mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-04 11:01:16 +01:00
78f4c4f5e6df1cdc04dbf8e2fd06c08f2eb35d25
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 scotttongandClaude Opus 5
|
8f69e0af9d |
fix(ui): confirm every copy action (#13603)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Much of the work means moving an opaque value somewhere else: an
agent id, a callback URL, a webhook secret, an error payload for a bug
report
> - Copy buttons all over the app do that, and most already say whether
it worked — an icon that flips to a check, a label that reads "Copied"
> - Eleven did not. They passed the promise to `.catch(() => {})` and
showed nothing at all
> - A copy that says nothing looks exactly like a copy the browser
refused, and the only way to tell is to paste somewhere and look
> - The clipboard really does refuse: over plain HTTP on a non-secure
host the async Clipboard API is unavailable, and the fallback can still
fail
> - This pull request gives every copy action an affordance, through two
shared hooks
> - The benefit is that a person can tell a copy from a failure without
leaving the page
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Eleven copy buttons gave no feedback. They called `copyTextToClipboard`
and discarded the result:
```
onClick={() => void copyTextToClipboard(robotEmail).catch(() => {})}
```
Nothing changes on screen, whether the write succeeded or failed. This
is the same surface where most other copy buttons do show a check or a
"Copied" label, so the silent ones read as broken.
**Expected behavior**
Every copy action says whether the clipboard took the value. A rejected
write says so rather than staying silent or claiming success.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open the connector setup flow for an app that shows a sharing email
or a callback URL.
2. Press **Copy** next to that value.
3. Before this change nothing on screen changes. Compare with the copy
button on a login panel, which flips to a check.
4. To see the failure case, open Paperclip over plain HTTP on a
non-localhost host, where the async Clipboard API is not available.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`45586170e` on `master`.
**Deployment mode**
Local.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific (core bug).
**Additional context**
Commit `1fa36be35` moved every copy through `lib/clipboard.ts`, so the
call sites are findable. Of 62 call sites, 51 already showed feedback
and 11 did not.
## What Changed
- New `ui/src/lib/use-copy-action.ts` with two hooks:
- `useCopyAction` for a control that stays on screen. It returns
`copied` and `failed` for the inline swap the rest of the app already
uses, and resets itself.
- `useCopyToast` for a menu item, which unmounts with its menu before an
inline state could be read, so its confirmation goes to the toast
viewport.
- Both wait for the write to resolve before reporting success, and both
report a rejection as a failure. `AdapterLoginChrome.test.tsx` already
held that line for one button; the helper now makes it the default.
- The eleven silent sites now use one of the two: the connector setup
flow's sharing-email and callback-URL buttons, the runner inspector's
copy-value and copy-path buttons, the agent bubble and skill studio menu
items, annotation "Copy link" on both its hosts, both secret-error
detail buttons, the chat webhook secret, and the motion tweak panel's
export box.
- The chat webhook secret follows its own file's convention: a label
that reads "Webhook secret copied", matching the manifest buttons beside
it.
- The 51 sites that already had feedback are untouched. Converting them
would be a large diff with no visible change.
- `clipboard-usage.test.ts` gains a static check, sibling to the one
that already keeps copies on the shared helper. It fails if a new copy
site ships with no affordance.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run ui/src/lib/use-copy-action.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/clipboard-usage.test.ts ui/src/lib/clipboard.test.ts
ui/src/components/AdapterLoginChrome.test.tsx` — 18 tests pass.
- The new hook tests cover the three cases that matter: no confirmation
while the write is still in flight, a failure state on a rejected write,
and a return to rest after the reset delay. The toast hook is covered
for both tones.
- `npx vitest run ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx
ui/src/components/task-chat ui/src/components/RunnerInspector.test.tsx
ui/src/components/DocumentAnnotation` — the suites over the touched
components pass.
- `npx tsc -b ui` — clean.
## Risks
Low. Each change is additive at its own call site and the copy path
itself is unchanged. The static check is the only part that touches
future contributors: it is one assertion, and its pattern list is easy
to extend or drop.
## Model Used
Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context, extended thinking, with
tool use and code 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
- [ ] 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: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
scotttong
|
815e49bb7c | feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101) | ||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
ea83c5c822 |
feat(task-chat): bring back copy/👍/👎 actions on the agent bubble footer (#11025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task view shows a threaded conversation between the user and the agent, with agent replies rendered as bubbles that carry a "✓ Worked · N tools" summary line. > - The conference-room chat already offers per-message copy and thumbs-up / thumbs-down feedback, but the redesigned task thread dropped these controls from the agent bubble footer. > - Users lose a quick way to copy an agent reply or send feedback on it, and the redesign silently ignored the feedback-vote props it was already given. > - This pull request prepends a copy · thumbs-up · thumbs-down cluster to the bubble summary line and wires the existing feedback-vote props through. > - The benefit is a consistent feedback surface across both chat views, with no new API. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change; the underlying issue is described inline below following the feature template (`.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feature_request.yml`). #### Problem or motivation The redesigned task thread renders each agent reply with a "✓ Worked · N tools · <timestamp>" summary line, but it dropped the copy and thumbs-up / thumbs-down controls that the conference-room chat still shows. Users can no longer copy an agent reply or vote feedback from the task thread. The redesign component already received `feedbackVotes` and `onVote` props but ignored them. #### Proposed solution Prepend a copy · 👍 · 👎 cluster to the summary line, leading the always-visible timestamp, reusing the shared `IssueChatFeedbackButtons` so both chat views speak the same feedback language. Anchor the cluster to the turn's summary row (a sibling of the expandable tool-history fold) so it stays on the summary line whether the tool history is collapsed or expanded. #### Alternatives considered Placing the cluster inside the expandable fold — rejected because expanding the tool history then re-centered the actions to the middle of the tall fold. #### Roadmap alignment UI polish to the task thread; no core-roadmap overlap. ## What Changed - Add `TaskChatBubbleActions`: a copy · thumbs-up · thumbs-down cluster built on the shared `IssueChatFeedbackButtons`. - Render the cluster on the agent bubble's "✓ Worked · …" summary line, leading the timestamp; runless agent replies get the same cluster with the timestamp trailing. Human and system bubbles are unchanged. - Add a `leading` slot to `TaskChatTurn` so the actions sit on the summary row, a sibling of the tool-history fold, and stay anchored when the fold expands. - Wire the redesign to the `feedbackVotes` / `onVote` props it already received. - Add a demo binding in the `TaskChatLab` dev harness. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN. - `pnpm typecheck` — clean across all packages. - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run src/components/task-chat/TaskChatBubble.test.tsx src/components/task-chat/TaskChatTurn.test.tsx` — 31/31 pass. - Manual: open a task thread, confirm the copy / 👍 / 👎 cluster shows on the agent bubble summary line before the timestamp, copy works, votes toggle, and the cluster stays on the summary line when the tool history is expanded. Visual change: snapshot baselines are intentionally not updated, per the `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md` entry "Per-change snapshot verification demoted to dormant (Jul 13 2026)". ## Risks Low risk. UI-only change scoped to the redesigned task-chat bubble footer. It reuses an existing shared feedback component and existing vote props; no API, schema, or server change. Human and system bubbles are untouched. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-4-8`, extended thinking enabled, tool use. ## 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: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |