops the claim; the panel then shows plain success. - `packages/shared` — `CodexAccountBindingClaim` on the owner session response. It carries no account identifier and no credential byte. - `ui` — the login panel reports the claim upward once. The edit-mode form binds the agent's `CODEX_HOME` to the secret and saves in one step, only when `companyIdentityDiffers` is true. Same-account logins bind nothing on purpose: the company-home refresh already carried them, and an unbound agent keeps following the company default across rotations. Create mode is unchanged. ## Verification - Adapter suite: 381 passed, 1 skipped (includes the new store-entry shield tests and the path-predicate cases). - Server suites (8 files): 130 passed, 15 skipped — including two new route tests that drive a login to `authenticated` and assert the claim with both identity verdicts. - UI render suite: 85 passed — including a panel test that the claim is reported upward exactly once. - `tsc --noEmit` clean in `packages/shared`, the adapter package, and `ui`; `server` clean for the touched file. ## Risks - The bind changes one agent's configuration through the normal agent-update patch, initiated by the operator's own login on that agent's page. The failure direction of every fallback is "offer nothing": a missing claim, a restart, or an unreadable company home all degrade to no bind. - The seed shield narrows what the seeding pass may touch; homes outside the credential store behave exactly as before, covered by the existing seed tests. - Builds on the sign-in credential-resolution fix (#13064), now merged; this branch is rebased onto master and the diff contains only the binding feature. Supersedes #13066, which GitHub auto-closed when its stacked base branch was deleted on merge. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic) — Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use in Claude Code (terminal). **Related PRs (searched; no duplicates found):** #12740, #12082, and #9621 touch adjacent Codex credential sync paths; #8495 is the standing hardening effort for probe auth seeding. ## 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 (no standalone docs cover this flow; the behavioral contracts are documented in-line at each changed site) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks abovecanary/v2026.910.0-canary.4 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
e25a6b797f |
fix(runner): close two timing windows in the capability-live suspend path (#13143)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Paperclip Runner manages live agent sessions and their suspend path. > - A turn-timeout promise could reject before `reconcileActiveTurn()` attached its handler. > - A short provider-drain budget could reject a valid suspend on a loaded continuous-integration host. > - This pull request closes both timing windows and adds deterministic regression tests. > - The benefit is a fail-closed suspend path that does not report false failures under load. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Capability-live tests failed under load. A turn-timeout promise could raise an unhandled rejection during a slow interrupt round trip. An idle provider drain could also exceed its one-second proof budget during suspend. **Expected behavior** The suspend path must observe turn-timeout rejections and allow enough time for one provider command round trip. It must still fail closed when the runner does not prove durable suspension. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the capability-live tests on a loaded four-vCPU continuous-integration host. 2. Delay a `turn/interrupt` reply beyond the turn timeout. 3. Close a live session and observe the suspend barrier. **Paperclip version or commit** `01b442b2926ac2010a2fcfbda6592802472ef07f` **Deployment mode** Built from source with the Paperclip Runner test suite. ## What Changed - Attach the turn-timeout rejection handler inside `armTurnWaiter()` at promise creation. - Remove the redundant per-call-site guard in `sendMessage()`. - Use a uniform five-second provider-drain proof budget, capped by the outer preparation deadline. - Remove the unused boolean return from the provider-turn-stop helper. - Add deterministic tests for the delayed interrupt and the short close grace period. ## Verification - `npx vitest run packages/paperclip-runner/src/live/live-session.test.ts` passed locally with zero skipped tests. - `npx vitest run packages/paperclip-runner/src/live/runnerd-codex-transport.test.ts` passed locally with zero skipped tests. - The two new tests appeared in the local run output and were not skipped. - The package type-check passed locally. - GitHub Actions must confirm the full continuous-integration suite, including `Verify Paperclip Runner`. ## Risks - The provider-drain wait now allows up to five seconds before the outer deadline caps it. - The fail-closed suspend barrier remains unchanged. - The test suite still depends on the Rust runner binary for capability-live tests. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime provided tool use and code execution. The runtime did not provide a context-window value. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
2a05b5ed34 |
