mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-10 12:37:55 +01:00
7608255e42953d89fa4e51598e144792ecf08f22
34
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
a015ac7a57 |
fix(ui): allow interrupting queued issue runs (#9725)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue detail chat lets operators send messages while an issue run is live > - Messages sent during a live run are shown as queued and can expose an interrupt action > - The UI only treated running runs as interruptible, even though queued runs can also own the pending message > - That mismatch hid the interrupt button after sending a message while the agent run was still queued > - This pull request treats queued and running issue runs as interruptible and preserves the exact target run on optimistic and persisted comments > - The benefit is that operators can immediately interrupt the queued run their message is waiting behind ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - **What happened:** Sending a message while an issue-owned agent run was in `queued` state showed the message as pending but did not make the interrupt action available. - **Expected behavior:** A message queued behind either a queued or running issue run should retain that run as its interrupt target and expose the interrupt control. - **Steps to reproduce:** Open an in-progress issue with an issue-owned run still queued, send a chat message, and inspect the queued message actions. - **Version/commit:** Reproduced against the pre-change `master` UI behavior. - **Deployment mode:** Paperclip board UI with a queued issue execution run. ## What Changed - Generalized issue-run resolution from running-only to queued-or-running interruptible runs. - Used the interruptible run consistently for optimistic queue metadata, persisted comment decoration, cancel controls, and targeted interruption. - Added a regression test that sends a message behind a queued run and verifies the exact run is cancelled. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` — 44 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — repository-wide gate currently reports nine pre-existing `#9627` comment literals; this patch adds no token literals or gate violations. ## Risks - Low risk: the behavior change is limited to selecting queued issue-owned runs as valid interrupt targets in the existing chat flow. - Cancellation remains targeted by run ID, and the regression test verifies the queued run ID is preserved through optimistic and persisted comment states. > 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 `gpt-5.4` via Codex CLI; context-window size is not exposed by this runtime; reasoning-enabled with repository, shell, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
4f5abf6007 |
feat(recovery-card): W7 reconcile-forward + break-glass actions
Adds the task-page recovery affordance for workspace branch divergence: reconcile-forward when ancestry is safe, and a break-glass override flow that requires explicit confirmation and a reason. Includes client wiring for the existing reconcile-branch endpoint, issue-detail refresh after successful reconciliation, runtime-management gating for break-glass, and tests for action visibility, payloads, permission gating, and workspace-target selection. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
c07e650cd7 |
feat(ui): single-source design tokens, visual regression suite, and theme retune (#9134)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its UI is the operator's daily surface: task lists, boards, budgets, agent status — all built on shadcn components and Tailwind > - Visual values (colors, spacing, type sizes, radii) were hardcoded at ~1,600 call sites: the same "small gray label" was 9/10/11px depending on the file, charts disagreed with chips about status colors, two toggle-switch implementations coexisted in two greens, and there was no visual regression coverage > - This made the UI drift-prone and made any restyle a hundreds-of-files project, which discourages design iteration > - This pull request extracts visual values into a single token layer in `ui/src/index.css`, adds a Storybook visual regression suite backed by external immutable baseline archives, and then applies a deliberate retune reviewed change-by-change on screenshot diffs > - The benefit is that Paperclip's look becomes a config surface: retheming is a token edit reviewed as a snapshot diff, drift is blocked by a token gate, and future UI PRs can prove exactly what changed visually without committing hundreds of PNGs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue covers this work (searched "design tokens", "visual regression", "design system" across issues and PRs). Related in spirit: Refs #8982 (theming a hardcoded panel — a one-off instance of the same problem class this PR addresses systematically). **Problem (feature-request form):** UI visual values are hardcoded per call site with no source of truth and no regression coverage; consistency depends on reviewer memory, and restyling requires mass file edits. **Proposed solution (this PR):** a single token layer + enforcement gate + externally stored visual snapshot suite, then an intentional restyle on top of that foundation. ## What Changed - **Token extraction (zero visual change, machine-verified during development):** committed codemods (`scripts/codemod-*.mjs`) moved ~1,600 hardcoded color/type/spacing/radius/shadow/misc values into named tokens in a non-inline `:root` block of `ui/src/index.css`. - **Visual regression suite:** `pnpm test:storybook-visual` covers 255 stories × light/dark = 510 Playwright screenshots at `maxDiffPixels: 0`, plus new primitive-coverage stories and deterministic-render fixes. - **External visual baselines:** committed PNG snapshots were removed. `tests/storybook-visual/baseline-manifest.json` pins an immutable archive URL/hash/size/count, and `scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs` handles `download`, `verify`, `pack`, and trusted maintainer `upload` flows. - **Opt-in visual CI artifacts:** added a `Storybook Visual` workflow that runs on manual dispatch or PRs labeled `storybook-visual`, downloads/verifies the baseline, runs Playwright, and uploads Playwright report/test-result artifacts for review. Normal PR runs do not mutate baseline objects. - **Token gate:** `pnpm check:token-gates` — zero hex literals, zero arbitrary bracket values, zero raw font-sizes in `ui/src/components/**` and `ui/src/pages/**`, with a documented inline allowlist for legitimate opt-outs. - **Theme retune (intentional, snapshot-reviewed):** new base theme values; radius ladder derived from a single `--radius` knob; micro-type cluster collapsed to a named ladder (`--text-nano/micro/compact` + Tailwind `text-xs`/`text-sm`); letter-spacing collapsed to named steps. - **One status-color vocabulary:** charts, quota/budget bar fills, RUNNING/live chips, and liveness indicators all use the canonical `--status-*` hues. Light-mode legibility fixes for red alert surfaces that used dark-tuned text classes. - **One switch:** `ToggleSwitch` restyled to the registry capsule form, second hand-rolled implementation removed, and all call sites unified. - **Docs:** `DESIGN.md` is the design contract; `doc/design/` holds audit reports, decision logs, and updated guidance for external baseline review/update workflows. - Dead code removed (`agentStatusBadge` duplicate map), byte-identical contrast constants consolidated, semantic renames (`--project-seed`/`--project-none`, `--liveness-blue`). ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN during the design-system run - `pnpm typecheck` && `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — green during the design-system run - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` — pass after external-baseline rework - `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --pretty false --module NodeNext --moduleResolution NodeNext --target ES2022 --types node,@playwright/test tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts` — pass after external-baseline rework - `git diff --check origin/pr/9134..HEAD` — pass after external-baseline rework - `find tests/storybook-visual -type f -name '*.png' -print | wc -l` — `0` - `node scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs verify` — intentionally fails closed until the first trusted maintainer publishes the baseline archive and updates `baseline-manifest.json` ## Risks - **Large but shallow:** the PR still touches many UI files due to mechanical token extraction and retune work, but committed PNG snapshot churn has been removed from the branch. - **Baseline publication required before the visual suite can pass in clean clones:** the manifest currently has placeholder archive metadata. A trusted maintainer must publish the first immutable archive, then update `baseline-manifest.json`. - **Rendering platform variance:** the external baseline should be captured in the documented Linux/Chromium environment. Future CI runs verify against the pinned archive and fail closed on checksum/count mismatch. - **Visual CI is opt-in while stabilizing:** add the `storybook-visual` label or dispatch the workflow manually to produce downloadable Playwright report/test-result artifacts. - **Scheduled follow-ups, deliberately out of scope:** Tailwind palette classes map to semantic tokens in a dedicated pass; card/pill component consolidation; ESLint ratchet. Tracked in `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking, running in Claude Code with tool use; mechanical phases delegated to Claude Sonnet subagents. Follow-up external-baseline rework assisted by OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5` coding agent with repository, terminal, and GitHub tool use). All bulk rewrites executed via deterministic, idempotent scripts committed in `scripts/`; intentional visual changes were human-reviewed on screenshot contact sheets. ## 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 targeted local verification and documented the intentional baseline-publication failure above - [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 *(pending new CI run after this rework)* - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups *(pending review)* - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) and OpenAI Codex --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
f40a8fbf1e |
