mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-17 01:25:26 +02:00
6681c71b40ec2c80fb33abb74b4b45ede1150565
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
9a76390cfa |
test(runner): improve blank-page diagnostics and infrastructure coverage (#13824)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Runner E2E tests verify real tasks and retain evidence for failures.
> - Some exposure tests assumed that port 42000 was free.
> - A blank task page could also fail without enough browser startup
evidence.
> - This pull request tests occupied ports and task reloads, and records
private startup diagnostics.
> - These changes make test failures easier to reproduce and explain.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13815. Report publication already received its production fix in
#13750; this PR adds a regression check for that workflow.
**What happened?**
Three exposure tests assumed that the allocator would select port 42000.
The synthetic failure disappeared when another process occupied that
port. A prior Daytona run also retained an empty task page after
navigation, but its evidence did not record pending modules or
service-worker control.
**Expected behavior**
Exposure tests must exercise the intended failure on the actual assigned
port. Browser failure evidence must distinguish an empty root from
loaded content. A saved task must remain usable after navigation and
reload.
**Steps to reproduce**
Run the exposure regression with the base port pair marked unavailable.
Run the browser-support tests with an unresolved entry module. Open a
saved task under the service worker, navigate to the same URL, and
reload it.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Based on master at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
846336e5a0 |
test: harden agent chat setup, interruptions and restart evals (#13762)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents through ongoing conversations. > - Chat users can change instructions while a provider is already working. > - Existing chat evals wait for each turn to settle before the next message. > - They cannot prove delivery during active work or the saved effect of a correction. > - Existing fixtures also enable Agent Chat through the API rather than the settings UI. > - This PR adds bounded browser workflows and checks their persisted outcomes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13741, #13752, #13750. **What happened?** The chat suites cover planning, delegation, status, and recovery. They lack active-turn follow-ups and the experimental settings lifecycle. A sequential conversation can pass even if messages sent during work are lost. **Expected behavior** A follow-up submitted during a provider turn survives and affects the final reply. A changed launch day appears in the saved plan. Disabling Agent Chat rejects new messages while preserving history; re-enabling resumes the same conversation. **Steps to reproduce** Run the explicit `agent-chat-stories` suite. It selects three local cases for each native Claude and Codex profile. An ordinary provider command waits for a fixture brief file so the browser can send the follow-up at an observed active-run boundary. ## What Changed - Add six opt-in Product E2E cells for settings, active follow-ups, and plan corrections. - Drive experimental settings through the UI and verify disabled sends are rejected by the public API. - Use a bounded file wait in the actual isolated agent workspace, with provider-written readiness and an undisclosed brief reference. - Grade persisted user messages, final replies, native run outcomes, and exact saved plan fields. - Accept active-turn steering or one queued successor; reject lost input, duplicate input, and stale outputs. - Allow one steered run or two sequential runs throughout the shared harness, while preserving exact counts for other cases. - Require a single marker-bearing response attributed to the final provider run. - Unload the development browser client before restarting the server, avoiding reconnect/navigation races without weakening the post-restart memory check. - Add browser regressions for restart isolation and asynchronously saved settings switches. - Document prepared-agent setup, native onboarding limits, and the separate API-tool rollout gate. ## Verification - Eval TypeScript check passed. - Eval support suite: 436 tests passed in 39 files. - New oracle calibration: six tests passed, including plausible invalid outcomes. - Browser support regressions: seven tests passed; the restart regression was observed failing before the fix. - Catalog discovery selects exactly six local native cases and leaves default paid selection unchanged. - [Consolidated existing native chat report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35643286055-1/): master `b82661b56`, 33/34 passed, all cleanup passed. The failure was a browser navigation timeout across restart; the page request returned 200 and the chat rendered. - [Nine targeted restart/replay cells](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35645850088-1/) passed on `1fe2fe275`, including the original failure, across native Claude/Codex and local/Daytona; all cleanup passed. - [Initial six-story campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35644832817) retained all six failures: asynchronous switch assertions, unavailable fixture paths, and rich-text escaping in raw command comparisons. The corrected fixtures preserve the same behavioral assertions. - [Six-story campaign v2](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35646270035-1/) on `8232773a0`: 4/6 passed (both settings cases and both Claude interruptions). Codex could not see the host-temp fixture outside its workspace; this failed before follow-up delivery was exercised. - [Four affected interruption cases](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35647760635-1/) all passed, including cleanup, on definition v3 / `ad6ac0545`. Files live inside the actual agent workspace and the observed run workspace is verified. Both providers saved Friday in the real plan with the undisclosed brief reference; follow-ups