ci: split runner verification from build (#13142)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip uses GitHub Actions to verify changes before release. > - The Paperclip Runner has a separate verification boundary. > - The build job currently runs this verification before the workspace build. > - This pull request moves runner verification into its own parallel job. > - The benefit is clearer CI results and less wait time for independent work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The trusted PR and release verification workflows run Paperclip Runner verification inside the Build job. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (GitHub Actions CI workflows). **Current behavior** The Build job runs `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` before it builds the workspace. A runner verification failure appears as a Build failure. The workspace build cannot run in parallel with runner verification. **Proposed behavior** Each workflow has a `Verify Paperclip Runner` job with the same checkout, dependency install, and command. The Build job only builds its required outputs. Both jobs run after the same gate and policy jobs. **Reason and benefit** The runner command is an independent verification boundary. A dedicated job gives it a clear status and allows it to run in parallel with Build. **Breaking changes** None. The same runner verification command still runs in both workflows. ## What Changed - Added a dedicated `Verify Paperclip Runner` job to the trusted PR workflow. - Added a dedicated `Verify Paperclip Runner` job to the release verification workflow. - Kept the Build jobs independent and retained their existing build commands. - Updated the trusted-workflow policy test for the additional dependency-install job. ## Verification - Ran `git diff --check`. - Ran `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`. - Ran `pnpm exec prettier --check .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`. - Confirmed both jobs retain their prior runner, dependency, and policy prerequisites. ## Risks Low risk. The runner verification job repeats the existing setup. It adds one parallel GitHub Actions runner to each affected workflow. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, 128k context window, reasoning and tool-use capabilities. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
92c5c1ac3d |
fix(build): give two orphaned test setup files a governing tsconfig (#13141)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip uses separate server and UI TypeScript projects to build and test the app > - The test transform tool finds the nearest tsconfig that includes each test file > - Two test setup files had no governing tsconfig inside the repository > - The lookup then read a tsconfig outside the repository and stopped test runs when that file was invalid > - This pull request adds a server test tsconfig and includes the UI setup file in the UI tsconfig > - The benefit is stable test configuration in every repository worktree ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The test transform tool walked outside the repository because two test setup files had no tsconfig that included them. A stale or invalid parent checkout then stopped server and UI test runs with `TSCONFIG_ERROR`. **Expected behavior** Each test setup file must use a governing tsconfig inside the repository. Test runs must not depend on a tsconfig outside the repository. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run the server test command in a clean worktree. 2. Run the UI test command in the same worktree. 3. Observe that the transform tool searches above the repository for the setup files when no local tsconfig includes them. **Paperclip version or commit** `04eb274fa12007392e468fc808d3ad12fbdcb02e` **Deployment mode** Built from source with the local test commands. **Installation method** Built from source with pnpm. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core bug). **Database mode** Not database-related. ## What Changed - Add `server/src/__tests__/tsconfig.json` for the server test setup directory. - Add `vitest.setup.ts` to the `include` array in `ui/tsconfig.json`. - Keep `server/tsconfig.json` unchanged, so the build graph does not change. ## Verification - Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/modules/wake-queue/domain/policy.test.ts`. - Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/adapters/adapter-display-registry.test.ts`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server run typecheck`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui run typecheck`. - Confirm that the test commands report no `TSCONFIG_ERROR`. - Confirm that the full pull request workflow passes. ## Risks This change adds one scoped server tsconfig and expands one UI tsconfig include list. It does not change application runtime code, database schema, or production build settings. Risk is low. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, accessed through the Codex agent with tool use and repository execution. The model used reasoning and code inspection to assist this change. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
ae0c1fbbd5 |
refactor(server): move the admission half of the deferred wake state machine into the wake-queue module (#13136)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat service admits wake requests while an issue has an active execution run. > - That admission branch mixes wake policy, database reads, and database writes in one service. > - This structure makes the wake-queue boundary hard to test and extend. > - This pull request moves the admission policy and its database adapter into the wake-queue module. > - The result keeps heartbeat orchestration small and makes the admission behavior testable in isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heartbeat service now delegates deferred wake admission to the wake-queue module. The module keeps the existing merge, defer, and ordinary-wake outcomes. **Subsystem affected** server/ — REST API and orchestration services. **Current behavior** The heartbeat service contains a 146-line branch that reads wake state, chooses an outcome, and writes the result. **Proposed behavior** The wake-queue module owns the pure admission decision and the adapter reads and writes. The heartbeat service calls one module method. **Reason and benefit** This boundary reduces service coupling and lets module tests cover the admission policy. The change keeps the existing reason strings and outcomes. **Breaking changes** None. The change preserves the current behavior and public API. **Additional context** This pull request follows [PR #13132](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13132), which merged the first slice of this refactor. I searched GitHub for duplicate and related pull requests before opening this pull request. ## What Changed - Move deferred wake admission policy into `server/src/modules/wake-queue`. - Add module ports and a PostgreSQL adapter for the admission reads and writes. - Keep the existing wake outcomes and stored reason strings. - Extend the module boundary check to reject service imports from the application layer. - Add unit and adapter tests for the moved behavior. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/check-module-boundaries.test.mjs` passes. - The `server/src/modules/wake-queue` suite passes 58 tests. - The eight pinned heartbeat and queued-comment tests remain unchanged and require CI verification. - Every continuous-integration check must reach a terminal green state before merge. ## Risks The refactor changes the location of wake admission logic. A missed adapter condition could change deferred wake behavior. The tests cover the policy outcomes and the adapter writes. The residual tenant-scope risk remains documented in the review record. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. The implementation author ran the tests and prepared the commit set. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
0bff1d5cb6 |
refactor(server): simplify the wake-queue module (#13139)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server uses a deferred wake queue to release work at the correct time > - The wake queue had repeated decisions, helpers, queries, and recovery data > - This repetition made the module harder to read and left a drain invariant implicit > - This pull request moves pure decisions into the policy layer and simplifies the queue flow > - The benefit is a smaller, clearer module with the same behavior and direct test coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13136 **Problem:** The deferred wake queue carried repeated logic across the application and database layers. **Expected behavior:** The queue keeps the same wake, release, recovery, and escalation behavior after the refactor. **Solution:** Move pure decisions into the policy layer, share repeated data and predicates, and state the drain invariant in the application layer. ## What Changed - Remove the unused database port method and carry the blocked release notice kind as a typed field. - Move four pre-drain decisions into pure policy functions with table-driven tests. - Resolve the responsible user once in the application layer. - Use the canonical helper for agent invokability checks. - Share string helpers and run predicates across the module. - Split the deferred-wake decision flow and share recovery facts with a discriminator. - Bound the drain loop and throw when it processes a wake identifier twice. - Rename queue ports to describe their behavior. - Share row-loading code between stranded-issue escalation adapters. - Restore the interaction-continuation integration test case. ## Verification - Run the three wake-queue module test files. They pass 61 cases locally. - Run `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. It passes locally. - Run the `server/` type-check and confirm that no error names the changed wake-queue module or `heartbeat.ts`. - Run continuous integration and confirm that `promotes an interaction continuation after removing a coalesced self-authored comment` passes. ## Risks The change refactors queue control flow and database adapter boundaries. The main risk is a behavior change in deferred wake release or recovery. The new policy tests and the restored integration case cover these paths. The local environment cannot run the integration test because the same dependency failure occurs on the base branch. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, context window not exposed by the runtime, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## 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>canary/v2026.910.0-canary.3 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
6dd48cad43 |
refactor(server): move the release half of the deferred wake state machine into a wake-queue module (#13132)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The heartbeat service releases deferred issue wakes and promotes the next run > - The release logic sat in a large service function, which made its decisions and database effects hard to test > - A promotion race could reopen an issue without creating the promoted run > - Company checks did not protect every read and write, and some readers used a second transaction connection > - This pull request moves the release logic into a layered wake-queue module and closes these race and company-scope defects > - The benefit is clearer decisions, safer writes, and focused tests while existing callers keep the same entry point ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #10195 ## What Changed - Move the release half of deferred issue execution from `heartbeat.ts` into `server/src/modules/wake-queue/`. - Add pure policy decisions with table-driven tests. - Claim a wake before the reopen write and advance to the next wake when the claim fails. - Add company predicates to guarded reads and writes. - Pass the transaction-scoped issue snapshot to reader ports. - Keep `releaseIssueExecutionAndPromote` as the public wrapper. ## Verification - Run `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. - Run `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit` inside `server/` and compare the result with the known baseline. - Run the wake-queue unit and adapter tests in continuous integration. - Check the promotion-claim ordering, guarded writes, transaction-scoped reads, and cross-company outcomes. - Search the pull request diff for internal issue identifiers. ## Risks - The refactor changes the transaction path for deferred wake release. - A stale or lost wake claim now skips that wake and continues with the next queued wake. - The public wrapper keeps its name and signature, which limits caller risk. - Continuous integration must confirm the full server test suite and build. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, exact runtime model version not exposed, context window not exposed, with shell, Git, and GitHub tool use. ## 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>canary/v2026.910.0-canary.2 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
018ca5daaf |
fix: verify ACP Stop and preserve safe continuation (#13119)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task controls coordinate provider execution and queued user messages. > - Stop could finish before an embedded ACP provider stopped its tools. > - A later request could be held for reconciliation without a clear task response. > - A restored provider could also retain the stopped run's API credential. > - This pull request verifies provider termination and preserves safe session continuation. > - Operators can continue known-safe work and see why uncertain work cannot start. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Stop could leave an embedded ACP provider running. A queued follow-up followed by “go” could fail before it reached the provider. Task chat could show a generic missing-response message. Even a restored session could use the previous run's credential and fail its task update. **Expected behavior** Stop waits for confirmed provider termination. A later explicit wake continues the same compatible session only when recorded actions have known outcomes. It carries pending comments and the current run's environment. Uncertain actions retain a visible reconciliation hold. Composer Stop preserves the existing pause rule: conversation can continue while paused, but task work requires Resume. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an embedded ACP task. 2. Send a second request while the provider is running. 3. Interrupt the run, then send “go”. Also test composer Stop followed by Resume work. 4. Check that the request is delivered once and that the provider can complete the task through the current run's API credential. 5. Repeat with an unfinished write. Confirm that the write stops and that further execution stays blocked with a visible reason. **Paperclip version or commit** Built from source on master at `3bc60dd8b` plus this branch. **Deployment mode** Local source build with an isolated embedded PostgreSQL instance. Refs #11183. Refs #12552. Those changes address recovery after operator cancellation. This change also covers embedded ACP termination, session proof, pending-comment delivery, and task feedback. ## What Changed - Propagate Stop into embedded ACP and wait for bounded adapter cleanup and provider exit. Retain the actual ChildProcess object for forced termination on all platforms; never signal a recycled numeric PID. - Preserve interrupted checkpoints only for acknowledged, local, persistent sessions with settled reads or no tools. Keep writes, incomplete actions, and forced termination blocked. - Restore the same compatible provider session with the current run's environment. Reject fresh-session fallback for an interrupted checkpoint. - Adopt pending comments on the next explicit wake. Stop alone does not dispatch them. - Share the execution-blocker rule across dispatch, Resume, and task detail. Show Stopped or Couldn't start with the recorded reason. Resolve the stopped agent for the run link, including reviewer runs. - Keep execution reconciliation holds intact when generic recovery sees queued comments or healthy child tasks. - Add process, service, component, and browser regression coverage. Fix disposable database cleanup and React test settling exposed by the full suite. ## Verification - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Passed all three `acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` browser journeys. They use an actual ACP child process and require task completion through the agent API. - Passed 165 adapter execution, operator-stop, and child-process control tests, 17 queued-comment route tests, and 65 tests in the two adjusted UI suites. Earlier focused recovery, heartbeat, and task-control tests also passed. - Manually used the browser to queue a request, Stop, send “go” while paused, and Resume. The same session answered once and moved the task to Done with the current run's credential. - Manually interrupted an unfinished write. Its file size stayed fixed for five seconds. “Go” showed the reconciliation reason and did not start another provider prompt. - Separate live Claude ACP smoke checks confirmed that Stop ended a disposable local write and that a no-tool interruption could resume the exact provider session. The browser fixture does not call Drive or another external app. - Passed all 5,615 UI tests and 3,090 other workspace tests. The CLI and general server groups pass with targeted retries: two transient server failures passed together on retry, and two embedded-database startup failures passed after removing abandoned shared-memory segments from this task's completed browser fixtures. All 144 serialized server suites completed, with 2,189 tests passing after two transient HTTP socket failures passed on retry. - Passed all 135 heartbeat process/recovery tests, including a deterministic regression that failed before the recovery-sweep fix. - Passed 18 dispatch integration tests, including stopped-reviewer links, company boundaries, and malformed run IDs. - Greptile is 5/5 on `7dd170d83`, with zero unresolved review threads. The security scan and all required CI gates pass for the same commit. ## Risks - Safe continuation depends on complete tool reporting and a restorable local provider session. Unknown outcomes remain blocked and require reconciliation. - Provider cleanup can take time. A timeout does not grant replay permission. - The change adds optional adapter context fields and an optional issue projection. It does not change the database schema or require a migration. - Test cleanup truncates company data only in a disposable test database. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running as Codex with repository tools, code execution, and browser interaction. The runtime does not expose a more specific model deployment 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>canary/v2026.910.0-canary.1 |