[codex] Fix iOS inbox archive gestures (#9154)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board inbox is a high-frequency operator surface, especially on mobile where row gestures are the primary way to dismiss handled work. > - The existing swipe archive control shared one pending-state gate across the inbox, so one archive request could make other inbox archive controls feel stuck. > - The touch handler also kept click suppression and archive timers coupled too loosely, which made cancelled or partial iOS touch sequences behave unpredictably. > - This pull request keeps archive state per issue, makes swipe/cancel cleanup explicit, and removes archived issues from every relevant inbox query cache before navigation/refetch. > - The benefit is that iOS users can archive from inbox/detail views without the inbox getting into a weird pending or stale-cache state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Bug report: - Summary: On iOS/mobile, inbox swipe/archive interactions can leave the inbox feeling stuck or stale after archiving a task. - Expected: Archiving one inbox item should remove that item optimistically, keep other archive controls usable, and recover cleanly from partial or cancelled touch gestures. - Actual: A pending archive globally disabled other archive controls, touch cancellation could share the touch-end path, and issue-detail archive navigation could happen before related inbox query caches were cleaned up. - Root cause: Archive pending state and inbox cache updates were handled locally in multiple places instead of through reusable per-company cache helpers, and the swipe component did not independently track live offset, archive timers, and click-suppression timers. ## What Changed - Split `SwipeToArchive` archive timeout handling from temporary click suppression and added explicit touch-cancel/reset cleanup. - Track swipe offset in a ref so commit threshold checks use the latest touch position rather than potentially stale React state. - Added shared inbox archive cache helpers for cancelling, snapshotting, optimistic removal, rollback, and invalidation across inbox query variants. - Updated inbox archive mutations to disable only the row being archived instead of every row while any archive request is pending. - Updated issue-detail archive-from-inbox to remove the archived issue from cached inbox variants before navigating back. - Added focused tests for partial drags, cancelled touches, unmount cleanup, per-row pending archive behavior, and detail-page cache removal before navigation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/SwipeToArchive.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - 3 test files passed - 53 tests passed ## Risks Low-to-medium risk. This changes mobile archive gesture state and optimistic inbox cache handling, so the main risk is cache invalidation missing an inbox query variant. The helper uses prefix-based React Query APIs for the known inbox variants and still invalidates those variants plus sidebar badges on settle. > 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 repository tool use and local command execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Related PR search performed with `gh search prs "inbox archive iOS swipe" --repo paperclipai/paperclip` and `gh search prs "SwipeToArchive" --repo paperclipai/paperclip`; existing related work includes #1857 and #1860, but no duplicate of this regression fix was found. |
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > 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 (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
8d9f9fd240 |
Add reusable sandbox custom images (#8794)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A growing part of that work runs in sandboxed environments rather than on the operator's local machine. > - Today sandbox providers can start fresh workspaces and run probes, but they do not have a shared contract for capturing and reusing prepared sandbox state. > - Operators need a way to set up tools, credentials, and project dependencies once, then reuse that prepared image for later agent runs. > - This pull request adds reusable sandbox custom images across the provider contract, server runtime, and board UI. > - It also keeps probes and sandbox copy flows aligned with pre-authenticated/custom-image environments. > - The benefit is faster, more reliable sandbox runs without repeatedly rebuilding the same environment setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this change. Inline feature request follows. ### Problem or motivation Sandboxed agents need reusable prepared runtime state so repeated runs do not require manual setup every time. Operators often need system packages, CLIs, SDKs, dependency caches, credentials, and project tooling available before an agent can work productively. ### Proposed solution Add a provider-level custom-image capability, server-side setup/capture lifecycle, Daytona/fake provider support, and board UI controls for creating, testing, selecting, and deleting custom images. ### Alternatives considered Leaving this as provider-specific setup outside Paperclip would keep the control plane blind to image state and would not give agents consistent environment metadata. Re-running setup commands for every lease is simpler, but slower and less reliable for interactive or credentialed setup. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this aligns with the Cloud / Sandbox agents roadmap area and does not duplicate any related public issue or PR found by search. Additional context: - Subsystem affected: cross-cutting (`packages/db`, `packages/shared`, `packages/plugins`, `server`, `ui`). - Duplicate search: searched GitHub for `sandbox custom image` and `sandbox template environment`; no related public issues or PRs were found. ## What Changed - Added custom-image shared types, validators, constants, API paths, and database schema/migration. - Added server services/routes for custom-image templates and setup sessions, including runtime cleanup and provider metadata handling. - Extended plugin/sandbox provider capabilities for interactive setup, template capture, and template deletion. - Implemented custom-image support in the fake sandbox provider and Daytona provider. - Updated environment runtime/config handling so active custom images flow into leases, probes, and agent execution. - Added board UI controls and API client support for custom-image setup, capture, selection, status, and error states. - Hardened sandbox copy/probe behavior for insecure clipboard contexts and pre-authenticated sandbox images. - Added targeted coverage across shared validators, DB schema, server routes/services, provider plugins, adapter probes, and UI flows. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm vitest run packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.probe.test.ts packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-claude-local typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `pnpm vitest run packages/db/src/environment-custom-images-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/environment-custom-images.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona/src/plugin.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx ui/src/pages/CompanySettings.test.tsx` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `rm -rf packages/db/dist && pnpm test:run` - Public-safety scan of the final diff found no internal Paperclip issue links, private instance URLs, or real secret patterns. ## Risks - Adds a database migration and new environment runtime tables, so migration ordering and rollback need care. - Provider implementations may differ in how reliably they can capture/delete images; unsupported providers surface capability-gated UI states. - Custom-image state can contain operator-prepared tooling and credentials inside the provider image, so providers must enforce their own access controls and cleanup semantics. - Broad surface area across shared contracts, server runtime, plugins, adapters, and UI means CI and Greptile review should be watched closely. > 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 GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) via Codex CLI with tool use and code execution. Assisted with branch cleanup, conflict resolution, local verification, and PR preparation. Earlier branch implementation work was assisted by Paperclip-managed Claude/Codex agents. ## 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
b4fccaa8c4 |
[codex] Unify issue media attachment gallery (#8785)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue detail pages and run output cards both render user-facing attachment previews > - Media attachments were handled through separate gallery entry points, so attachments from issue comments and issue output did not share one consistent viewing path > - A shared gallery path makes image browsing more predictable across the issue surface > - This pull request unifies the issue media attachment gallery behavior across attachments, output cards, and issue detail rendering > - The benefit is a more consistent image preview experience with focused regression coverage around the affected UI paths ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8788 This PR fixes inconsistent issue media preview behavior across attachment and output surfaces. ## What Changed - Unified issue media attachment gallery behavior across issue attachments, issue output, output primary cards, and issue detail rendering. - Added image gallery modal coverage and regression tests for attachments, output image handling, keyboard navigation, and issue detail interactions. - Preserved the primary video output Open action while still allowing gallery browsing when a gallery handler is available. - Updated issue attachment and issue output helper logic to preserve shared image gallery metadata. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/ImageGalleryModal.test.tsx src/components/issue-output/IssueOutputSection.test.tsx src/components/IssueAttachmentsSection.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - Result: 4 files passed, 47 tests passed. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The change is UI-scoped but touches shared issue attachment/output rendering paths, so regressions would most likely appear as image/video preview ordering, missing gallery entries, or incorrect non-image attachment behavior. > 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 coding agent session with shell and git/GitHub CLI tool use. Exact serving revision and context window were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8e21e31a1a |
