1 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Dotta	e122478368	test(evals): run and record the chat completion pilot through TestOps (#18516) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip evals must verify real user outcomes. > - A passing manual pilot does not make its cases runnable from TestOps. > - The existing TestOps adapter owns one separate backlog case. > - The three-case completion pilot needs its own exact selection and reporting path. > - This workflow binds a real TestOps job run to reviewed catalog source and AWS execution. > - Results retain their original verdict, checks, source and private evidence. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18364, #18377, #18515 and #18509. This is the main-side companion to merged #18515. The immutable evaluated source is its actual integration-branch squash merge, `de0941835cc8f0d01c982574ee258e110babdbeb`; its tree matches the reviewed catalog head. The host admission remains inert until this main-only workflow exists. The broader catalog stays off master. The existing TestOps connection can run only the separate backlog cell. The project-work, project-defaults and instance-restart cases currently require manual campaign dispatch and private retrieval. This change creates a dedicated reusable TestOps plan and records fresh execution outcomes there. Source checks and registration do not establish a new live pass. ## What Changed - Add a default-branch-only workflow with exact TestOps selection, immutable source/build outputs, serial AWS execution and zero eval retries. No source/model/budget selector is accepted. - Register the three exact reusable cases and a separate plan with the existing reviewed GitHub integration. Preserve opaque job definitions. Validate the observed single Branch/defaultValue carrier, PATCH only enable/integration, and use the job’s default branch without rewriting its definition or adding plan overrides. Fence the initial operator launch by actual GitHub run number and nonce; normal TestOps Run remains repeatable. - Reuse the existing private-evidence authority, scanners, bounds and exact-key S3 policies. Authenticated selection supplies only this original attempt's exact source and case identity. The three trusted protocol files are unchanged. - Skip report retrieval after an unsuccessful build or skipped execution; retain evidence and failed grades when evaluation actually ran. - Check out trusted main after the target in both build and execution jobs, and reject any target tree containing the reserved trusted-helper path. A real temporary-Git-tree regression exercises the actual YAML guard. - Keep reporting credentials in separate protected jobs. Export only closed verdict/check/accounting metadata and private-evidence receipts to TestOps. Verify final PNGs privately and record their checksums; keep all screenshot bytes in protected AWS storage and out of public GitHub artifacts. Preserve failed grades and failed cleanup. - Verify actual same-run case results and complete result-owned attachment metadata within a fixed processing window. Missing or inherited attachments never qualify. Keep source/result links and stable case identities. ## Verification - 68 dispatch, selection, registration and readback controls pass. A checkout-boundary regression fails on the old ordering, accepts an ordinary target and rejects a candidate-owned helper tree before trusted checkout. They cover real workflow environment wiring, actual GitHub metadata guards, exact subset selection, wrong sources/cases/jobs, replays and attachment readiness. - 38 exporter controls pass, including the existing backlog exporter and the unchanged private-evidence authority consumer. Red/green controls prove project work accepts the catalog’s 1–3 run range in both export gates, while 0/4 runs are rejected; the actual pinned-source control verifies all three cases’ run bounds. Cancelled, failed and scheduled TestOps job stages are rejected even with complete results. The three new cases retain all 35 independent checks; private diagnostics and all image bytes are excluded from the public artifact. Extra media files and directories are rejected. - The actual checked-in workflow environment is exercised against the actual pinned source matrix and host function for all three cases before provider access. Local fixture controls make zero provider calls and do not claim live AWS qualification. - All 71 workflow-policy controls pass. Actionlint and owning typecheck pass. Relevant TypeScript build dependencies pass. - Full support suite: 5,827 passed, 13 failed, four skipped. A clean unchanged-master baseline reproduces all 13 failures in the same five files. They include fixture expectation drift, operating-receipt fixtures, a profile pin, pnpm bootstrap counts and local database startup. This change updates the exact TestOps workflow registries; the two affected boundary controls now pass. Baseline failures remain retained and are not presented as a green full support suite. - The catalog dependency passed CI and current-head 5/5 review, has no unresolved threads, and is merged. All current-head CI checks pass; both Greptile and Paperclip reviews are 5/5, with no unresolved threads. No new TestOps mutation, provider call or passing launch is claimed yet. A fresh three-case TestOps launch and verified server-side results remain the delivery gate. ## Risks This is a paid execution and reporting boundary. The new workflow accepts only trusted default-branch actor identities and a verified project/plan/job/case selection. Its evaluated source is immutable and separate from main reporting code. The full catalog is not promoted. Screenshots, raw evidence and hidden provider data stay in protected storage. Public GitHub artifacts carry only the closed metadata projection. TestOps receives checks and private-evidence availability/checksum receipts. Unknown setup or AWS accounting stays unknown. One passing launch will not establish full-catalog reliability. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution and tool use. Exact hosted revision and context-window size are not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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	2026-11-01 06:09:47 -06:00