||
|
github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot
|
bd1fdc2887 |
chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#13128)
Auto-generated lockfile refresh after dependencies changed on master. This PR only updates pnpm-lock.yaml. Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com>canary/v2026.910.0-canary.0 |
||
|
Nicky LeachandClaude Sonnet 5
|
04a9f89ede |
fix(server): bundle the vendored paperclip-runner instead of hand-mirroring its deps (#13121)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server package is published to npm, but its native-runtime driver code lives in `packages/paperclip-runner`, a private workspace package that is never published > - So the server build vendors the runner's compiled code by copying it in directly, instead of taking it as a normal npm dependency > - But `cp -R` only copies code, not `node_modules`, so every npm package the runner imports has to be re-declared by hand in `server/package.json` to stay resolvable once vendored > - That hand mirroring step is silent and easy to forget: it missed `smol-toml` in #13110, and CI stayed green while production crash-looped 3 seconds into every start (#13116) > - This pull request keeps the proven `cp -R` vendor step exactly as it was, and adds a build check that derives the required dependency set from an esbuild scan of the vendored entry points, failing loudly and precisely if any package the runner actually needs isn't declared in `server/package.json` > - The benefit is the dependency list is now verified against the real module graph instead of hand-copied, so this exact class of bug cannot pass a green build again -- without changing how the runner's code is laid out on disk, which several of its modules depend on for unrelated filesystem lookups ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #13110 (introduced the `smol-toml` import that the vendor step could not resolve), #13116 (the follow-up fix for a different oversight in the same PR), #11813 (the same "vendored package installed outside the monorepo dependency graph loses a runtime dependency" failure shape, in the Kubernetes plugin installer instead of the server build) No issue exists yet for this specific incident, so per CONTRIBUTING.md option (B): **What happened?** `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json` added `smol-toml` as a runtime dependency in #13110. `server/package.json`'s existing convention (see `acpx`, `ajv`) requires mirroring every runtime dependency the vendored runner imports into `server/package.json` too, because the server build copies the runner's compiled `dist/` tree with `cp -R` -- code only, no `node_modules`. That mirroring step was missed. CI never runs the compiled server (`node dist/index.js`); it only builds it, type-checks it, and boots the app in dev mode via `tsx` against source, which never touches the vendored path. So the PR merged green, and the deployed server crash-looped in production: ``` Error [ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND]: Cannot find package 'smol-toml' imported from /srv/paperclip/app/server/dist/vendor/paperclip-runner/drivers/codex/codex-startup-trust.js ``` **Expected behavior** Any npm package the vendored runner code needs at runtime should either be guaranteed present by construction, or the build should fail with a clear, actionable error before the change ever reaches a PR -- not silently pass CI and fail only once deployed. **Steps to reproduce (the original incident)** 1. Add a new runtime dependency to `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json` (e.g. a TOML parser) and use it from a module reachable from the runner's `index.ts` export graph. 2. Do not add the same dependency to `server/package.json`. 3. Run `pnpm build` in `server/` -- it succeeds. 4. Run `node dist/index.js` -- it crashes with `ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND` for the new package. ## What Changed - **Revision note:** the first version of this PR replaced the `cp -R` vendor step with an esbuild bundle of the runner's entry points. Greptile's review correctly caught that this broke packaged ACPX/OpenCode provider startup: several runner modules resolve sibling build artifacts via `import.meta.url`-relative filesystem paths (not JS imports) at whatever depth their source file sits at, and bundling collapses/rearranges that layout. The current version keeps the file layout untouched and only adds verification. See the second commit's message for the full explanation. - `server/scripts/verify-runner-vendor-dependencies.mjs`: a new build step that runs esbuild with `write: false` (a pure module-graph scan -- nothing is written to disk) against the runner's two entry points server actually imports (`index.js`, `testing.js`), with `packages: "external"` so its metafile reports exactly which npm packages the code needs at runtime. It fails with a precise, actionable error if any of them isn't declared in `server/package.json`'s `dependencies`. This is deliberately more precise than "mirror every dependency the runner declares": running it against this repo's real manifests shows `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json` declares dependencies (`react-markdown`, the codex/opencode CLI packages, ...) that only its unrelated `./react` and `./browser` export subpaths use -- server never imports