persisted while the original run was active. Together with both unchanged settings cases from v2, all six new scenario variants have passing live evidence. - Final head `ad6ac05456646c09d3452e320279457625353948`: 54 successful checks, two intentional skips, zero pending/failing checks; mergeable and clean. Fresh Greptile 5/5, zero unresolved findings. - Full typecheck, tests, build, and browser CI passed remotely. One earlier head encountered a signoff-policy browser timing failure; the final head passed that shard. - Local pnpm wrapper could not fetch its version/signature metadata in the restricted environment; local eval checks used the installed Node executables. Repo-wide validation was completed by GitHub Actions. ## Risks These are eval-only changes. The file wait is a timing fixture in the isolated agent workspace, not a production runner hook. Native Codex host-filesystem isolation stays unchanged. It has a two-minute limit and is released in `finally`. The prepared-agent settings case is not full native onboarding: the wizard currently offers legacy adapters. The disabled-entry assertion uses full document navigation, which clears the prior React Query cache; preserved history is checked through the public API and re-enabled chat. No production prompt, rollout default, adapter behavior, or credential policy changes. Active-task reassignment and worker-crash recovery remain outside these new cases. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository tools and code execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9d19f98b50 |
fix: harden native chat recovery and add coordination evals (#13741)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - Agent chat uses native runner sessions to plan, delegate, and track that work. > - A user can press Stop while the native session is still starting. > - The server can acknowledge that Stop without dispatching it, then let the session submit a turn. > - This leaves chat recovery waiting for an execution that the user expected to stop. > - This PR waits for the startup handle, dispatches cancellation, and prevents a late startup from submitting a turn. > - New full-stack evals check the resulting records and outputs across Claude and Codex. > - Those evals also exposed missing ACPX readiness fields, unbounded polling, and an old-run identity check that rejected valid warm handoffs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Stop during native startup could record an acknowledged cancellation with `dispatched: false`. The provider could then begin work. A subsequent `/new` stayed queued. A remote Claude follow-up also exhausted the command journal while probing warm-session readiness: ACPX never returned the readiness fields required by the shared transport. Once readiness worked, attachment incorrectly compared the next run descriptor against the old run ID. The 25 ms polling loop could issue 4,800 commands during its two-minute wait, beyond the 500-command bound. The existing chat eval treated lifecycle logs as proof of an active provider turn, so it did not distinguish startup cancellation from active-turn cancellation. **Expected behavior** A Stop during startup must reach the pending session. A late session must not submit a prompt after Stop. Recovery must retain control when startup exceeds the bounded wait. Chat evals must check saved task state, document contents, worker identity, account binding, and duplicate effects. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native Claude or Codex chat turn. 2. Press Stop after process startup is requested but before the provider turn starts. 3. Send `/new`, then send a fresh message. 4. On the affected base, cancellation can be acknowledged without dispatch and the reset stays queued. **Paperclip version or commit** The live Claude baseline reproduced this on `29d6b3509`. The branch also includes master commit `0f5fafe16`. Related work: #13678, #13686, #13693, #13291, #13738. A separate runner reliability branch also contains a startup-wait fix. Its overlap must be reconciled before merging; this branch additionally prevents prompt submission after a late startup. ## What Changed - Wait for a pending native startup before acknowledging a run-scoped Stop. Preserve the existing recovery error when that wait expires. - Keep a Stop guard on startup. Cancel a late handle before it can submit a provider turn. - Add regression tests for normal handle publication and publication after the Stop deadline. - Back off blocked warm-attachment probes. Keep the fast two-snapshot barrier, fail closed, and record changed blockers. - Add red/green tests for delayed readiness, persistent blockers, alternating readiness, and readiness near the deadline. - Publish ACPX readiness and blockers. Preserve the old authority’s event acknowledgement barrier; only settled sessions can proceed to attachment. - Bind warm ACPX descriptors to the validated next authority while retaining old-run event correlation until activation. Preserve session identity and provider profile checks. - Exercise two consecutive run rotations through a qualified fake sidecar, verifying checkpointing, provider identity, pre-activation rejection, and new-run work admission. - Separate startup and active-turn cancellation checkpoints in the browser eval. - Add 18 explicit native chat eval cells: 12 local and 6 Daytona cells across Claude and Codex. - Cover hiring and reuse through managed AI accounts, source-based review, current blocked-task status, request replay after a lost HTTP acknowledgement, server restart continuity, and Stop/reset continuity. - Use ordinary production agent instructions. Enable API tools only for the two coordination cases that need them. - Calibrate the matchers with invalid records and outputs. Require remembered context after restart and a structured status snapshot that distinguishes the current blocker from history and task status from active execution. Compare the public issue mutation contract and relationships during read-only reporting. Preserve before/after source records in failed eval evidence. - Fix the lost-ack browser harness and verify it against a real HTTP server. Check the chat composer after restart instead of waiting for an unrelated document lifecycle event. - Document the scope and limits of each case. ## Verification - The startup regression failed on the unfixed executor and passed after the fix. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit` passed: 424 tests in 37 files. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-executor.test.ts` passed: 385 tests. - [Baseline live campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35608208868): Claude Stop reproduced the bug. Codex Stop and Claude hire/reuse passed. Codex delegation was blocked by provider capacity. - [Eval-only startup campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35609479786): both providers failed as expected. Both persisted `dispatched: false` and left `/new` queued. - [First fixed campaign](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35610533706) on `c9e95797d`: 10/18 cells passed. Startup Stop passed for both providers. Failed cases exposed eval harness defects and remote continuity failures. All attempts remain available. - [Original workflows and stronger memory checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35611896649) on `c04324fab`: 9/12 passed. Reassignment, local restart memory, and startup Stop passed for both providers; Codex remote restart passed. Claude remote restart exposed the missing readiness contract. Two Codex planning cells hit provider capacity. - [Unchanged-model retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35613854548): Codex planning and backlog creation both passed. - [18-cell campaign with ACPX readiness](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35614586963) on `6a98ef743`: 16/18 passed, including all local/remote Stop and committed-send cases. Claude remote continuity exposed the next-authority check, now fixed. Codex hiring produced its checklist, but the runner redacted the requested marker after it appeared as “Tracking token: …”. That content-redaction policy is unchanged and remains an explicit limitation. - [Structured status grading](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35614954725) on `50448c228`: both providers passed on their first attempt, including cleanup. - [Complete read-only state grading](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35616089011) on `551e13892`: both providers passed. - [Final ACPX handoff and hiring retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35617045456) on `cbd637587`: all three Claude Daytona cases passed (restart continuity, active Stop/reset, and lost-ack replay). Codex hiring reproduced the content-redaction failure: the saved checklist contained `Tracking token: [REDACTED]` instead of the required business marker. All four cases completed cleanup successfully. [Published report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35617045456-1/). The only subsequent commit adds the qualified-sidecar integration test; production code is identical to this live proof. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:browser-support` passed: 5 browser tests without paid models. - Runner TypeScript typecheck passed. All 5 warm-readiness tests pass; two failed with the prior fixed-rate loop, and the late-readiness test failed before the pacing correction. - ACPX readiness and warm-identity regressions each failed before their fixes. All 292 runner-core Rust library tests passed. The qualified-sidecar integration test passes. Rust formatting is checked. - Status-grader regressions for misleading historical mentions and previously unchecked mutations each failed before tightening the oracle and pass now. - [Latest-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35617522307) passed on `a4093c8f1`: full build, type checks, test partitions, browser E2E, and native runner checks. Two unrelated tests initially failed (Sentry fixture release attribution and local-service fixture readiness); both passed locally together (35 passed, 5 optional SDK tests skipped) and on the failed-job retry. No changes were made to those tests. - Greptile reviewed `a4093c8f1` at 5/5; both earlier findings are fixed and all review threads are resolved. - The paid live suite is not fully green: the reproducible content-redaction case remains red. This is separate from the passing PR merge checks. No production content-redaction, prompt, model, or completion-policy change is included. - Managed-account hiring and review cases explicitly enable API tools; these do not qualify default new-user onboarding. ## Risks - Stop can wait up to 30 seconds for startup, then use the existing pending-recovery path. This does not prove that remote cleanup has finished. - Blocked warm readiness adds up to 750 ms between later probes with the two-minute remote budget, or about 32 ms with the default five-second budget. Ready sessions retain the short second barrier. - Paid evals can fail because of provider capacity or agent decisions. Each failure needs evidence-based classification. - The HTTP request replay case checks comment idempotency and duplicate effects. It does not prove replay safety for an ambiguous provider tool call. - The new suite is opt-in. It does not increase the default paid campaign. - No production prompts or model selection change. Review-handoff behavior and content-redaction policy remain separate product decisions. The latter can remove harmless business content that looks like credential syntax; the failing attempt is retained. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository tools and code execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e26d787928 |