Fix UI detail regressions (#8613)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI needs to render issue details, comments, properties, and rich external object labels clearly during normal operator workflows. > - Three small UI regressions made those workflows harder to scan: rich object URLs could show weak labels, interrupting comments could briefly flash in the wrong state, and watchdog labels could overflow the properties panel. > - These are related quality fixes in the same UI surface, with focused regression coverage for each behavior. > - This pull request groups the fixes so they go through normal review instead of bypassing CI. > - The benefit is a quieter, more predictable issue detail experience for board operators. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for these regressions after searching related PRs and issues. ### Pre-submission checklist - Existing open and closed GitHub issues and PRs were searched for duplicates. - The fixes are based on current `master` behavior. - The regressions originate in Paperclip board UI code, not an adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? In the board UI, three issue-detail regressions made normal review workflows harder to scan: - URL-rich external objects could fall back to a weak generic label instead of showing a useful URL label. - An interrupting issue comment could briefly flash through the wrong state while issue run data refreshed. - Long watchdog property instructions could truncate or overflow instead of wrapping inside the properties panel. ### Expected behavior - URL-rich external objects should surface a clear URL label. - Interrupting comments should stay visually stable while live run state refreshes. - Long watchdog property values should wrap within the available properties panel width. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open an issue detail view that includes URL-rich external object metadata, an interrupting run/comment state, or long watchdog instructions. 2. Observe the rendered issue detail thread and properties panel. 3. Compare the rendered label, comment state, and watchdog row wrapping against the expected stable/readable behavior above. ### Paperclip version or commit Current `master`, fixed by this PR branch at `1c763001c9a16fa6cf3faad6f58a83c4b202c928`. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) / board UI. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core board UI bug). ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Board operator UI. ### Relevant logs or output Not applicable. ### Relevant config Not applicable. ### Additional context The PR includes focused regression tests for all three behaviors. Browser-visible before/after evidence for the watchdog wrapping change was posted in https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/8613#issuecomment-4794863305. ### Privacy checklist - All pasted output was reviewed for sensitive data; this PR body contains no private config, logs, or internal instance links. ## What Changed - Prefer direct URLs as rich object labels when rendering external object metadata. - Keep interrupting issue comments from flashing through the wrong thread state while issue chat data is refreshing. - Allow watchdog property labels to wrap cleanly inside the issue properties panel. - Added focused regression coverage for the external object helper, issue detail interrupt behavior, and watchdog property wrapping. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` ## Risks Low risk. The changes are scoped to UI rendering/state handling and add regression coverage for the touched behavior. No database, API, workflow, lockfile, or migration changes are included. > 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 using GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) with repository shell/tool access. The changes were prepared by an AI coding agent with local command execution for git inspection and focused Vitest verification. ## 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
|
841742fc1a |
[codex] Graduate experimental conference room defaults (#8628)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI has been graduating experimental conference-room task experiences into the default issue and onboarding flows > - Several task UI improvements were still coupled to the Conference Room Chat experimental flag even though they are useful outside chat itself > - That coupling meant disabling chat also reverted unrelated defaults such as work-mode labels, task status colors, team creation copy, and the graduated issue thread > - This pull request keeps chat-specific gating scoped to chat while making the graduated task UI the default experience > - The benefit is that operators can use the newer task workflows without needing to enable the separate chat experiment ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this exact change. ### Problem or motivation The Conference Room Chat experimental flag was controlling unrelated task UI defaults, which made non-chat workflows regress when chat was disabled. ### Proposed solution Remove that flag from task-thread, work-mode, onboarding, status, and team-creation presentation paths while leaving chat-specific behavior separately gated. ### Alternatives considered Keeping the flag as a broad umbrella until chat graduates would avoid a behavior change, but it keeps unrelated UI improvements hidden behind the wrong capability switch. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is focused graduation/polish for existing UI surfaces rather than a new roadmap-level core feature. Related search: - Searched open PRs and issues for `conference room chat experimental flag`: no matches. - Searched open PRs and issues for `graduated issue thread`: no matches. ## What Changed - Removes Conference Room Chat flag branching from task-thread rendering, work-mode labels, task status colors, and team creation copy. - Makes the onboarding completion path create/reuse an onboarding project, create the first assigned task, and send the user to the dashboard instead of chat. - Deletes the legacy onboarding wizard and classic task-thread files now that the graduated flow is the default. - Updates focused UI tests and affected E2E specs for the default task experience. - Adds a user-visible onboarding error if restored state is missing the company or agent required for launch. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/OnboardingWizardVariant.test.tsx ui/src/components/RunChatSurface.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/StatusBadge.test.tsx ui/src/lib/agent-order.test.ts ui/src/lib/onboarding-launch.test.ts ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts --list tests/e2e/conference-room-typing-intro.spec.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` - Attempted targeted Playwright execution locally, but this host is missing Chromium system libraries (`libatk1.0-0t64`, `libatspi2.0-0t64`, `libxcomposite1`, `libxdamage1`, `libxfixes3`, `libxrandr2`, `libgbm1`, `libasound2t64`). CI runs the specs in the proper Actions environment. ## Risks - Medium UI behavior risk: this intentionally changes the default experience for users who have not enabled Conference Room Chat. - Medium onboarding risk: completion now creates/reuses a project and creates the first task instead of only navigating. - Low migration risk: no database schema or migration changes are included. - The PR avoids `pnpm-lock.yaml` and `.github/workflows` changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding model, tool-enabled local repository workflow with shell, git, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2dbaf4a7fa |
External object references across issue surfaces (#8512)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents, issues, approvals, comments, and work products. > - The involved subsystem is issue context: markdown links, issue properties, related work, lists, filters, inbox/sidebar status, and plugin-provided external context. > - The gap is that URLs to external systems currently remain mostly plain links, so humans and agents must manually open them to understand status, identity, and liveness. > - This matters because external work objects such as GitHub issues and pull requests are part of the operational state of a Paperclip company. > - The implementation keeps core provider-neutral: shared contracts, storage, sync, routes, and UI surfaces live in core while providers can contribute detection and status resolution. > - This pull request adds the external object reference foundation, GitHub provider support, issue-surface rendering, filters, sidebar/list/inbox signals, and test/story coverage. > - The benefit is that linked external work becomes inspectable Paperclip context without hardcoding every provider directly into the UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. Feature request: - Problem: URLs in Paperclip issues, comments, documents, and related surfaces do not expose provider status or object identity inline. - Proposed behavior: detect supported external object URLs, persist normalized references, refresh provider status, and render concise status-aware links across issue surfaces. - Users affected: board users, agents, and maintainers who triage issues containing external work links. - Acceptance: external object references are company-scoped, provider-extensible, visible in key issue surfaces, filterable where relevant, and covered by focused shared/server/UI tests. Related PR search: - No open duplicate PRs found for `external object references`. - Closed related prior attempt: #4556. ## What Changed - Added shared external-object contracts, validators, status/liveness helpers, and plugin protocol declarations. - Added database schema and additive migrations for external objects, source mentions, and display metadata. - Added server services/routes for detecting, syncing, summarizing, refreshing, and resolving external objects across issues, documents, comments, projects, and plugins. - Added a GitHub external-object provider plus plugin SDK authoring docs. - Wired UI presentation across markdown links, comments, issue chat, documents, properties, related work, issue rows, filters, inbox/sidebar badges, and Storybook stories. - Rebasing cleanup: moved the branch onto current `master`, repaired stale worktree provision config, hardened environment-sensitive tests/mocks, and removed committed screenshot artifacts from the PR branch to keep the reviewable file set below tool limits. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/external-objects.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-object-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/external-objects-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ExternalObjectPill.test.tsx ui/src/lib/external-objects.test.ts` passed after rebasing: 5 files, 56 tests. - Historical branch verification before this PR creation included `pnpm test:run`, `pnpm -r typecheck`, and `pnpm build`; this PR body does not claim those were rerun after the final rebase. ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new cross-surface sync path on issue/document/comment writes. The implementation uses safe sync wrappers so external-object failures warn instead of blocking core mutations. - Medium: the migrations introduce new tables and indexes. They are additive and company-scoped. - Medium: provider-specific URL parsing can miss or misclassify edge cases. Shared canonicalization tests and provider tests cover current GitHub shapes. - Low: UI badge/filter behavior could add visual noise for object-heavy issues; component tests and Storybook stories cover the intended surfaces. > Roadmap checked: `ROADMAP.md` references the plugin system as the current extension path and does not list a duplicate core feature. Related long-range docs discuss external references, work products, preview URLs, and plugin extension points; this PR implements the scoped external-object reference foundation. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding-agent runtime, with shell and GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode: medium. Exact deployed runtime model ID and context window were not exposed in 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7069053a1f |
