2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	96bf004a79	fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. **What happened?** Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. **Expected behavior** Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open **Design previews / Recovery notice** to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show **Agent needs attention**, a plain-language explanation, **Retry agent**, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## 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>	2026-09-25 15:28:11 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	efce9356b5	fix(ui): offer recovery when the app fails before React starts (#13970) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The browser must load its JavaScript before React can render a task. > - A failed import can stop that process before the React error boundary exists. > - The HTML entry then leaves an empty page with no recovery action. > - This PR adds a small recovery screen that works without React. > - The user can retry the same page and return to saved task content. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13824 and #13895. This is a follow-up to their browser startup investigation. **What happened?** Interrupting the app bundle or a required import leaves an empty React root. A startup exception has the same effect. A React error boundary cannot handle these failures because React has not started. **Expected behavior** The page must explain the startup failure and offer a manual retry. A late successful load must dismiss the recovery message without a reload. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a saved task in the browser. 2. Abort the application bundle request, or make a required module return HTTP 503. 3. Observe the empty page before this change. With this change, use Reload page after the fault clears and verify the saved task and comment. **Paperclip version or commit** The failing regression baseline used master at `8781f06a8`. **Deployment mode** Local source build and compiled UI. Tests cover both initial navigation and a page controlled by the production service worker. The exact cause of the older intermittent Vite stall remains unconfirmed. Forty app loads and thirty replays of retained responses did not reproduce it. This PR fixes the missing recovery path; it does not claim to remove that historical cause. A normal HTTP 304 response is not a failure. ## What Changed - Add an inline startup guard and recovery screen in the HTML entry. It does not depend on the app module graph. - Show a manual reload action after a startup error or after 30 seconds without rendered root content. - Remove the notice, timer, observer, and error listeners when the app starts. Never reload automatically. - Keep the recovery screen outside the React root so it cannot satisfy app-readiness checks. - Add browser tests for interrupted imports, a stalled import, an evaluation error, service-worker-controlled retry, repeated offline retry, and cleanup after successful startup. - Return a static, uncached HTML retry screen when a service-worker-controlled navigation fails offline. It contains no task content. - Add a full-app test that retries an interrupted compiled bundle and checks the saved task, comment, composer, route, and absence of agent runs. - Document the coverage and the limits of the historical diagnosis. ## Verification - Red baseline: four recovery cases failed; the normal-startup case passed. After the change, all five recovery cases passed. The review found an offline retry gap; that additional case failed before the worker fix and passed afterward. - Full provider-free browser-support suite: 16 passed. - Compiled-app browser tests: four passed, including saved-task reload, interrupted-bundle recovery, slow-CPU service-worker reload, and sidebar navigation. - Expanded service-worker, offline response, PWA, and worker build-ID unit tests: 37 passed. The two old plain-text offline expectations were reproduced as failures and updated for the HTML retry contract. - UI production build, full local repository typecheck (`pnpm -r typecheck`), runner-E2E typecheck, and design token checks passed. - Manual browser check: a temporary server failed the compiled bundle once. The recovery screen appeared. Clicking Reload page restored the same saved task, comment, and composer. - Full local `pnpm build` passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted with a bounded deadline and stopped after it timed out. Workspace runtime/cleanup tests reported timeouts on this host. The monolithic local run is not a pass. The focused tests above and the complete Linux CI run provide the successful verification. - Final-head [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072201966) passed. All 53 check runs succeeded; the two Storybook jobs were intentionally skipped. The legacy security status also passed. - Greptile reviewed `f83e0f51fb760541d83353f2c1df4e182f3948f9`: 5/5. Both review findings are fixed and resolved. ## Risks - The guard only handles startup before React renders root content. Existing React boundaries handle later rendering errors. - A slow startup can show the message after 30 seconds. A later successful render removes it; the page does not reload by itself. - The fallback uses native HTML when the app stylesheet is unavailable. - The worker changes only its offline navigation response. It returns static HTML with a reload button and `Cache-Control: no-store`. Its cache allowlist, private-response protections, task state, provider prompts, and grading rules stay unchanged. - This does not establish or fix the unknown cause of the historical intermittent Vite stall. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The session exposes the GPT-6 family but not an exact served model ID or context window size. Used reasoning, code editing, shell tools, and browser testing. No subagents 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 - [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>	2026-09-24 19:36:45 -05:00