Shorten continuation prompts and verify question tool guidance (#13574)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents must continue tasks using user answers without losing earlier requirements or approval gates. > - The wake prompt mixed human decisions with prior tool evidence and repeated detailed question instructions. > - Those instructions belong with the question tool, with a short routing hint in the wake. > - The Runner evals need to prove that answers, approvals, and completed work survive later turns. > - This PR shortens the prompts, separates authenticated answers, and adds continuation tests with useful screenshots. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13517. This is a follow-up to the merged onboarding skill and Runner E2E work. Related #13539 covers responses received while a run is active; this PR preserves its cases and adds continuation coverage. Existing continuation/recovery and question PRs were searched; none covers this prompt/documentation and eval change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The instructions sent when an agent continues a task, the native human-input tool documentation, and the evidence captured by Runner full-stack E2E. **Current behavior** The wake repeats a long question-tool guide. Human answers appear alongside untrusted prior results. Screenshot capture can finish at DOM load while the task still shows a spinner, even when backend behavior checks pass. **Proposed behavior** Keep earlier requirements unless the user changes them. Treat clarification as distinct from approval. Give authenticated human responses a scoped field. Keep tool and agent results as evidence. Put detailed question behavior in the tool descriptor and retain one routing sentence in the native wake. Wait for the correct task and loaded conversation before taking screenshots. **Reason and benefit** Reduce repeated prompt text and make authority boundaries clear. Test that real question cards, later answers, approval gates, and completed child tasks still work. Make screenshots useful for human review. ## What Changed - Shorten shared continuation instructions for legacy and native runners. Separate authenticated user responses from tool results and agent summaries. - Remove the detailed question guide from native wake prompts. Keep its behavior in the canonical `request_human_input` descriptor and existing payload schema. Regenerate semantic contracts and fixture hashes. - Add five continuation cases across four local profiles. Add a dedicated choice-then-text case for native Codex and native Claude. All 22 cells join the shared full E2E campaign. - Cover revised scope, clarification without approval, hostile instructions in a handoff file, and reuse of a completed child after restart. Keep production instructions and fixed user facts. - Capture continuation screenshots only when the intended task and conversation have rendered. Add provider-free browser regressions for loaders and wrong-task capture. - Preserve current master’s extra tool and onboarding cases. The default campaign now contains 166 cells; 35 manual everyday cells remain separate. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed after replay on current master. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`: 340 passed. Harness typecheck passed. - `PAPERCLIP_PLAYWRIGHT_CHANNEL=chrome pnpm test:e2e:runner:browser-support`: 4 passed. These tests failed against immediate screenshot capture and passed after the fix. - Focused continuation and native-input tests: 36 passed locally. The tool-authority suite could not initialize embedded PostgreSQL locally, including one isolated retry; its 17 assertions did not run locally. The full remote server shards passed on this PR commit. - `pnpm build`: passed after replay on current master. `pnpm test:run` was attempted locally but hit the same embedded PostgreSQL initialization failure; the remaining local run was stopped after complete remote CI passed. This is not claimed as a full local test pass. - [Full PR CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35232755685): passed on `6a22128c14f4552d0613a6d9a25955db4a1ed02f`. All server/chat/workspace/serialized shards, browser shards, Runner checks, typecheck, build, canary and policy checks passed. The isolated native Runner build and security checks also passed: 57 successful checks, with two expected Storybook skips. - Greptile reviewed the exact PR head at 5/5, with no findings or unresolved review threads. The PR has no merge conflicts. - [Live question-docs report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-question-docs-35227647794/): 3/3 passed at source `83dd132f2` before replay on master. Native Codex and Claude each asked a choice, waited, asked a text question, and saved both answers. Claude also passed a completed-child restart case. All three native turns are checked for absence of the old question block. - [Earlier continuation report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-continuation-35154943615/): all five continuation cases passed on native Claude. The report retains campaign and revision provenance and separately shows two unresolved onboarding behavior failures. - [Before/after prompt report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-prompt-comparison-20260917/): full text, current recorded Claude inputs, and reproducible reference-token counts. The controlled wake comparison removes 401 reference tokens; the net counted input reduction is 339 after charging the larger tool description. These are text-size estimates, not measured billing savings. ## Risks - Prompt wording affects model behavior. Live results cover the stated cases, not every provider or conversation. Legacy profiles are registered but were not rerun for this change. - The optional continuation field changes prompt data only; there is no database migration or new production API. - Authenticated answer projection excludes generated summaries and agent-resolved interactions. It preserves the answer’s question or approval scope. - The screenshot guard can expose UI loading failures that earlier runs hid. Backend grading alone no longer makes those captures valid. - The two prior onboarding failures remain separate product issues: work before acceptance and a missing saved plan. This PR does not claim the entire onboarding suite passes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. The exact deployed model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass — targeted tests above; the full local database-startup limit is documented - [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> |