[codex] Add ask issue work mode (#8334)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue work mode controls how a task starts and how the conversation composer frames the operator's intent. > - Paperclip already supports standard agent execution and planning mode, but there is no lightweight mode for asking a question without immediately implying execution or plan drafting. > - That gap makes low-commitment clarification workflows look like normal task execution. > - This pull request adds an explicit Ask mode and threads it through shared contracts, server heartbeat context, and the issue composer UI. > - The benefit is that operators can create or switch a task into a question-oriented mode while preserving existing agent and planning flows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline feature request follows the repository feature request template. ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting: `packages/shared`, `server/`, and `ui/`. ### Problem or motivation Issue conversations currently distinguish standard agent work from planning work, but question-first conversations do not have a clear public mode in the shared contract or UI. Operators who want to ask an agent a focused question have to use standard mode, which can imply normal task execution, or planning mode, which asks for a plan rather than an answer. ### Proposed solution Add Ask as a first-class issue work mode. It should be selectable from issue creation and issue chat, cycle alongside Standard and Planning from the keyboard shortcut/menu, appear distinctly in composer styling, and be included in heartbeat context so agents know to answer directly instead of executing or drafting a plan. ### Alternatives considered - Keep using standard mode for questions: rejected because it does not communicate answer-only intent to the agent or the UI. - Reuse planning mode for questions: rejected because planning mode asks for a plan and is semantically different from asking a question. - Add only local UI copy: rejected because the mode needs to be represented in the shared contract and server heartbeat context to be reliable. ### Roadmap alignment This is a focused issue-workflow improvement. `ROADMAP.md` was checked and no duplicate planned core work was found. ### Additional context Related public searches performed before opening this PR: - GitHub PR search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub issue search for `"ask mode" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` - GitHub PR search for `"work mode" "ask" repo:paperclipai/paperclip` No duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Added `ask` to the shared issue work-mode contract and validation coverage. - Included issue work mode in heartbeat context summaries so agents can see standard, planning, and ask state. - Added Ask mode metadata, styling, composer tone handling, and selection/cycling behavior in the issue chat/new issue UI. - Updated focused tests for shared validators, heartbeat context, and affected UI work-mode flows. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/ChatComposer.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/work-mode-meta.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` The broader targeted command passed 8 test files / 245 tests. Visual reference for Standard/Planning/Ask composer states: https://gist.github.com/cryppadotta/714d8590bac55500a65e7e16de5bb4b8 It emitted an expected warning from an existing server test fixture about a missing run-log fixture while verifying derived issue comment metadata. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. This adds a new enum value that crosses shared, server, and UI contracts. Existing standard and planning modes are preserved, but any downstream code assuming only two non-terminal work modes may need to handle `ask`. > 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 GPT-5 Codex coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder mode, with shell, git, GitHub connector, and local test execution tools. Context window and exact hosted model snapshot are 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`, `feat/...`) 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] 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] 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> |
||
|
|
6756ae8289 |
fix(ui): restore issue copy buttons on HTTP (#8212)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to run AI-agent companies, so board actions like copying task state need to work reliably on the live board UI. > - The affected surface is the issue detail and issue chat UI, where operators copy task descriptions and comment text during triage and handoff. > - On self-hosted HTTP deployments, the async Clipboard API can exist but fail, which breaks these copy buttons silently. > - The internal FMAI reproduction pointed specifically at task description copy and task comment copy in the issue view. > - There is already an overlapping upstream PR, [#6353](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/6353), but it is currently `CONFLICTING` and does not provide a mergeable path. > - This pull request adds a shared clipboard helper with a fallback path, wires the task-detail and task-thread copy actions through it, and locks the behavior in with targeted tests. > - The benefit is that copy buttons keep working on HTTP self-hosted boards without changing behavior for secure deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Fixes #3529 - Refs #6353 ## What Changed - Added `ui/src/lib/clipboard.ts` with a shared `copyTextToClipboard()` helper that tries the async Clipboard API first and falls back to `document.execCommand("copy")` when that path is blocked. - Updated `IssueDetail.tsx` so the task-level "Copy task as markdown" action uses the shared helper. - Updated both `IssueChatThread.tsx` and `IssueChatThreadClassic.tsx` so task comment copy actions, code-block copy actions, and system-notice copy actions use the shared helper. - Added focused regression coverage in `IssueDetail.test.tsx` and `IssueChatThread.test.tsx` for insecure-context fallback behavior. ## Verification - `corepack pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` - `corepack pnpm exec tsc -p ui/tsconfig.json --noEmit` - Manual reviewer check: - Run Paperclip over HTTP. - Open an issue detail page. - Use `Copy task as markdown` and a comment `Copy message` action. - Confirm both copy successfully instead of silently failing. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is scoped to clipboard helpers and the specific issue-detail / issue-thread copy actions. - The fallback relies on `document.execCommand("copy")`, which is legacy browser behavior, but it is only used when the modern clipboard path is unavailable or blocked. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Codex local adapter, tool-enabled coding workflow with terminal, git, and file-editing support. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: FMAI Agents <joegalbert-ai@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
6f9801a46b |
feat(ui): NUX rework behind enableConferenceRoomChat experimental flag — capsule onboarding, conference-room chat, unified composer (#8000)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The first-run experience (onboarding wizard) and the chat surfaces
(conference-room/board chat, task threads, composers) are the product's
front door — they decide whether a new operator understands "hire
agents, give them work, review results" in the first five minutes
> - Today those surfaces feel ticket-y and form-like: the wizard is a
static multi-step form that ends in an anticlimactic "Launch" screen,
the task composer and board chat behave differently from each other, and
agent-feed issue quicklooks misbehave (multiple flyouts open at once,
cards jump on hover)
> - We wanted to iterate toward a conversational, team-centric NUX — but
without risking the workflows of everyone already running Paperclip
> - This PR reworks the NUX behind a new default-OFF
`enableConferenceRoomChat` experimental flag: a capsule-motif onboarding
wizard that builds your team as you answer, a conference-room chat
surface, one shared ChatComposer across surfaces, brand-accurate status
chips, and feed-quicklook fixes — with the pre-existing UI
fork-and-frozen as `*Classic` components that flag-OFF users keep
> - The benefit is a complete, testable modern NUX that anyone can opt
into from Settings → Experimental, with zero default behavior change and
a clean path to either graduate or drop the experiment
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No pre-existing GitHub issue — feature description per
`feature_request.yml`:
- **Problem / motivation:** Paperclip's onboarding wizard and chat
surfaces grew up as separate ticket-centric forms. New users get a
form-filling experience rather than the feeling of standing up a team;
the board chat and task threads use different composers with different
affordances; the agent feed's issue quicklook can stack multiple
popovers and shifts cards on hover.
