mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-29 21:07:40 +01:00
65fa1cd617b43a45c9d22e10480f4fb6e52dbd21
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
65fa1cd617 |
fix(server): schedule GitHub review checks from committed changes (#17662)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/213/changes/paperclip/213 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review checks report the state of admitted agent work. > - The chat maintenance loop searches for check work even when none remains. > - Existing action rows already record unfinished publication and retry deadlines. > - Committed changes can wake those rows through the shared coordinator. > - An unresolved check must still detect a remote head change when a webhook is missed. > - This pull request schedules only outstanding checks and leaves settled history quiet. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The GitHub chat maintenance callback repeatedly queries review-check actions. Empty queues and completed history still incur database reads. Local state changes wait for the maintenance callback. **Expected behavior** Committed check creation, review binding, run changes, and publication-lease release wake the worker. Existing retry and remote-head deadlines apply only to unfinished checks. A settled worker makes no recurring database or provider calls. **Steps to reproduce** Configure a GitHub bot with no outstanding checks, or finish all of its checks. Leave the instance idle. The old maintenance callback continues to call the check service. Refs #17661, the merged terminal-response parent. Related #17656 migrates response acknowledgements. Related #16385 changes branch-policy admission; this PR preserves that separate policy boundary. Late stale-head projection repair remains a separate follow-up slice. ## What Changed - Move the existing check-state reader into the GitHub provider owner. Preserve current authority, run selection, assessment ownership, and check replacement behavior. - Register a scoped worker with the existing coordinator and scheduler. Existing received and retryable-failed actions remain durable truth. No new table is added. - Signal check enqueue, task review receipts, manual review insertion/binding, run lifecycle changes, and publication-lease release through existing transaction ownership. - Preserve the saved failure backoff, eight-attempt policy, and competing lease expiry. Keep five-second remote-head reconciliation only while a received check remains unresolved. - Check admission before each HTTP request. Shutdown leaves durable work recoverable without spending a provider failure attempt. - Remove check dispatch from the periodic GitHub callback. Keep the separate late-projection repair and the manual combined recovery method compatible. - Add an idempotent concurrent partial index for unfinished check selection. Retain the newest five generated snapshots. - Add eleven real-database worker cases and startup wiring coverage. Document producer coverage and the external reconciliation limit. ## Verification Current reviewed source: `2bba08403b195bf646eda48992b46d6f5cebf756`. - Normal merges preserve the complete review-check patch, the landed terminal-response parent, and current master changes. No landed SQL migration or journal entry changes. - At `6995f84b240a14a7b8660e1cf095b3aa1e1e3168`, **331 distinct tests pass**: 264 complete GitHub workflow cases, 30 completion cases, eight issue-tree producer cases, 16 login-cleanup cases, and 13 startup cases. The GitHub command filters out 1,485 unrelated cases. Login cleanup uses its real embedded PostgreSQL fixture. - Combined-master acceptance: **277 distinct tests pass** at `9c538aed1251fd7f7cecb829a0ecbce6110fb1ed`: 264 complete GitHub workflow cases and 13 startup cases. The GitHub command filters out 1,485 unrelated cases. A new PostgreSQL database receives all migrations through 0402.. - Migration `0402_ancient_malice.sql` preserves the original partial index definition and concurrent idempotent creation. All 400 prior migration receipts stay unchanged during upgrade. One new receipt is added. Replay adds no receipt. The index is ready and valid on fresh and upgraded PostgreSQL databases. The five newest snapshots are retained. - A rollback-only query probe adds 10,000 processed actions and one pending action. The actual parameterized candidate predicate selects the one pending row through the partial index, with two shared buffers and 0.007 ms execution time. This measures candidate discovery, not all lease or provenance reads. - Database build, server typecheck and build, module boundaries, migration safety and migration order pass. Audit: [GitHub review-check scheduling](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/2bba08403b195bf646eda48992b46d6f5cebf756/doc/plans/2026-10-25-github-review-check-sleep-audit.md). - Fresh checks and Greptile review are required for this head. Prior scores do not count. These checks do not prove deployed host suspension or fleet savings. ## Risks - Unresolved queued/running checks still make remote-head requests at the existing five-second deadline. GitHub webhook receipt does not prove future pushes cannot be missed. This PR does not claim active reviews become network-idle. - Run and configuration hints rebuild outstanding checks for the affected company. Enqueue, review, and lease hints narrow to the affected endpoint/repository/PR. Startup and scope reconstruction read existing pending rows; they are not constant-cost operations. - Delivery admission failures remain discoverable through the unresolved check's external reconciliation deadline. Not every shared delivery mutation gains a new immediate signal. - Notifications use the existing process-local database ownership contract. Independent SQL writers and other replicas need their own supported integration. - Provider markers, publication leases, and saved actions preserve recovery after uncertainty. This change does not expand Cloud alarm coverage or prove deployed host/database suspension. - Each remaining sleep slice needs its own review and CI checks before merge. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed. ## 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
|
f8226b0515 |
fix(server): wake GitHub terminal responses from committed changes (#17661)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/210/changes/paperclip/210 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agent work and presents results in chat. > - GitHub acknowledgements already persist the response action and provider receipt. > - A terminal run can still owe a final response after acknowledgement. > - Periodic maintenance searches those rows even when no relevant state changed. > - Committed run, issue, presentation, lease and publication changes identify when recovery can advance. > - The owner should recover from those events and real deadlines, then become quiet. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17656, which is merged. This existing terminal-response slice targets master. **Problem:** A saved GitHub response can remain nonfinal while its run, native presentation, publication or source is unresolved. Removing maintenance without covering those producers loses recovery. Polling settled history keeps the tenant active. **Expected behavior:** Committed supported changes wake the terminal owner. It reconstructs existing actions, preserves provider authority and pending publication ownership, waits at saved deadlines where needed, and becomes quiet after settlement. ## What Changed - Register terminal GitHub response work with the shared scoped deadline coordinator, using existing action/delivery/publication/run rows. - Notify response availability from supported run milestones, native identity, recovery resolution, issue updates and tree/workspace restoration writes. Preserve outer transaction commit/rollback. - Keep GitHub response interpretation in its platform owner. Use the bounded run projection for both direct authorization and scheduling, including native presentation guards and deliberate passive outcomes. - Retain the existing publication lease, markers, source/principal checks and final receipt precedence. A publication owner or uncertain outcome keeps its existing authority; the worker does not replay it. - Remove only recurring terminal-response recovery, preserving the manual path and neighbouring duties. Add no table or scheduler service. - Regenerate the original sparse terminal-work index as `0401_yummy_ultimates.sql`, concurrently and idempotently through the existing top-level migration runner. Preserve all prior SQL/journal entries and the five newest snapshots. ## Verification Published head: `88a209e28b969b5229e9a621aeddfd3cbae9b0cd`, integrated with landed #17656 (`ba5bba86dcdde32b14d4d7dec1b51898e5f6f22d`) and master `52b86c2032a189b0ea259c5b0cb7158b07ef788c`. - **74 distinct current cases pass:** 17 terminal-response lifecycle/producer cases (1,721 other chat cases skipped), all six queued-comment consumption regressions for the new upstream query optimization, all 30 heartbeat completion cases, all eight real/unit issue-tree control cases and all 13 startup cases. Database build, server typecheck/build, module boundaries and four fresh migrations through 0401 pass. - The earlier **304-case** prepared-parent matrix passes at `aa72f32641b2e2c680342cd49477272349aca9db`: all 253 GitHub workflow cases, 30 completion cases, eight issue-tree cases and 13 startup cases. It retains that revision scope. Repeated cases are not added to the current 74. - The terminal matrix covers finalized-history quiet, deleted Board sources, pending presentation/passive outcomes, outer rollback/commit, paused/new runs, restart/drain/standby, committed native identity, lease waits, full-page unrelated history, uncertain publication ownership and tree/workspace/exhausted-recovery producers. - A populated 0400 database upgrades to 0401 with all 399 prior migration receipts identical, exactly one added, and none added on replay. The terminal index