7 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	d5b92cc41b	perf(ui): reduce task startup initialization and redundant reads (#16862) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip users open tasks to read saved work and reply. > - Faster startup must preserve message positions and composer state. > - Chrome CPU samples showed unused shared schemas and catalog indexes being initialized before task content. > - The shared package exports definitions and module-local data, with no required import-time registrations. > - Let the browser bundler discard unused shared modules. > - Readiness marks also exposed a duplicate plan read even though full task detail contains that plan. > - Keep both improvements measurable through CPU profiles, gate transitions and real browser acceptance. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-up to #16849. Related layout work: #14758. Searches found no overlapping plan-cache PR. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Task startup evaluates unused schemas and catalog indexes reached through the shared package barrel. The task also waits for a second plan-document request after full task detail arrives, even when that response already includes the plan or an explicit absent-plan value. Profiling showed that removing the request alone gave a small and variable total gain; unused initialization was the larger cold-load opportunity. **Subsystem affected** Board task loading, shared-package bundling metadata, plan-query caching, and local issue-detail profiling. **Proposed behavior** Discard unused shared modules during browser bundling. Fill an unused plan query when a full task response arrives. List-only snapshots keep their normal plan fetch. Keep the existing coordinated reveal. ## What Changed - Declare the shared package side-effect free so the bundler can drop unused module initialization. Used schemas and catalog data still initialize normally. - Seed an absent plan query at the successful full-task HTTP response boundary. Use a 30-second plan-query freshness window. List cache merges do not update this plan cache, and a later detail response never overwrites an existing plan query. - Preserve document-scope invalidation for plan creation, edits and deletion. - Add opt-in Chrome CPU profiles and readiness transitions to the existing performance harness. Diagnostic runs use one sample per scenario/profile and are labelled separately from latency benchmarks. - Record only fixed gate names and readiness booleans in local browser marks. Reset the gate effects on task changes so fully cached navigation is profiled too. ## Verification - Production UI build, UI typecheck and token design gates passed. - 258 focused unit tests passed. The final freshness follow-up passed 14 tests, including query eviction followed by a list refresh, preserving a separately fetched newer plan, missing projection, task isolation, and document-event refresh/deletion. - Two focused reuse tests fail with the original HTTP cache function and pass with the fix. The original production browser case makes redundant plan reads and fails. - All 13 final browser cases passed serially: eight layout scenarios, four plan-present/absent and direct/list startup cases, and a cached-task switch that records every gate. The cached-switch case failed before the identity dependencies were added. - One earlier concurrent browser run failed a properties-resize reading-anchor assertion. Two isolated repeats and the final serial suite passed. This outlier is retained in the local logs; it was not treated as a reason to change the unchanged scroll owner speculatively. - Actual CPU samples and readiness artifacts were captured on a disposable local production preview. This is browser timing data, not exported telemetry. - Audited 247 non-test shared modules for required import-time registration. The four top-level loops construct exported local catalog data. No required registration or side-effect-only shared imports were found. - A compiled browser-library contract accepted valid task input, rejected an empty title, retained all seven agent statuses, and retained GitHub metadata plus 1,576 catalog entries. All 13 browser scenarios passed against the initialization candidate too. - Plan reuse alone did not establish a reliable total gain: a final local run was 4,356 ms cold and 1,116 ms warm on Fast 4G/4x CPU. - The next five-sample run with unused shared initialization removed measured **3,298 ms cold (24% faster)** and 1,079 ms warm. Median issue API server time was 35 versus 39 ms. First contentful paint fell from 2,808 to 1,648 ms. JavaScript before content fell from 1,722 to 1,670 KiB; CPU initialization mattered more than byte size. - Final alternating comparison: five samples per variant for both cold and warm navigation, same persisted task and Fast 4G/4x CPU settings, fresh browser per sample, order alternated between variants. **Cold content paint: 4,588 → 3,688 ms (20% faster). Warm: 996 → 1,030 ms (+35 ms).** No CPU profiler was active. The final initialization commit is the only source difference between these two builds. - These local measurements do not establish deployed staging latency or a speedup across every profile. Unthrottled timings varied with API latency. - Actual UI walkthrough on the final bundle: read the saved plan and conversation, submit one unassigned reply, refresh, navigate to Projects and Back, and inspect the new-task dialog. The reply persisted exactly once, confirmed independently through the comments API. No paid agent was woken. - Final head `a7043c474d`: Greptile 5/5, all review threads resolved, and all 56 checks passed, including full typecheck, build, unit and E2E suites. ## Risks Bundlers can discard unreferenced shared modules. Future required registrations or global initialization must be declared in the package side-effects metadata. Current module-local catalog construction remains when its exports are used. Merged list snapshots can retain old plan fields while receiving a new task-cache timestamp. This change seeds only from a new full HTTP response, rather than inferring plan freshness from those merged snapshots. Existing plan-query state is never overwritten. List-only, stale, invalidated, or incomplete data still uses the normal plan read. Existing document invalidations refresh the query. No API, database, permission or reveal-policy changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution and browser verification. A more precise runtime model identifier and context-window size are unavailable. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-19 12:03:53 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1452d5f413	perf(ui): warm issue detail navigation (#10416) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - The board UI opens issue details from lists, quicklooks, and the inbox > - Those navigation paths already have enough issue data to paint the header immediately, but the comment feed still waits for its first request > - That delay makes repeat navigation feel cold and can briefly show an empty thread before comments arrive > - This pull request centralizes the comment page shape, prefetches issue detail plus the first comment page, and renders a reserved skeleton while an uncached page is loading > - The benefit is faster, stable warm navigation without coupling this change to the separate aggregate issue-detail API work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - **Subsystem affected:** `ui/` — React + Vite board UI - **Problem or motivation:** Opening an issue from an already-loaded list still waits for the first comments request and may flash the empty-thread state, making warm navigation feel slower than necessary. - **Proposed solution:** Prefetch the issue-detail snapshot and first comments page from every issue navigation entry point, reuse one page-size constant for prefetch and render queries, and show the existing chat skeleton until the uncached initial page resolves. - **Alternatives considered:** Relying only on detail-query prefetch leaves comments cold; bundling this with the aggregate issue-detail endpoint would make the UI improvement harder to review and land independently. - **Roadmap alignment:** `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping issue-navigation initiative. This is a focused board responsiveness improvement. - **Related pull requests:** #10409 establishes the issue-detail performance baseline; #10414 reduces server-side issue-detail request overhead. ## What Changed - Added one shared issue-comment page-size constant used by rendering and prefetching. - Added first-page comment prefetching and a combined navigation prefetch helper. - Wired quicklook, issue-list keyboard navigation, and inbox navigation to warm both caches. - Kept the existing chat skeleton visible while the first uncached comment page loads. - Added focused cache behavior tests for comment and combined navigation prefetching. ## Verification - `vitest run ui/src/lib/prefetchIssueComments.test.ts` — 3 tests passed. - `tsc -b ui` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk: this adds background prefetch requests on intentional issue navigation/hover paths. React Query stale-time deduplication prevents repeat requests while the cache is fresh. - The change intentionally remains independent of the separate aggregate `getView` work and composes with it through the same query keys. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, exact model `gpt-5.6-sol`; context-window size was not exposed; reasoning mode with repository 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>	2026-07-29 13:37:22 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	176645187c	Fix request storm polling and issue-list coalescing (#9190) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI keeps issue, agent, activity, and run state fresh through polling across several pages and sidebar surfaces > - When multiple components or browser tabs poll the same company data at the same time, the API can receive bursts of duplicate issue-list requests > - Those duplicate requests increase database and server load without returning meaningfully different data > - This pull request adds server-side compression/coalescing plus client-side visibility-aware and cross-tab shared polling > - The benefit is lower request volume during normal board usage while preserving fresh UI data for active users ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found for this request. Problem: - The board can issue redundant polling requests for the same issue-list data from multiple UI surfaces and tabs. - In busy operator sessions, those bursts can trigger request-storm behavior and unnecessary issue-list load. - Expected behavior is to reuse identical in-flight work server-side and reduce hidden-tab or duplicate-tab polling client-side while preserving normal refresh behavior. Related public context found during duplicate search: - #8206 covers a different board UI 404-storm scope. - #5165 covers separate issue-list behavior around page-size truncation. ## What Changed - Added API compression middleware foundation and a company/created-at index for heartbeat run access. - Added server-side issue-list request storm detection and identical in-flight request coalescing. - Added UI fetch metadata, visibility-aware polling, and request deduplication for issue/activity/client calls. - Added cross-tab shared polling primitives and wired them into the sidebar, inbox, dashboard, issue, project, routine, and agent surfaces. - Resolved the latest `master` migration collision by keeping upstream `0140_built_in_managed_resources.sql` and renumbering this branch's heartbeat-run index migration to `0141_heartbeat_runs_company_created_at_index.sql`; the SQL uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` for idempotency. - Stabilized server heartbeat cleanup tests exposed by the PR check matrix. - Fixed the Greptile compression follow-up by weakening strong ETags on encoded JSON responses and bypassing compression for streamed/download responses. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — passed after resolving the latest `master` conflict in `IssuesList.tsx` and updating the 200-result cap expectations. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after the UI conflict resolution. - `jq -e '.entries | length as $n | (map(.idx) | unique | length == $n) and (map(.tag) | unique | length == $n)' packages/db/src/migrations/meta/_journal.json` — passed after renumbering the migration to `0141`. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts` - passed after the compression follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts` - passed after the compression follow-up. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed after the compression follow-up. - Greptile Review for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b` - passed after the latest conflict/migration fix; all Greptile review threads are resolved. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/client.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts ui/src/lib/polling.test.ts ui/src/lib/cross-tab-poll.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/api/client.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-worktree-suppression.