- **Proposed solution:** A coherent NUX experiment behind one
experimental flag (`enableConferenceRoomChat`, Settings → Experimental,
default OFF): capsule onboarding wizard with an evolving team capsule,
conference-room chat, unified `ChatComposer`, team-centric copy, brand
status chips, quicklook single-flight fix. Flag-OFF users get the exact
pre-experiment UI via frozen `*Classic` forks, verified by an on/off
parity test matrix.
- **Alternatives considered:** (a) incremental unflagged restyling —
rejected: the changes interlock across surfaces and would drip risk into
every release; (b) a separate app shell / route for the new NUX —
rejected: too much divergence, the flag + classic-fork pattern keeps the
diff reviewable and reversible.
- **Roadmap alignment:** `ROADMAP.md` lists **CEO Chat** ("a
lighter-weight way to talk to leadership agents... should still resolve
to real work objects"). This experiment is groundwork in that direction
(conference-room chat resolves to issues/tasks via the same composer
used in task threads) and does not change the core task-and-comments
model.
Related PRs found in the dedup search (same area, none duplicate this
work — they target the classic wizard, which this PR intentionally
leaves intact and mergeable):
- #5385 — Coach-driven onboarding: conversational entry +
agent-companies package import
- #5378 — Onboarding wizard: reusable adapter picker + probe card
- #6636 — ui(onboarding): friendly error surface + retry for the wizard
- #7005 — fix(onboarding): explicitly await first-task wake
- #2616 — fix: restore workspace directory config in onboarding wizard
## What Changed
- **Experimental flag plumbing** — `enableConferenceRoomChat` in shared
types/validators, server instance-settings service + API, Settings →
Experimental card with explicit enable/disable copy
- **Onboarding wizard** — classic wizard forked and frozen
(`OnboardingWizardClassic`); flag-ON variant is a 5-step capsule wizard
with a persistent evolving `AgentCapsule` (gradient/glow motif),
team-centric reframed copy, and a typing-dots intro (hardened with
fake-timer tests)
- **Conference-room chat** — flag-ON board-chat surface with agent
bubble name/icon headers and copy/vote/timestamp action rows
(`AgentBubbleActionRow`)
- **Unified composer** — shared `ChatComposer` adopted across surfaces;
translucent surface + scroll-mask removal; "Agent mode"/"Plan mode"
relabels; no-assignee confirmation `AlertDialog` (new
`ui/alert-dialog.tsx` primitive); `@task` reference picker +
linkification in mentions
- **Agent feed** — single-flight issue-quicklook store (one popover at a
time), flyouts open to the left, removed hover translate-y jitter
- **Status chips** — brand-accurate task status chips behind the flag
(light/dark, 1px borders per paperclip.ing/brand)
- **Tests** — flag on/off parity matrix across IssueDetail,
NewIssueDialog, Sidebar, wizard, gate components; component tests for
all new pieces
- **Merge with `master`** — one conflict in
`ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`, resolved by keeping master's
new `AssigneeChip`/`HandoffWakeRow`/`RunStatusBadge` components inside
the flag-gated metadata-row chrome (details in commit `21a5642a`);
post-merge fixes: vitest 4 mock typing in `MarkdownEditor.test.tsx`,
flag hook made safe for provider-less mounts (master's new isolated
component tests)
- **Branch hygiene** — internal design wireframes/mockups stripped
before the PR (they live in the Paperclip issue threads)
- No user-facing documentation changes required: the flag is
intentionally experimental and self-described in the Settings card; no
existing docs reference the affected surfaces
## Verification
- `pnpm run typecheck` — green across the workspace (ui, server, shared,
plugins)
- Full UI suite (`vitest run` in `ui/`, clean worktree at this HEAD):
**1593/1595 passing, 223/224 files** — the 2 remaining failures are in
`src/components/artifacts/ArtifactCard.test.tsx` and **fail identically
on pristine `origin/master`** (pre-existing upstream, unrelated to this
branch)
- Full server suite (`vitest run` in `server/`, same clean worktree):
results in PR checks; flag plumbing covered by instance-settings tests
- Targeted post-merge resolution check: `IssueChatThread`,
`IssueChatThreadSystemNotice`, `IssueDetail`, `Sidebar`,
`ConferenceRoomChatGate`, `OnboardingWizardVariant`, `NewIssueDialog`,
`InstanceExperimentalSettings`, `MarkdownEditor` — 172/172 passing
- Manual walkthrough: flag OFF (default) → onboarding wizard, task
thread, board chat, composer all render the classic UI; flag ON via
Settings → Experimental → capsule wizard, conference-room chat, unified
composer, status chips active
- Screenshots: see below
**Flag on/off screenshots** (committed on this branch under
`screenshots/PR-8000-*`):
| Surface | Flag OFF (classic, default) | Flag ON (experimental) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Settings → Experimental | 
| 
|
| Task thread | 
| 
|
| Home / nav | 
| 
|
| Conference Room (flag-ON only surface) | — | 
|
Capsule onboarding wizard walkthrough screenshots (flag ON) are attached
to the Paperclip design/implementation threads; the wizard requires a
fresh instance so it is captured via the e2e harness
(`tests/e2e/nux-phase4-screenshots.spec.ts`).
## Risks
- **Large surface, but gated:** all new behavior sits behind
`enableConferenceRoomChat`, default OFF; flag-OFF rendering is locked by
frozen `*Classic` forks plus an on/off parity test suite
- **Classic forks are frozen at the fork point (`e3aada1d`):** master
features added to the live thread component after that point (assignee
handoff chips, run status badge, composer mention coach) render in the
flag-ON path; the flag-OFF task thread keeps the fork-point behavior
until the experiment graduates (forks deleted) or is dropped (forks
restored as canonical). Called out for reviewer attention.