is valid/ready on fresh and upgraded databases. Its SQL matches the original draft after whitespace normalization; generation keeps snapshots 0397–0401. - Normal integration `3c8339a541bf68bc9957b9d5a8df80d3a7c3452d` preserves the complete 24-path owned binary patch and all five new master paths. The landed parent tree also equals the previously published parent tree byte for byte. Both normal merge parents and the exact composition tree are checked. No force push or rebase occurs. - [The owner audit](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/88a209e28b969b5229e9a621aeddfd3cbae9b0cd/doc/plans/2026-10-25-github-terminal-response-sleep-audit.md#acceptance-on-the-landed-github-parent-and-current-master) preserves the original producer, quietness, failure-isolation, skipped-suite and presentation-wait results with their scopes. Current passes do not erase earlier failures or turn skips into passes. - The audit-only follow-up leaves all owned source/test/migration hashes unchanged. **Fresh exact-head CI and Greptile 5/5 with no actionable findings remain required.** No full local repository suite, live GitHub tenant or deployed sleep result is claimed. ## Risks - Process-local notifications cover supported application writers and shared pools. Independent SQL writers and other replicas gain no new wake guarantee. - Native terminal status alone does not authorize fallback publication. Pending presentation and existing publication ownership remain separate obligations. - Stop can leave an in-flight provider request settling; admission fences stop a subsequent request. Unknown outcomes retain their existing recovery rules. - Index creation can take time on large histories. Concurrent/idempotent migration and existing replay recovery remain in charge. - Worker quiet does not establish host/database suspension. Cloud alarm coverage and sleep admission remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, using reasoning, repository inspection, code execution and real PostgreSQL tests. 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 - [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
|
ba5bba86dc |
fix(server): wake GitHub acknowledgements from committed changes (#17656)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/206/changes/paperclip/206 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agent work and presents its progress in chat. > - GitHub deliveries save acknowledgement actions and provider receipts. > - Periodic maintenance currently searches for unfinished acknowledgements even when idle. > - Committed delivery, lease, response and presentation changes identify when work can advance. > - The existing owner should wake on those changes and recover only at saved deadlines. > - Completed history should become quiet without losing unfinished provider effects. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17653, which is merged. This existing GitHub acknowledgement slice targets master. **Problem:** A saved GitHub acknowledgement can wait for a publication lease, fast-response result or native presentation decision. Polling empty or unchanged work keeps the tenant active. Removing maintenance without covering these producers can strand the acknowledgement. **Expected behavior:** Committed changes wake the scoped owner. It reconstructs existing actions on startup, retries at saved deadlines, parks unchanged presentation waits and becomes quiet when settled. ## What Changed - Register GitHub acknowledgement work with the shared scoped deadline coordinator. Reuse existing action, delivery, lease and fast-response rows. - Add transaction-aware response-availability notifications at supported writes. Keep GitHub protocol details in its platform owner and shared notifications limited to IDs. - Share the bounded latest-request/run projection between scheduling and direct response authorization. An absent native presentation decision parks the action until its real writer commits. - Retain publication leases, source/principal authority, version fencing, response markers and final receipt precedence. Check admission before each new provider request; let in-flight work settle. Stop does not consume the provider retry budget. - Remove only recurring acknowledgement recovery and keep its manual path. Add no work table or scheduler service. - Regenerate the three original indexes as `0400_absent_phantom_reporter.sql`: pending acknowledgement IDs, fast-response delivery lookup and publication comment/destination lookup. Each uses concurrent/idempotent creation and the existing top-level migration runner. Preserve all landed SQL/journal entries and the five newest snapshots. ## Verification Published head: `09ca00b9f029838434ec042cda691345d67b493e`, on landed continuation parent `063cfd43813cabf18417605fb9eefb9aacf95c8d`. - **87 distinct current cases pass:** 18 real PostgreSQL acknowledgement lifecycle/presentation cases, all 26 fast-response service cases, all 30 heartbeat completion cases and all 13 startup cases. Database build, server