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - GitHub PR checks for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b`: all GitHub Actions/status checks passed; Greptile, Superagent, Socket, Snyk, build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, and commitperclip review are green; Storybook visual regression and security-review were skipped/neutral by policy. - Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Medium risk: issue-list coalescing changes request timing and cache semantics for a hot API path. - Medium risk: cross-tab polling uses browser coordination primitives, so older or unusual browser environments need fallback behavior to stay correct. - Low migration risk: the new index migration is ordered after current `master` and uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5-based model, tool-enabled with shell/git execution. Exact hosted deployment identifier and context-window size were not surfaced in the agent 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>	2026-07-09 17:38:34 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	43b005b704	Add pipeline workflow primitives and operator UI (#7903) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift notices, and linked work. > - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface, not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments. > - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes, CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the primitive reviewable end to end. > - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline workflow primitive stack. > - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator experience and server contract together against `master`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature request is described inline. ### Problem or motivation Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation, and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues, routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate. ### Proposed solution Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes, aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail, review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over fields, and retry/recovery flows. ### Alternatives considered - Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated workflow patterns. - Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch because the operator experience is the main way to validate the primitive. - Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same primitives are useful across future company processes. ## What Changed - Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts, server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke support. - Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment, blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and permission recovery behavior. - Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets, automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets, liveness banners, and source automation metadata. - Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared `DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent with the pipeline document surfaces. - Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current pipeline branch. ## Verification Current branch refresh: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19 passed - `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed - `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed - Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`: sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle. - GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket, Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review - Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — Confidence Score 5/5 - GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads Previously recorded during branch development: - Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests - Shared validator tests - UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests - Pipeline tutorial smoke path ## Risks - High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database, shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI. - Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master` syncs. - GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status checks are green. - Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship. ## 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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-26 12:02:44 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	32a9165ddf	[codex] harden authenticated routes and issue editor reliability (#3741) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The control plane depends on authenticated routes enforcing company boundaries and role permissions correctly > - This branch also touches the issue detail and markdown editing flows operators use while handling advisory and triage work > - Partial issue cache seeds and fragile rich-editor parsing could leave important issue content missing or blank at the moment an operator needed it > - Blocked issues becoming actionable again should wake their assignee automatically instead of silently staying idle > - This pull request rebases the advisory follow-up branch onto current `master`, hardens authenticated route authorization, and carries the issue-detail/editor reliability fixes forward with regression tests > - The benefit is tighter authz on sensitive routes plus more reliable issue/advisory editing and wakeup behavior on top of the latest base ## What Changed - Hardened authenticated route authorization across agent, activity, approval, access, project, plugin, health, execution-workspace, portability, and related server paths, with new cross-tenant and runtime-authz regression coverage. - Switched issue detail queries from `initialData` to placeholder-based hydration so list/quicklook seeds still refetch full issue bodies. - Normalized advisory-style HTML images before mounting the markdown editor and strengthened fallback behavior when the rich editor silently fails or rejects the content. - Woke assigned agents when blocked issues move back to `todo`, with route coverage for reopen and unblock transitions. - Rebasing note: this branch now sits cleanly on top of the latest `master` tip used for the PR base. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issueDetailQuery.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts` - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not part of the PR diff. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` before publishing. ## Risks - Broad authz tightening may expose existing flows that were relying on permissive board or agent access and now need explicit grants. - Markdown editor fallback changes could affect focus or rendering in edge-case content that mixes HTML-like advisory markup with normal markdown. - This verification was intentionally scoped to touched regressions and did not run the full repository suite. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment with tool use for terminal, git, and GitHub operations. The exact runtime model identifier is not exposed inside 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, it is behavior-only and does not need before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes, or no documentation changes were needed for these internal fixes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-15 08:41:15 -05:00
Dotta	6844226572	Address Greptile navigation review	2026-04-12 21:30:50 -05:00
Dotta	1729e41179	Speed up issue-to-issue navigation	2026-04-12 21:14:12 -05:00