5 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	da257c3069	Warn when routine webhook URLs may not be publicly reachable (#13684) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - Routines can start that work when another app sends a webhook. > - Local and private URLs often cannot receive events from public services. > - HTTPS alone does not make a Tailscale address public. > - This pull request explains these limits during setup and editing. > - Users can still finish setup for senders on their own network. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13637. Webhook setup needs a clear warning when the generated URL appears local, private, or unencrypted. The warning must explain how to make the endpoint reachable without blocking private-network use. ## What Changed - Add a shared warning banner to the Connect, Check connection, and Edit webhook views. - Distinguish localhost, private network addresses and domains, HTTP, and Tailscale hostnames. - Explain the difference between Tailscale Serve and Funnel. Link to the Paperclip HTTPS guide. - Add five full-page Storybook examples, design guide examples, and documentation. - Add URL classification tests and a regression test that finishes setup despite the warning. ## Verification - Passed 41 focused URL and trigger-flow tests. - Passed workspace typecheck, workspace build, token gates, and Storybook build. - Browser-tested the Tailscale story through Check connection, Finish setup, and Edit webhook. The warning stays visible and does not block setup. - Open Product / Routines / Webhooks stories 11–15 to review the warning states. - All 54 PR checks passed, including the full test matrix and eight browser shards; two optional Storybook jobs were skipped by workflow policy. - The server supervisor readiness test timed out once in CI, then passed on rerun and locally (6 tests). - The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after the complete CI matrix passed. - Greptile: 5/5 on the current commit, with no unresolved review comments. ## Risks - URL checks are hints. They do not test DNS, firewall rules, or actual reachability. - A Tailscale hostname can serve either private Serve traffic or public Funnel traffic. The warning explains this uncertainty and permits both. - No API, schema, authentication, or webhook delivery behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and browser testing. The exact deployment 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>	2026-09-19 12:24:06 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f589660ec0	feat(routines): add safe webhook setup and in-routine run management (#13637) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Routines turn scheduled work and external events into tasks for an assigned agent. > - Webhook setup was disabled, and actor authentication rejected valid webhook bearer keys. > - Operators need to connect and test a sending app before events can start work. > - This pull request adds a guided setup with durable connection tests that cannot dispatch a task. > - It keeps trigger management, execution tasks, and activity within the routine. > - The benefit is a webhook that can be configured, verified, and operated from one place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #11937. Related: #13216 adds provider-specific Sentry support. This PR addresses general routine setup and ingress. #6841 addresses legacy secret bindings; this PR retains the existing secret service. **Current behavior** Webhook creation is disabled. Bearer deliveries can fail in agent authentication before the routine checks its key. Setup has no safe connection test. Runs and Activity send the operator away from the routine. **Proposed behavior** Choose a schedule or a webhook. Follow the setup steps, copy credentials or complete agent instructions, and test delivery without creating work. Finish setup to allow future events to start tasks. Edit or remove compact trigger cards, undo removal, and inspect tasks and activity inside the routine. **Reason and benefit** An operator can verify credentials and delivery before enabling automatic work. Durable setup state survives refreshes and restarts. Retry receipts prevent an old test event from starting work after activation. ## What Changed - Add a production trigger wizard using reusable Slack setup navigation and footer components. - Add schedule and webhook choices, one-time credentials, agent instructions, and live connection feedback. - Persist pending setup, test delivery receipts, connection status, and reversible trigger removal. - Keep setup checks free of routine runs, tasks, and agent wakeups. Preserve delivery idempotency after activation. - Add compact trigger cards, inline editing, key rotation, pause controls, removal, and Undo. - Keep Runs and Activity in the routine. Use the shared task list and compact activity rows. - Permit only exact public delivery POSTs through actor authentication. Retain webhook authentication, JSON-object validation, and log redaction. - Add production-backed Storybook states and focused server, database, and UI coverage. - Document signing modes, setup checks, retries, rotation, HTTPS ingress, and navigation. ## Verification - Full workspace typecheck, build, and token gates passed on the rebased branch. Storybook also builds. - Focused routine, middleware, logging, shared wizard, and UI coverage passes on the rebased branch: 195 tests across 14 files. The migration passed on a fresh PostgreSQL database and on two repeated applications. - Browser testing used the real app, database, and a deterministic process worker through Tailscale HTTPS and the current Cloud proxy code. - Verified rejected keys, safe setup deliveries, persisted state after restart, activation, retry deduplication, key rotation, schedule editing, removal, and Undo. - Fresh bearer and GitHub-signed deliveries created tasks that the worker checked out and completed. Runs and Activity stayed within the routine. - Current Cloud ingress tests passed. Public delivery POSTs passed through without a browser session; management routes remained gated. - All 54 current-head PR checks pass, including general and serialized tests, all eight browser E2E shards, typecheck, build, runner checks, security checks, and the canary dry run. Two optional Storybook jobs are skipped by workflow conditions. - Greptile is 5/5 on commit `7ea63a61e`, with no unresolved review threads. The stale connection-status finding is fixed and covered by a regression test. - No production deployment was performed. ## Risks - Migration 0281 adds three trigger columns and a test-receipt table. It is additive and safe to reapply. Apply it before running the new server. Existing triggers remain live by default. - Requests without delivery IDs are new events after activation. Senders must reuse an event's delivery ID for retries. - Completed webhooks keep normal dispatch behavior. Their management connection check can start work; the UI states this. - Removing a trigger archives it. Undo restores the URL and credentials. Permanent deletion remains available through the existing API. - Public ingress must remain restricted to the delivery POST route. The tenant verifies credentials. Cloud sleeping-stack behavior is unchanged. - Shared setup components also serve Slack. Existing setup contracts and navigation tests cover that integration. - Senders must use application/json with an object. Other media types receive 415. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and browser testing. The exact deployment 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>	2026-09-19 10:49:05 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d6d7a7cea6	Add routine revision history and restore flow (#5285) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Routines are the scheduled/recurring work surface that keeps a company operating without manual kicks. > - Operators need routine edits to be auditable and recoverable, especially when routines control assignments, prompts, triggers, and webhook secrets. > - Documents already have revision-style safety, but routines did not have equivalent history or restore semantics. > - This pull request adds append-only routine revisions across the database, shared contracts, server routes, and board UI. > - The benefit is safer routine iteration: users can inspect history, compare changes, restore older definitions, and avoid overwriting newer edits. ## What Changed - Added `routine_revisions` storage, latest revision pointers on routines, shared types, validators, and API docs for routine revision history. - Added server service/route support for listing routine revisions, conflict-aware routine saves, and append-only restore operations. - Added a History tab on routine detail with revision preview, structured change summaries, description line diffs, dirty-edit blocking, restore confirmation, and restored webhook secret surfacing. - Extracted the line diff helper from `DocumentDiffModal` into `ui/src/lib/line-diff.ts` for reuse. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and renumbered the routine revision migration to `0077_unusual_karnak` after upstream `0076_useful_elektra`. - Made the `0077` routine revision migration idempotent so installs that already applied the branch-local `0076_unusual_karnak` can safely advance. - Updated the plugin SDK test harness routine fixture with the new revision fields required by the shared `Routine` contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/lib/line-diff.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` passed after updating the SDK test harness fixture. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` passed; this refreshed local generated SDK output needed by plugin example typechecks. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds routine revision storage and backfills existing routines. The migration is ordered after upstream `0076` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards to tolerate earlier branch-local migration application. - Restore behavior intentionally appends a new revision instead of mutating history; callers expecting an in-place rollback need to follow the new latest revision pointer. - Restoring webhook triggers recreates webhook secret material, so users must copy newly surfaced secrets after restore. - Conflict-aware saves now reject stale routine edits when the client sends an older `baseRevisionId`. > 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, GPT-5-based coding agent, with shell/tool use in a local git worktree. Exact context-window size is not exposed in 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Screenshots: not attached in this draft PR; the new UI flow is covered by component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-05 11:54:52 -05:00
Aron PrinsandClaude Sonnet 4.6	f87db64ba9	docs(api/routines): address three review findings ... **#1 — Missing `description` field in fields table** The create body example included `description` and the schema confirms `description: z.string().optional().nullable()`, but the reference table omitted it. Added as an optional field. **#2 — Concurrency policy descriptions were inaccurate** Original docs described both `coalesce_if_active` and `skip_if_active` as variants of "skip", which was wrong. Source-verified against `server/src/services/routines.ts` (dispatchRoutineRun, line 568): const status = concurrencyPolicy === "skip_if_active" ? "skipped" : "coalesced"; Both policies write identical DB state (same linkedIssueId and coalescedIntoRunId); the only difference is the run status value. Descriptions now reflect this: both finalise the incoming run immediately and link it to the active run — no new issue is created in either case. Note: the reviewer's suggestion that `coalesce_if_active` "extends or notifies" the active run was also not supported by the code; corrected accordingly. **#3 — `triggerId` undocumented in Manual Run** `runRoutineSchema` accepts `triggerId` and the service genuinely uses it (routines.ts:1029–1034): fetches the trigger, enforces that it belongs to the routine (403) and is enabled (409), then passes it to dispatchRoutineRun which records the run against the trigger and updates its `lastFiredAt`. Added `triggerId` to the example body and documented all three behaviours. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-03-23 10:21:34 +01:00
Aron PrinsandClaude Sonnet 4.6	f42aebdff8	docs(api): add Routines reference ... Routines are recurring tasks that fire on a schedule, webhook, or API call and create a heartbeat run for the assigned agent. Document the full CRUD surface including: - List / get routines - Create with concurrency and catch-up policy options - Add schedule, webhook, and api triggers - Update / delete triggers, rotate webhook secrets - Manual run and public trigger fire - List run history - Agent access rules (agents can only manage own routines) - Routine lifecycle (active → paused → archived) Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-03-23 09:58:27 +01:00