typechecking/build, module boundaries and three fresh migrations through 0400 pass. The current Runner bundle rebuild also passes after upstream provider-event changes. - The lifecycle matrix covers empty/history quiet, lease release, restart, drain/standby, fast-response failure/expiry/publication/unknown outcome, streaming quarantine, outer rollback/commit, saved provider retry, stop between requests and receipt state. The real presentation writer proves quiet while pending, rollback, committed reactivation and final quiet. - The earlier **305-case** matrix (236 full GitHub workflow cases, 26 fast-response service cases, 30 completion cases and 13 startup cases) passes at `337f272853d4f8a51b5b9300900a46eb4e13f698`. It retains its prepared-parent scope. Repeated cases are not added to current 87. - A populated 0399 database upgrades to 0400 with all 398 prior migration receipts unchanged, one new receipt and no additional receipt on replay. All three indexes are valid/ready on fresh and upgraded databases. Their SQL definitions match the original draft after whitespace normalization; migration history and retained snapshot bytes are preserved. - Normal integration `9b3607e159153e00ccdfe538d52b591bd38d6499` preserves the full 28-path owned binary patch and all 20 unrelated master paths, including native retry, provider-event and evaluation workflow changes. Both normal merge parents and the exact tree are checked. No force push or rebase occurs. - [The owner audit](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/09ca00b9f029838434ec042cda691345d67b493e/doc/plans/2026-10-25-github-chat-maintenance-sleep-audit.md#acceptance-on-the-actual-landed-continuation-parent) retains the original missing-notification, JSON precedence, receipt lifecycle, external-database fixture and migration-registry failures. Earlier 69/228/broad counts keep their original scope. Skips and failed revisions are not relabelled as current passes. - The final audit-only edit leaves all owned source/test/migration hashes unchanged. **Fresh exact-head CI and Greptile 5/5 with no actionable findings remain required.** No full local repository, live GitHub tenant or deployed sleep result is claimed. ## Risks - Process-local transaction hints cover supported application writers and shared pools. Independent SQL writers and other replicas do not gain a new wake guarantee. - Provider effects remain guarded by the existing publication lease and current source/principal authority. Unknown outcomes retain their existing recovery semantics. - Presentation waits depend on their supported milestone/transaction producers. A missing producer can defer recovery until another supported change or restart. - Index creation can take time on large histories and runs concurrently outside a transaction. Existing migration recovery handles replay; prior SQL is unchanged. - Worker quiet is distinct from host/database suspension. Cloud wake coverage and sleep admission remain unchanged; later maintenance duties are separate slices. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, using reasoning, repository inspection, code execution and real PostgreSQL tests. 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 - [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
|
f69c6a8a35 |
fix(github): retry and recover review publication (#16284)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results.
> - GitHub review bots publish task-bound assessments through governed
tools.
> - A review can survive a caller timeout because its publication intent
is durable.
> - A transient provider failure still returned a failed receipt before
recovery.
> - Gateway replay could return an empty cached result, and publication
retries had no dedicated scheduler deadline.
> - This pull request adds bounded retries, receipt recovery, and an
independent durable worker.
> - A temporary GitHub failure can recover without another review or
duplicate publication.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #16275. That change increased the GitHub tool deadline. This change
repairs retry and recovery behavior.
**What happened?**
A one-off GitHub HTTP 503 or 429 left the caller with a failed
publication receipt. The saved retry did not have its own scheduler
worker. An identical gateway call after a timeout could return an empty
cached result instead of the saved publication receipt.
**Expected behavior**
Temporary failures should retry under current authority. Pending work
should resume at its saved deadline after restart. Exact retries should
return the current receipt. Lost responses must not create duplicate
comments, findings, or checks.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Admit an advisory PR review request and begin its assessment.
2. Return HTTP 503 or 429 for the first summary-comment PATCH, then let
GitHub succeed.
3. Submit the assessment through the run-scoped tool gateway.
4. On master, the result says publication failed. With this change, the
same call returns the processed receipt and neutral check.