- **Merge-conflict resolution in `IssueChatThread.tsx`** (commit
`21a5642a`) deserves reviewer eyes: master's new handoff/run-status
components were kept; the base toast-style no-assignee flow remains
replaced by the AlertDialog flow introduced on this branch
- Schema/server changes are additive (one optional boolean instance
setting); no migrations of existing data
## Model Used
- Claude (Anthropic) via Claude Code running in the Paperclip agent
harness (agent: ClaudeCoder)
- Branch implemented across multiple agent sessions on Claude Opus-class
models with extended thinking + tool use (file edits, shell, Playwright
screenshots); merge/PR session model ID as reported by the harness:
`claude-fable-5` (Claude Code CLI)
- All code was agent-authored and board-reviewed through Paperclip issue
threads (plans, wireframes, confirmations) before merging
## 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 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 (none
required — experimental flag, self-documenting Settings card; noted
above)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green (run 3 on `8af3041a`: all 16
gates SUCCESS, incl. e2e and all 4 serialized-suite shards)
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
(re-review verdict: Confidence 5/5, “Safe to merge”; all 4 round-1
findings fixed + confirmed resolved; both summary notes addressed in
`8af3041a`)
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
|
468edd8b22 |
Add workspace file viewer and artifact links (#7681)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is issue-centered, and reviewers often need to inspect files, artifacts, and path references produced during that work. > - Before this branch, workspace-relative paths and artifact file references were not first-class inspectable objects in the board UI. > - Safe file viewing needs shared resource contracts, server-side workspace boundary checks, and UI that opens files without exposing arbitrary host paths. > - The workspace file viewer branch needed to stay as one active PR and be rebased onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` for review. > - This pull request adds the workspace file resource API, issue-page file viewer and browser, markdown file-reference links, and artifact file chips. > - The benefit is that board users can inspect relevant files from issue context while preserving workspace boundaries and auditability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. Internal Paperclip issues: `PAP-1953`, `PAP-10539`, `PAP-10733`. Problem / motivation: - Board users need to open workspace-relative files mentioned by agents or attached as work-product metadata without switching to a terminal. - The UI needs to support both direct file-path opening and workspace browsing/searching from an issue page. - The server must enforce company access, workspace boundaries, size limits, rate limits, and safe audit logging. Related PR: - Prior closed attempt: #4442 - Single active PR for this branch: #7681 ## What Changed - Added shared workspace file resource types, validators, and workspace-file `resourceRef` metadata validation for work products. - Added server routes/services for resolving, listing, and previewing workspace-relative files with access checks, scan caps, list-specific limits, and audit logging. - Added the issue file viewer provider, sheet, workspace browser, command-palette action, markdown workspace-file autolinks, and artifact file chips. - Updated issue workspace UI and stories/tests for file browsing and workspace file opening. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and updated the existing single PR branch. - Addressed current-head Greptile follow-ups by applying `offset` consistently across search/recent/changed file listings, restoring stopped-service port ownership checks before auto-port reuse, and stabilizing the workspace browser pagination test. ## Verification Current local verification after rebase to `public/master`: - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/work-product.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.test.tsx ui/src/components/FileViewerSheet.copy.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/context/FileViewerContext.test.ts ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-parser.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueWorkspaceCard.test.tsx` - 13 files passed, 197 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx` - 1 file passed, 25 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` - 2 files passed, 90 tests passed. - `pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed. - Confirmed branch is `0` behind and `46` ahead of current `public/master` after rebase and follow-up commits. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `.github/workflows` changes. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related workspace file viewer PRs/issues; #4442 is the prior closed attempt and this PR is the single active PR for the branch. - No screenshots were committed; the task explicitly asked not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work. Current remote verification on head `a698a7bc10137baf7d25bd5722e1d6e0343387c1`: - Greptile Review - success, 64 files reviewed, 0 comments added, no unresolved Greptile review threads. - PR workflow `verify` - success. - Typecheck + Release Registry, General tests, workspace test shards, serialized server suites, Build, Canary Dry Run, e2e, Socket, and Snyk - success. - `security-review` - neutral, with output saying a draft advisory was filed for maintainer review and is not a merge block. - `commitperclip PR Review / review` - cancelled after the security gate detected flags and timed out while creating/reviewing the advisory. I reran it once and it cancelled the same way; no actionable code/test failure was exposed in the job logs. ## Risks - This is a broad UI/server feature PR, so review needs to pay attention to route authorization, workspace boundary handling, and markdown autolink false positives. - Workspace browsing intentionally caps list results and scan depth; very large workspaces may require users to refine search terms. - Remote workspace preview remains unavailable until remote file-access support is implemented. - The neutral commitperclip security-review advisory needs maintainer review, but the check output says it is not a merge block. > 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 coding agent in a Paperclip/Codex local tool-use environment, medium reasoning, with shell/GitHub CLI tool use for branch inspection, verification, rebase, PR update, Greptile review, and CI inspection. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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 - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
35c31ca63f |
[codex] Add live-run stop finalization actions (#7679)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators supervise live agent runs from the issue detail chat surface. > - The existing run menu can pause/stop work, but operators sometimes need to stop the active run and immediately finalize the task outcome. > - Doing those as separate actions is slower and easier to leave half-finished. > - This pull request adds explicit live-run finalization actions to the issue chat run menu. > - The benefit is a clearer operator path for stopping a live run and marking the task done or cancelled in one ordered flow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this internal Paperclip task. Internal task: PAP-10535. ## Subsystem affected ui/ — React + Vite board UI. ## Problem or motivation Operators can stop an active run from the issue detail chat, but finalizing the issue outcome requires a separate status action after the run is stopped. That extra step makes live-run finalization slower and easier to leave incomplete. ## Proposed solution Add explicit issue chat run-menu actions for `Stop and cancel` and `Stop and done`, where each action cancels the active heartbeat run before updating the issue status. ## Alternatives considered Keep the existing two-step flow of cancelling the run first and then changing issue status separately. That preserves current behavior but does not solve the operator workflow gap. ## Roadmap alignment This is a small targeted UI control-plane improvement for supervising live agent work. It does not duplicate a planned core roadmap item found in `ROADMAP.md`. This PR was split from the local `master` branch on June 7, 2026. It covers the UI-only live-run finalization action. I searched GitHub for duplicate/related PRs; the results were broader run-control PRs, not this exact issue-detail menu action. ## What Changed - Added optional `runFinalizationActions` support to `IssueChatThread` assistant message run menus. - Added `Stop and cancel` and `Stop and done` actions on the issue detail chat tab. - Each action cancels the active heartbeat run before updating the issue status. - Added focused UI coverage to assert cancellation happens before the status update. - Addressed Greptile feedback for partial-failure messaging and duplicate run-state invalidation. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `git diff --check` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - Storybook screenshot capture for the live-run menu before and after the finalization actions. ## Screenshots Before: existing live-run menu only offered the normal stop action.  After: the live-run menu includes `Stop and cancel` and `Stop and done`.  ## Risks - Medium UI behavior risk: the new actions expose faster finalization controls from the live-run menu. They are gated through the existing issue detail management surface and still use the existing run cancel and issue update APIs. - Low migration risk: no schema, API contract, or dependency changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell, git, GitHub CLI, local test execution, and Playwright browser screenshot capture. Exact hosted model variant and context-window size were not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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] 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> |
||
|
|
2e74d32871 |
PAP-10430: split Issue-to-Task copy migration (#7651)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI is the operator surface where users create, assign, monitor, and review work items. > - The product language is moving toward "tasks" for user-facing work items while the internal API and database still use "issues". > - PR #7543 bundled this copy migration with broader information-architecture work, which made the branch too large for Greptile review. > - This pull request peels the Issue-to-Task copy migration into a smaller, independently reviewable change. > - The benefit is clearer user-facing terminology, less agent confusion via the Paperclip skill note, and a smaller PR that Greptile can review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7645 Refs #7543 Refs PAP-10430 This PR was split out of #7543 so the Issue-to-Task copy migration can be reviewed separately and the remaining IA PR can fall under Greptile's file limit. ## What Changed - Preserves Scott Tong's original `PAP-57` copy-only commit, with author and co-author credit intact, to rename user-facing "Issues" copy to "Tasks" across the UI while keeping routes/API/internal symbols as `issue`. - Updates onboarding and release-smoke browser selectors from `Create & Open Issue` to `Create & Open Task`. - Adds a terminology note to `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md` clarifying that task and issue refer to the same Paperclip work item. - Resolves the only cherry-pick conflict by keeping current search artifacts support and changing visible search copy to "tasks". ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` passed: 4 files, 66 tests. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - Diff is 80 files, below Greptile's 100-file limit. - Before/after UI copy examples: "Issues" -> "Tasks", "New Issue" -> "New Task", "Create & Open Issue" -> "Create & Open Task". ## Risks - Medium copy-risk: this intentionally changes user-facing terminology broadly while keeping internal issue identifiers and routes unchanged. - Some docs and APIs still say `issue`; the skill note clarifies this so agents do not treat task and issue as separate entities. - Browser-level visual validation is expected from CI because this local container is missing usable browser dependencies. > 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 Scott Tong authored the original `PAP-57` copy migration, assisted by Claude Opus 4.8 and Paperclip agents per the preserved commit metadata. Codex / GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access performed the PR split, conflict resolution, skill note, and verification. ## 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 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] 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: scotttong <scott.tong@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