those, so a blanket mirror rule would demand dependencies server doesn't actually need. - `server/package.json`: added the new check into the `build` script (right after the runner is built, before the expensive `tsc`/copy steps, so it fails fast), and added `smol-toml` (`^1.4.2`, matching `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json`) to `dependencies` -- the actual missing piece from #13110. The vendor step (`cp -R ../packages/paperclip-runner/dist/. dist/vendor/paperclip-runner/`) is unchanged from before this PR. - Widened `server/vitest.config.ts`'s `include` to also run `scripts/**/*.test.mjs`, and added `server/scripts/verify-runner-vendor-dependencies.test.mjs` unit-testing the pure dependency-diff function (`findMissingVendorDependencies`) against the exact shape of the `smol-toml` incident, plus a case proving an unreachable dependency (like `react-markdown`) is correctly never flagged. - Updated `server/src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts`'s existing build-script assertions to match. ## Verification - `node --check` on the new script -- syntax OK. `node -e` JSON-parsed the edited `package.json` files after every edit. - Unit-verified `findMissingVendorDependencies` directly against: nothing missing, one missing (the `smol-toml` shape), and multiple missing with stable sort order. - Ran the actual check against this repo's real `packages/paperclip-runner/package.json` and `server/package.json` (via a standalone `node` invocation, since `pnpm build` needs a Rust toolchain this sandbox doesn't have -- see below) to see its real output. It correctly reported `smol-toml`, `acpx`, and `ajv` as already satisfied, and did **not** flag `react-markdown`, `remark-gfm`, `json-schema-to-ts`, `opencode-ai`, `@openai/codex`, or the `@agentclientprotocol/*` packages -- confirming the "reachable from index.js/testing.js" scoping works as intended and doesn't demand dependencies server doesn't need. - Built a fixture tree at a real filesystem location (not just in-process) mimicking `packages/paperclip-runner`: a manifest declaring both a reachable dependency (`smol-toml`, actually imported by the fixture's `dist/index.js`/`testing.js`) and an unreachable one (`react-markdown`, declared but never imported). Copied the real script next to a fixture `server/package.json` and ran it as its own process (`node server/scripts/verify-runner-vendor-dependencies.mjs`), twice: - `smol-toml` missing from the fixture's server dependencies → the script throws with the exact intended message and exits 1. - `smol-toml` present, `react-markdown` absent → the script exits 0, proving the unreachable dependency is correctly never flagged. - Not verified locally: the real `packages/paperclip-runner` build, and therefore the check running end-to-end against its true `dist/index.js`/`dist/testing.js`. This sandbox has no Rust toolchain (the runner's own build compiles a Cargo binary) and an incomplete workspace install. CI's `Build` job (`.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`) runs the real thing; I'll watch it on this PR. ## Risks - The check's precision (scoping to what's reachable from `index.js`/`testing.js`, rather than every declared runner dependency) means a dependency that becomes reachable through some *other* export subpath server starts importing later would need this check's entry-point list updated too. That list is a 2-line array in the script with a comment explaining why, and matches the only two paths server/src actually imports today (verified by a repo-wide search). - This only changes a build-time check; the actual vendored file layout (`cp -R` of the runner's whole compiled tree) is byte-for-byte the same as before this PR, so there's no behavioral change to the running server beyond `smol-toml` now being present as intended. - I could not exercise the real Rust-backed build locally (no Cargo in this sandbox); see Verification. I am relying on CI's `Build` job to confirm this end to end and will fix forward if it surfaces something the fixture-based testing didn't. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet 5 (`claude-sonnet-5`), via Claude Code. Standard (non-extended) reasoning mode, with tool use (Bash, Read, Edit/Write, `gh`) for repository exploration, local esbuild-based verification against hand-built fixtures, and PR authoring. No extended thinking mode. ## 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 — see Verification: full local verification was not possible (no Rust toolchain, incomplete workspace install in this sandbox); watching CI's `Build` job on this PR to confirm. - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes — no user-facing docs describe this internal build step; none needed updating. - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green — pending, will monitor. - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups — addressed the first review round; watching for re-review. - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
scotttong
|
2d45f42e47 | fix(ui): refine mobile task surfaces (#13122) | ||
|
|
5488a79eb5 |
ci(docker): build each architecture on a native runner instead of QEMU (#12821)