5. For receipt recovery, use a shorter caller deadline and repeat the
exact call after publication finishes.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at `6cb6ac3b8e40cb90d734ba115a2f22f850ff9477`.
## What Changed
- Classify transient transport, server, and rate-limit failures. Honor
Retry-After and primary reset deadlines. Stop retries for permanent
permission and validation errors.
- Retry safe reads and installation-token issuance within a bounded call
window. Retry publication writes through the existing outbox and
provider receipt checks.
- Wait for up to three publication attempts within a 45-second retry
window. Keep the durable eight-failure cap and enforce saved deadlines
on explicit retries.
- Register an independent GitHub publication worker with
transaction-owned wake notifications, startup recovery, and per-PR lease
deadlines.
- Recover exact comment, progress, and assessment gateway calls from
their stored publication. Require the same company, agent, task, run,
connection, tool, arguments, and current policy. Clear stale timeout
errors after recovery. Approved exact retries read the current receipt
through the existing signed replay path; the worker retains the verified
approval for deferred writes and still rejects revocation.
- Add regression coverage and update the connector guide and
feature/access maps.
## Verification
- Red: both one-off HTTP 503 and 429 regressions failed on master with a
failed publication receipt.
- Green: the same tests passed after the change.
- GitHub review workflows: 133 covered against isolated PostgreSQL 18.
The final combined run passed 132 and hit one fifteen-second timeout
under concurrent build load. All three variants of that workflow passed
in isolation. The earlier combined run passed all 131 workflows before
the two approval regressions were added.
- Retry policy and delivery coordinator tests: 35 passed.
- Additional focused checks passed for the actual eight-failure cap,
exact-argument conflicts, policy revocation, and timeout receipt
recovery. The approved deferred-publication and revocation regressions
failed before the review repair and passed after it, with one approval
request preserved.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. `pnpm build`: passed. `node
scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed.
- The broad local `pnpm test:run` path remains blocked by the host's
exhausted PostgreSQL shared-memory slots. The changed database-backed
workflows use an isolated Docker database instead. All Paperclip CI jobs
passed at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8813a50105 |
feat: run GitHub review bots through Paperclip agents (#13717)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work as tasks and runs. > - GitHub chat brings repository conversations into those tasks. > - A review bot needs the assigned agent, its authority, and governed provider tools. > - The existing channel connection did not supply that review workflow or a complete setup journey. > - This pull request adds GitHub App setup, account access, event prompts, task-bound review tools, and exact-commit checks. > - Operators can inspect each review through the same task, run, and activity systems. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** GitHub chat, governed connection tools, task execution, shared/database contracts, and connector setup UI. **Problem or motivation** Operators need a GitHub review bot that runs their assigned Paperclip agent. Mentions and PR events must preserve task ownership and requester authority. Provider publication must use the bot App identity and enforce the configured permissions. **Proposed solution** Extend the existing GitHub chat connector with resumable App onboarding, linked-member and sponsored-guest access, editable event prompts, and governed review operations. Validate structured assessments on the server and compute a stable Paperclip Review check for the exact head commit. **Alternatives considered** A separate review scheduler would duplicate Paperclip execution and permissions. Reusing personal GitHub credentials would change the bot identity and credential boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Connected Apps and governed-tool infrastructure. The project owner requested and approved this design. Related PR #8645 imports external Codex review feedback; this change runs an assigned Paperclip agent and publishes its results through the existing chat connector. ## What Changed - Include the current Paperclip instance origin in the copied setup prompt. Storybook uses its configured Paperclip origin; callback parameters and URL credentials are excluded. - Add a Claude/Codex copy button in the real setup and Storybook opening step. Its detailed prompt asks four setup questions and guides embedded-browser setup, verification, and optional required checks. Clipboard failure exposes selectable instructions. - Add a tutorial that explains why App installation, review scheduling, and required checks are separate choices. - Add manifest registration, an existing-App path, separate installation and repository selection, repository refresh, and explicit account confirmation. - Add low-trust agent guidance, effective capability verification, member selection, and explicit restricted guests with a sponsor. - Add configurable PR events, prompts, repository overrides, rating thresholds, and separate formal-review permissions. - Give the assigned agent governed App tools to read PRs, comment, begin an assessment, submit findings, and optionally submit a formal review. - Bind review history, root PR events, and inline replies to ordinary tasks. Deduplicate deliveries/findings and reject stale publication. - Link check Details to the underlying task on the current trusted hostname, or to Reviews before task creation. - Add schema migration 0283, API contracts, production UI, and 49 interactive Storybook states. - Repair local lease recovery. Keep the Cloud Dockerfile identical to master; no provider-pack layer or runtime-default environment variable is added. - Retry only rolled-back wake-admission transactions after transient endpoint-lock contention. A deterministic held-lock regression proves one accepted wake. ## Verification - Current head: `7ba761fe007bb798400d3e62346fa964f607f0f8`, rebased on master `d9b3a5653e41f2ee5a1345b97c86a238f7a5c8e9`. Dockerfile has zero diff against master. Final workspace typecheck and build passed. The new PostgreSQL migration regression passed and preserves existing relation and constraint identities after replay. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. There are zero unresolved review threads and no merge conflicts. - All current-head checks are green: 54 passed and two conditional Storybook jobs skipped. This includes complete server/workspace test suites, build, typechecks, policy checks, Runner suites, browser suites, and security status. One timing-sensitive callback-ordering test passed in isolation and its CI shard passed one retry. The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after CI completed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - Before the final Slack rebase and migration renumbering, 186 focused GitHub tests, 14 native bootstrap cases, token gates, and Storybook build passed. The final rebase retained the new Slack communication guidance. - The embedded-browser setup test copied the full detailed prompt, including the configured Paperclip instance URL. Desktop and narrow layouts were checked. Component tests cover successful copying and clipboard failure with selectable text and retry. - Live local and hosted GitHub acceptance evidence refers to application revision `cb703ac959876a07ebf3d7a295847f9f351eb6fc`. Real agent tasks exercised issue mentions, automatic PR reviews, inline findings, repeated mentions, task continuation, and failing-to-passing checks after a push. The Storybook agent generated, built, and browser-rendered pages; missing acceptance text failed, matching text passed, and broken JSX produced an incomplete result. - Live cases also covered independently disabled push events, prompt injection, duplicate signed deliveries, rapid pushes, stale-result rejection, finding deduplication, and restart recovery. Formal reviews were denied while disabled and published only after explicit enablement. Check Details links pointed to the underlying task on the trusted hostname. - Those hosted native Claude runs used the provider-pack layer now removed from this PR. They do not prove native Claude works on the standard Cloud image. A replacement hosted native Codex run is not yet verified: the disposable QA tenant has only an Anthropic AI connection. No new staging or production deployment was made for the packaging removal. - Required-check merge enforcement could not be tested because the private disposable repository's GitHub plan rejected the rules configuration. Published success/failure/incomplete check states were verified directly. ## Risks - Latest master allocated migration 0282 to Slack. The GitHub migration is regenerated as 0283 with replay-safe table/index/constraint creation; a PostgreSQL regression verifies existing relations and constraints are preserved. Existing preview tenants remain subject to the fleet migration-history compatibility preflight; no bypass is introduced. - Migration 0283 adds company-scoped configuration, registration, review, and publication records. Existing connections retain their behavior until reviews/tools are enabled. - Signed webhooks and expiring registration state remain required. Hosted installations also need the companion narrow Cloud gateway exemptions. - Agent assessments can be incomplete or wrong. The server enforces coverage/result structure, current-head publication, rating policy, and separate formal-review permission; it does not replace code-review judgment. - No Cloud image packaging changes are included. Remote native ACPX/Claude and OpenCode retain their existing operator-supplied provider-pack prerequisite. Native Codex and Codex with managed MCP tools do not require that pack. Earlier staging deployment evidence refers to its stated revision, not this packaging-removal head. Production rollout and merging remain outside this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository, code execution, API, and embedded-browser tools. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed by the environment. ## 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> |