20aea356cc |
refactor(deps-dev): bump vitest from 3.2.4 to 4.1.8 (#7581)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Test infrastructure across server, ui, packages/* runs on Vitest > - Dependabot opened a narrow bump (3.2.4 → 3.2.6), but the wider workspace is on 3.2.4 and the major-version bridge to v4 needs a coordinated change set across configs and tests > - Staying on 3.x indefinitely leaves us behind on Vitest 4 (perf, pool, and config improvements) and forces repeated patch-only dependabot churn > - This pull request upgrades Vitest to 4.1.8 across the workspace, updates `server/vitest.config.ts` and `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` for the new API, and adjusts two UI tests for the new assertion semantics > - The benefit is a single, coherent Vitest 4 upgrade that supersedes #7570 and gets us on the supported major line ## What Changed - Bump `vitest` from `3.2.4` to `4.1.8` across root, `server`, `ui`, and all `packages/*` (including plugin examples and sandbox providers) - Update `server/vitest.config.ts` for Vitest 4 config surface - Update `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs` to match the new runner behavior - Adjust `ui/src/components/CommentThread.test.tsx` and `ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx` for Vitest 4 matcher/timing semantics - Refresh `pnpm-lock.yaml` ## Verification - `pnpm install` resolves cleanly with the new lockfile - `pnpm -w -r test` (server, ui, packages) runs under Vitest 4.1.8 ## Risks - Major-version Vitest bump: behavioral changes in pools, fake timers, and matcher strictness can surface flake. Test config and the two UI tests were updated to match v4 semantics; broader test runs should be watched on CI before merge. - Supersedes dependabot PR #7570 (3.2.4 → 3.2.6); that PR should be closed. ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic) — `claude-opus-4-7`, extended thinking, tool use enabled ## 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] 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 Closes #7570 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b2a33d0184 |
[codex] Filter document artifacts from issue outputs (#7608)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue detail pages promote certain artifact work products into the dedicated Output surface while also listing raw attachments below > - Document-like artifacts such as plan markdown can currently be promoted like binary outputs, which makes the same work product story look like both an output and a document/attachment > - The output surface should stay focused on inspectable generated media, archives, PDFs, WebAssembly, SVG/images, and true binary deliverables while document-like artifacts remain in the document or attachment flow > - This pull request filters document-like artifact metadata out of the Output section and avoids duplicating the attachments that back promoted outputs > - The benefit is a cleaner issue detail page where plans and markdown reports do not appear as binary outputs, while real output files still get highlighted ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #7609 Refs PAP-10354 Refs PAP-10369 ## What Changed - Added output MIME-type normalization and eligibility checks for issue artifact work products. - Filtered markdown, text, JSON, XML, CSV, YAML, source-like files, and generic binary artifacts with document-like filenames out of promoted issue outputs. - Kept video, image including SVG, PDF, ZIP, WebAssembly, and true binary artifacts eligible for the Output section. - Hid attachments that back promoted outputs while leaving filtered document-like artifact attachments visible. - Preserved the full image attachment set for chat image gallery lookup even when promoted image outputs are hidden from the attachment list. - Added focused tests for output eligibility, glyph labeling, output promotion, attachment filtering, gallery image preservation, and the output section render behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-output.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/components/issue-output/IssueOutputSection.test.tsx` - GitHub PR checks are green on `7d1b80f9702f20ab86cc502bffce599b13f1b088`. - Greptile confidence score is 5/5 and both Greptile review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only affects UI classification of Paperclip artifact work products. The main behavioral risk is an uncommon text-like generated artifact no longer appearing in the Output section; it remains available through the normal attachment/document surfaces. > 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 GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip CodexCoder, with repository tool use and local command execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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] 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
|
a18776c627 |
Narrow IssueDetail hook-order warning assertion
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
63a2b5ba1c | Fix attachment preview test act helpers | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e86d000c7b |
Render rich issue attachment previews
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d9f91576a0 |
Add accepted-plan decomposition exact-once guards and UI state (#6831)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core control-plane loop. > - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse isolated workspaces. > - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition. > - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first: accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable claim state, and retry-safe child creation. > - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to reconstruct child creation from raw activity. > - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive, hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and easier to inspect. ## What Changed - Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to `doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint, durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior. - Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend, including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue routes for creating and listing decomposition state. - Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee. - Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial child recreation under the same fingerprint. - Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the UI. - Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "accepted plan decomposition" server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links. - Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope. ## Risks - This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update; reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match the intended decomposition table. - The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle retries if the claim state machine is wrong. - The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section automatically. - `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize` accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature itself. > Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent; exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context), with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities. <img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05 48 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28" /> ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
012a738729 |
Add ordered sub-issue navigation (#5938)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies through company-scoped issues, comments, and execution context. > - The issue detail page is the board surface where operators and agents inspect a task in its parent/child workflow. > - Ordered sub-issues need a low-friction way to move through work without returning to the parent list after every issue. > - Existing issue detail navigation only covered sibling transitions and did not continue into a parent issue's first ordered child. > - This pull request adds ordered previous/next navigation for issue detail views and extends it to continue from a parent or last sibling into the first direct child. > - The benefit is a smoother review/execution path through hierarchical work while preserving hidden issue filtering and dependency-aware ordering. ## What Changed - Added `IssueSiblingNavigation` and route-state handling so issue detail footers can link to previous/next ordered issues. - Extended sub-issue ordering helpers to build navigation from siblings plus direct children, including root-parent and last-sibling-to-first-child cases. - Added page, component, and library tests for ordered sibling navigation, child fallback navigation, hidden issues, and link rendering. - Fixed the quicklook blur/click race Greptile found by deferring close until after portaled link clicks can complete, with a regression test. - Polished the navigation landmark label so it remains accurate when the next target is a direct child rather than a sibling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueLinkQuicklook.test.tsx src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts src/components/IssueSiblingNavigation.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx --config vitest.config.ts` from `ui/` - 31 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - passed. - `git diff --check` - passed. - GitHub PR checks on latest head `34046be2` - passed: Greptile Review, verify, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, Snyk, and serialized server shards. - Screenshots: not captured in this heartbeat; this PR is a draft and the changed states are covered by focused component/page tests. ## Risks - Low risk; this is a UI navigation addition with no database or API contract changes. - The main behavioral risk is navigation ordering drift if `workflowSort` expectations change later. - The IssueDetail navigation now waits for child issue loading, which avoids stale child fallback links but can delay footer navigation briefly while data loads. > 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 coding agent with repository tool use and shell execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0808b388ee |
[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > 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 coding agent, tool use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window not exposed by the 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
0e1a582831 |
Revert "Add experimental newest-first issue thread" (#5460)
This is actually bad. Glad it was under experiments. |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
a904effb96 |
Add experimental newest-first issue thread (#5455)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so issue threads are a core operator surface for reviewing work. > - The issue detail page is the place where humans read agent messages, user comments, and execution context together. > - That thread originally rendered oldest-first, which made recent activity harder to see during active review. > - Reversing the thread order changes navigation expectations, timestamp placement, and the "Jump to latest" affordance, so the UI behavior needed to move as a coherent set. > - Because this is a visible core-product behavior shift, it also needed a safe rollout path instead of becoming the default immediately. > - This pull request adds the newest-first issue thread behavior behind an Experimental setting, updates the thread UI to match that mode, and keeps the legacy oldest-first experience unchanged by default. > - The benefit is that reviewers can opt into a more recent-first issue workflow without forcing a global behavior change on every Paperclip instance. ## What Changed - Reversed issue thread rendering so the newest comments and messages appear first when the experiment is enabled. - Moved the plain comment timestamp into the card header in newest-first mode and kept the legacy timestamp placement for oldest-first mode. - Moved the `Jump to latest` control to the bottom of the thread in newest-first mode while leaving the existing top placement for the legacy mode. - Added the `Enable Newest-First Issue Thread` experimental instance setting and wired issue detail to read that toggle. - Added regression coverage for thread order, timestamp placement, jump-button placement, and the issue-detail experiment toggle behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Focused checks that also passed during issue review: - `pnpm vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` in `ui/` - `pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` in `server/` - Manual review path: - Enable `Instance Settings > Experimental > Enable Newest-First Issue Thread` - Open an issue with comments/messages and confirm newest activity renders first, timestamps move into the header, and `Jump to latest` sits below the thread - Disable the experiment and confirm the legacy oldest-first behavior returns ## Risks - Low risk: the behavioral change is gated behind an instance-level experimental toggle and defaults off. - The main regression risk is thread navigation drift between the two modes, especially around anchor scrolling and the `Jump to latest` affordance. - There is some UI coupling between issue-detail query state and experimental settings fetches, so future changes in that area should keep both modes covered. - Screenshots are not attached in this PR body; verification is described with automated coverage and manual steps instead. > I checked [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md). This is a scoped issue-thread UX improvement and rollout gate, not a duplicate of a roadmap-level planned core feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via the local `codex_local` Paperclip adapter, GPT-5-based coding agent with terminal tool use and local code execution in this repository worktree. ## 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 - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] 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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a1b30c9f35 |