## Thinking Path A fleet rollout failed with `image_manifest_not_found` for a commit that had merged and gone green. Tracing that back: the fleet resolves releases against the `-cloud` image, that image comes from `docker.yml`, and `docker.yml`'s runs on master have been reading `cancelled` for a long stretch. The cloud half was fine; the production half was hanging and taking the run down with it — and, because a run holds the concurrency slot for its whole duration, starving later commits of a build at all. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No tracking issue — described inline, per CONTRIBUTING.md. **What's wrong.** `build-and-push` builds `linux/amd64,linux/arm64` on an x86 runner, so arm64 runs under QEMU. It hangs there — deterministically, in the same step: ``` #111 [linux/arm64 build 8/10] RUN pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build ``` …then emits nothing until `timeout-minutes: 60` kills it. Three consecutive runs on 2026-09-04, silent for **38, 43 and 45 minutes** respectively. The amd64 leg reached `production 5/5` minutes earlier in every one. **Why it stayed hidden.** A timed-out job is reported by GitHub as **cancelled, not failed**. The run conclusion reads "cancelled", which looks like supersession rather than breakage, so the production image quietly stopped publishing. **The knock-on.** A run that burns the full hour holds the top-level concurrency slot for that hour. `cancel-in-progress: false` keeps exactly one pending slot, so merges arriving faster than one an hour supersede each other while queued. Sampling the last ten master commits, **five produced no image at all** — their Docker runs have zero job records because they never started. **Expected.** Both architectures publish, and a commit merged during a busy period still gets an image. ## What Changed `build-and-push` becomes a two-leg matrix, each on a runner of its own architecture: | platform | runner | |---|---| | `linux/amd64` | `ubuntu-latest` | | `linux/arm64` | `ubuntu-24.04-arm` | Each leg pushes **by digest** (`push-by-digest=true`, untagged), and a new `merge-and-push` job names the digests into one manifest list with the real lane tags. Nothing is publicly tagged until the merge, so a half-published multi-arch image is never a pullable state. Two supporting changes: - **Per-arch BuildKit cache refs** (`:buildcache-amd64` / `:buildcache-arm64`). Separate runners sharing one ref would overwrite each other on every build. - **The PID-1 orphan-reaping check moves to the merge job**, since that is where a tagged, pullable image first exists. It still runs against the pushed image rather than a local build, for the same reason as before. **arm64 is kept, not dropped.** The cloud variant is amd64-only and can be — managed hosts are amd64. This is the self-hosted image and ARM hosts consume it, so dropping arm64 would break them. GitHub-hosted arm64 runners are free for public repositories, which this is. `build-and-push-cloud` is untouched. It was already `platforms: linux/amd64` and has been succeeding in ~14 minutes throughout — that is why `-cloud` images exist at all. ## Verification Parsed the workflow and asserted its shape (jobs, matrix, `needs`, step order, that the cloud job is unchanged). The artifact actions are pinned by SHA with version comments, matching the repo's dominant convention — `upload-artifact` v7 and `download-artifact` v8, the same pins used across the other workflows; v8 is required for the `pattern` / `merge-multiple` inputs the merge job uses. **This PR's CI does not exercise the change.** `docker.yml` triggers on master and tag pushes, never on pull requests — deliberately, since it publishes release images. The first real run is after merge, so the check is: the next master push produces a `Docker` run whose `build-and-push (amd64)`, `build-and-push (arm64)` and `merge-and-push` jobs all succeed, and whose conclusion is `success` rather than `cancelled`. ## Risks - **Not testable before merge**, per above. If the matrix is wrong the next master push fails loudly rather than silently — which is already better than the current state, where the failure mode is an invisible "cancelled". - **First use of `ubuntu-24.04-arm` in this repo.** No other workflow uses an ARM runner. They are free for public repos, but if the label is unavailable the arm64 leg will fail to schedule and the merge will not run — no image, same as today, and visible. - **Digest-push changes the publish shape.** Between the legs finishing and the merge running, digests exist untagged in ghcr. Anything watching for tags sees no intermediate state; anything enumerating untagged manifests will see more of them. - **Cache refs change name**, so the first build after this lands is cold on both legs and will be slower than steady state. - **Does not fix the underlying QEMU hang** — it avoids it. If arm64 ever has to build under emulation again, the same stall is presumably still there. - No application code, schema, server or persistence change. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude — Opus 5, model ID `claude-opus-5`, run through Claude Code. Extended thinking enabled. Tool use throughout: GitHub Actions API to correlate run/job outcomes and read build logs, `git` for ancestry checks, and a YAML parser to validate the rewritten workflow's structure. ## 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 - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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 A workflow change has no unit test to add, and `docker.yml` cannot run on a PR; the verification section states what to check on the first master run instead. 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3bc60dd8bf |
fix(adapters): probe Git context in the remote workspace (#13116)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Remote environments realize the workspace at a provider-owned path. > - Run startup probes Git and network context before it starts the agent. > - The probe used the controller path inside the remote environment. > - A missing directory stopped the run before any provider work began. > - This pull request uses the remote execution target's working directory. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13094, which introduced this probe. Related: #8997 and #10419 address other workspace-directory handoffs; this patch fixes the newer Git-context probe. **What happened?** Remote runs failed with `setup_failed: Could not read execution-target Git context`, including tasks that did not use Git. The provider shell could not enter the controller's workspace directory. **Expected behavior** Startup must inspect Git and network context in the realized remote workspace. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Select a remote sandbox whose workspace is `/home/daytona/paperclip-workspace`. 2. Start a task whose controller workspace is under `/paperclip/instances/default/workspaces/`. 3. The startup probe exits when the controller directory does not exist in the sandbox. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `622376e99` and in the regression test before this patch. **Deployment mode** Docker controller with a remote Daytona sandbox. The same helper also serves SSH targets. ## What Changed - Use `remote.remoteCwd` for the remote Git-context probe. - Cover a missing controller directory in both credential modes. - Verify that SSH reads Git metadata from the remote workspace even when the caller directory exists. ## Verification - Before the fix, both new missing-directory tests failed with the reported error. - The launcher environment suite passes: 18 tests. - The adapter-utils suite passes: 1,085 passed, 11 skipped. - Adapter-utils typecheck passes. - A disposable sandbox with the affected deployment's image reproduced the old `cd` failure and passed with the corrected helper. The sandbox was deleted afterward. - Full repository typecheck and build pass locally. All CI gates pass at `61b522c`: regular test shards, serialized server suites, browser shards, Runner verification, build, policy, and security checks. - The first CI Build attempt hit a Runner suspension-acknowledgment timeout outside the changed code. The affected 13-case recovery group passes locally with its Rust fixtures built, and the unchanged CI job passed on its single retry. - The full serial local test run was stopped in favor of the complete CI matrix; it is not claimed as a local pass. ## Risks The probe now uses the provider-resolved target directory for sandbox and SSH execution. Local execution keeps its existing directory. There are no schema or API changes. Existing local credential and Git metadata tests pass. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with tool-assisted code analysis, implementation, and live and automated testing. The exact model identifier and context-window size are not exposed by 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>canary/v2026.909.0-canary.5 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
01ad858492 |
ci: raise the multi-arch Docker publish timeout to 120 minutes (#13114)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Docker workflow publishes the server images that all deployments pull, including the `sha-*` images that downstream consumers deploy > - The `build-and-push` job builds for linux/amd64 and QEMU-emulated linux/arm64, and that build now takes more than its 60 minute job timeout > - Every run dies at the timeout, and each doomed hour-long run holds the per-ref concurrency slot, so queued master pushes supersede each other and no image publishes at all > - This pull request raises the multi-arch job timeout to 120 minutes > - The benefit is that image publishing works again, with headroom for the build to grow ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #12821 replaces the QEMU-emulated arm64 build with native runners — that is the durable fix for the build duration itself. This PR is the immediate unblock so images publish again while #12821 lands. No existing issue for the outage. Description follows the bug report template: **What happened?** The `docker.yml` `build-and-push` job hits its 60 minute `timeout-minutes` cap on every run. The last fully successful `docker.yml` run was September 2. Since then almost every run ends `cancelled`: the multi-arch build is killed at the timeout, and runs queued behind it are superseded by newer master pushes before they can start. The amd64-only `build-and-push-cloud` job often still succeeds inside those cancelled runs, which masked the breakage. **Expected behavior** Every master push and canary tag dispatch publishes its `sha-*` production and cloud images, and the `promote_canary_channel` job runs. **Steps to reproduce** Look at the runs of the Docker workflow on master: `gh run list --workflow docker.yml --branch master`. Nearly every run since September 5 ends `cancelled` or `failure`. Open a cancelled run: the `build-and-push` job runs for 61+ minutes and its "Build and push" step ends `cancelled` at the job timeout. The last runs that succeeded (September 2) took 39 to 54 minutes for the same job. ## What Changed - Raise `timeout-minutes` on the `build-and-push` job from 60 to 120, with a comment that explains why. The amd64-only `build-and-push-cloud` job keeps its 60 minute cap. ## Verification - `actionlint .github/workflows/docker.yml` reports no issues in this change (only pre-existing info-level shellcheck notes in untouched steps). - Compared job durations across the last successful runs (39-54 minutes) and the recent timeout kills (61+ minutes) to confirm the cap is the failure cause. - After merge, the next master push should produce a `docker.yml` run that completes with both build jobs green. ## Risks Low risk. The change only gives the existing build more time. A genuinely hung build now occupies a runner for up to 120 minutes instead of 60. The slow arm64 emulated build itself is worth a separate look (native arm runners or splitting the platforms), but that is a larger change than this outage fix. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic) — Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), extended thinking, agentic tool use via Claude Code. ## 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 (no code paths changed; workflow linted with actionlint) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (not applicable for a CI timeout value) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (the workflow comment documents the rationale) - [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 |