Add planning mode for issue work (#5353)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail:  Desktop planning row:  Desktop staged standard toggle:  Mobile planning detail:  Mobile planning row:  ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle behavior. > 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 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1fe1067361 |
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting loops. > - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups, backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives. > - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings, issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke tooling. > - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still preserving the full original work. > - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this integration PR last. > - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure changes. ## What Changed - Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings, project workspace detail, and issue detail controls. - Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage. - Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf work pause/resume controls. - Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy. - Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a smoke test script. - Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts` - Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed. - `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill` - Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`. - UI screenshots not included because verification is focused component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces. ## Risks - This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`. - Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last. If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward conflict refresh in shared UI files. - The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`. > 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-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium reasoning effort. ## 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6b7f6ce4b8 |
[codex] Split PR #4692 UI/QoL updates (#4701)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a company-scoped control plane. > - The affected surface is the board UI for issue threads, issue lists, routines, dialogs, navigation, and issue review indicators. > - Closed PR #4692 bundled backend, schema, docs, workflow, and UI/QoL work into one oversized change set. > - Greptile could not keep reviewing that broad PR because it exceeded the 100-file review limit and mixed unrelated concerns. > - This pull request extracts the UI/QoL slice into a fresh branch under the review limit while leaving workflow and lockfile churn out. > - The benefit is a focused review path for the board UI performance and workflow improvements without reopening the oversized PR. ## What Changed - Added long issue-thread virtualization, scroll-container binding, anchor preservation, latest-comment jump targeting, and related regression/perf fixtures. - Improved issue list scalability with scroll-based loading, server offset parameters, and pagination-focused UI tests. - Reduced new issue dialog typing churn and split dialog action subscriptions so broad layout/nav surfaces avoid unnecessary renders. - Added routine variables help and routine description mention options for users, agents, and projects. - Added productivity review badge/link UI and fixed the badge to use Paperclip's company-prefixed router link. - Kept the split PR below Greptile's review limit and excluded `.github/workflows/pr.yml` and `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --no-frozen-lockfile` in the clean worktree to install `@tanstack/react-virtual` locally without committing lockfile churn. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx src/pages/Routines.test.tsx src/pages/Issues.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 83 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed. - Split-scope checks: 53 changed files; no `.github/workflows/pr.yml`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Screenshots were not captured in this heartbeat; the changes are primarily virtualization, routing, pagination, and editor behavior covered by focused regression tests. ## Risks - Moderate UI risk because issue-thread virtualization changes scroll behavior on long conversations; regression tests cover anchor jumps, latest-comment targeting, row metadata, and short-thread fallback. - Moderate integration risk because the issue-list offset parameter and productivity review field depend on matching API behavior. - Dependency risk: the UI package adds `@tanstack/react-virtual` while repository policy keeps `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of PRs, so CI must resolve dependency changes through the repo's normal lockfile policy. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled local repository and GitHub workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness. ## 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
82e257c7ba |
Cancel stale queued heartbeats when issue graph changes (PAP-2314) (#4534)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
df425fde96 |
Present ordered sub-issues as a workflow checklist (#4523)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators use issue detail pages and child issue lists to understand multi-step execution plans. > - Ordered sub-issues currently read like a flat table, so dependency chains and current next steps are harder to scan. > - The branch work adds a workflow-oriented presentation for child issues without changing the single-assignee task model. > - This pull request makes ordered sub-issues read more like a progress checklist while preserving normal issue list controls. > - The benefit is that operators can see completed steps, active work, blocked follow-ups, and dependency order at a glance. ## What Changed - Added workflow sorting utilities and tests for dependency-aware child issue ordering. - Added sub-issue progress summary, checklist numbering, current-step affordances, blocker context, and done-state de-emphasis in the issue list UI. - Wired issue detail sub-issue panels to use the workflow sort/progress checklist presentation. - Updated issue service behavior/tests for child issue ordering inputs used by the UI. - Added a Storybook visual review fixture and screenshot helper for the sub-issue workflow checklist surface. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts ui/src/lib/workflow-sort.test.ts` - Result: 6 test files passed, 55 tests passed, 34 embedded Postgres issue-service tests skipped because `@embedded-postgres/darwin-x64` is unavailable on this host. - Visual review: generated Storybook screenshots from the existing local Storybook server on port 6006 with `node scripts/screenshot-subissues.mjs /tmp/pap-2189-subissues-screens http://localhost:6006`. - Screenshot artifacts: - Desktop dark:  - Desktop light:  - Mobile dark:  - Mobile light:  - Local Storybook note: starting a second Storybook process selected port 6008 because 6006 was occupied, then Vite failed with an esbuild host/binary version mismatch (`0.25.12` host vs `0.27.3` binary). The already-running Storybook server on 6006 served the fixture successfully for screenshots. ## Risks - Medium UI risk: the issue list now has additional sub-issue-specific visual states, so dense lists should be checked for spacing and scanability. - Low ordering risk: workflow sorting is covered by focused unit tests, but unusual dependency topologies may still need reviewer attention. - No migration risk: this PR does not add database migrations or touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`. > 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 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub workflow. Context window is runtime-provided and not exposed in this 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 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
5a0c1979cf | [codex] Add runtime lifecycle recovery and live issue visibility (#4419) | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7ad225a198 |
[codex] Improve issue thread review flow (#4381)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and follow-up work with active runs > - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent work > - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and navigation clunkier than necessary > - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice > - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the broader task model ## What Changed - restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue thread - folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit thread scrolling behavior - surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee notices on the issue detail view - tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList` - added loose review-request handoffs through the issue execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the return assignee with execution_changes_requested"` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` ## Visual Evidence - UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should use the running preview for final visual confirmation. ## Risks - Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff behavior > 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 tool use and code execution in the Codex CLI 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 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 or documented the visual verification path - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f98c348e2b |
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping descendant execution and wake behavior coherent. > - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts, server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc. > - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments` migration. > - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto `paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind. > - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to `0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single PR. > - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration conflicts. ## What Changed - Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree pause, cancel, and restore operations. - Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue detail subtree controls. - Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to `0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream `0065_environments`. - Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200 OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201 Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts` - `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` ## Risks - This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases. - The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream `0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final `0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that lands. - The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could have assumed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not exposed inside this session). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have 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 - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
