mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-19 01:46:15 +02:00
7eea9d8214fec00dfde32bda7fcf9b20a428e330
11
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
b6b3cb3761 |
Fix unavailable workspace branches with an inline repair and retry (#15726)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Isolated workspaces must resolve a starting Git ref before an agent starts. > - A task can explicitly select a branch that the repository does not have. > - The current recovery notice calls this a missing secret and offers no branch repair. > - This pull request explains the branch failure and adds a task-scoped repair action. > - Operators can correct the branch and request a guarded retry from the task thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: Refs #11892 added unresolved-ref recovery. Refs #15719 added bounded failure diagnostics. This change uses that recovery path and adds its operator repair UI. **What happened?** A task that selects `main` in a repository with only `master` stops before the adapter starts. The task shows a missing-secret message and a generic retry. Repeating the run cannot fix the stored branch setting. **Expected behavior** Explain that the starting ref could not be resolved. Offer a verified repository default, or let the operator enter a branch. Save only the task's starting branch and retry its recorded owner through the existing admission gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an isolated-workspace task in a repository with `master` and no `main`. 2. Set the task's base ref to `main` and assign an agent. 3. Wait for the configuration failure. 4. Use the inline branch repair and confirm the agent completes in a worktree based on `master`. ## What Changed - Replace the missing-secret diagnosis for unresolved workspace refs. Keep uncertain fetch/access failures described as uncertain. - Read the remote's advertised default branch with the existing Git credentials and a bounded timeout. Do not guess or silently change the branch. - Add an atomic branch repair to the existing recovery resolution endpoint. Check company access, board runtime permission, incident identity, current owner, task/project state, dependencies, interactions, approvals, budget, and active execution before requesting a retry. - Preserve the effective inherited workspace setup when saving the task branch override, and attach one repair notice per failed run even when the incident is reused. - Bind the shared repair card to the exact recovery notice and failed run in both task-thread renderers. Validate branch syntax and prevent duplicate submissions. - Add Storybook examples, regression tests, and a documented local acceptance fixture with a real Git repository and process adapter. ## Verification - Red/green regressions cover the repair endpoint and preservation of inherited agent setup. The regression failed before each fix and passed afterward. - Focused integration suite: 162 tests passed; task-thread/card suite: 230 passed. After review refinements, all 13 repair-route tests, 10 card tests, 77 recovery-action tests, and the repeated-failure heartbeat regression passed locally. - Real browser acceptance passed for suggested-branch and custom-entry repairs. Invalid syntax left the task blocked. Both valid repairs ran the authenticated worker in a real isolated worktree and reached Done; reload preserved the result. - Repeated failures reused the recovery incident and retained an actionable notice on the latest run. The inherited-setup journey verified the provisioned file, agent branch template, worktree parent directory, and actual Git commit before completing. [Before/after screenshots](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15726#issuecomment-6088734666). - Full local typecheck and build passed; server typecheck passed again after review fixes. Token gates passed. - The monolithic local Vitest run was stopped after resource-contention timeouts and stale assertions. Targeted regressions were rerun; the full CI matrix passed on final revision `26c543ff490bec29ddc77a49ee532c7f84fb96dc`. One signoff E2E worker-cancellation failure passed on a rerun without code changes. The two opt-in Storybook workflow jobs were skipped; the Storybook journey was checked manually. - Repeat the live journey with `tests/e2e/workspace-base-ref/README.md`. Storybook examples use simulated callbacks and are not the live acceptance proof. ## Risks - Default-branch discovery can add up to 10 seconds to an unresolved-ref failure. Lookup failure leaves manual entry available. - A valid branch name can still be absent or inaccessible. The retried workspace preparation remains authoritative and can block again with new evidence. - Retry remains subject to normal admission gates. The repair changes only the task override; it does not alter project or agent defaults. - No database migration or new dependency. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution, repository analysis, and browser testing. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3a726e676f |
feat: enforce private task permissions across execution and data (#10633)
Enforce private task and project access across direct reads, search, execution, files, plugins, live delivery, and sharing mutations. Preserve downward-only sharing, current responsible-user authorization, and audited emergency access. Bind historical draft assets with migration 0314. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9b3fe260ba |
fix(tasks): surface Codex ChatGPT model rejection (#15299)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native Runner runs report provider errors and can also save a structured failure result. > - Codex rejects a model that the user's ChatGPT account cannot use. > - Master now diagnoses this rejection, but the task's compact run data omits its message. The thread can still call it a generic run failure. > - Users need the account restriction and a clear step to repair the model selection. > - This pull request shows the existing diagnosis as “Model unavailable” on the task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Codex returns HTTP 400 with `invalid_request_error` and the message `The 'gpt-6.1-sol' model is not supported when using Codex with a ChatGPT account.` Master now stores an actionable diagnosis for this rejection. The task thread still labels it “Run failed” and does not receive its error text in compact run data. **Expected behavior** Show the account restriction on the task and in the run error. Tell the user to choose a supported model or clear the task's model override before retrying. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a Native Runner Codex agent signed in with a ChatGPT account. 2. Select a model that produces the rejection above and start a task. 3. Let the runner save its generic failed result. Inspect the task's failure marker and recovery notice. **Additional context** Refs: #15304. That merged PR diagnoses the provider failure and preserves worker and review recovery rules. This PR adds its task-facing message and guidance without changing that diagnosis or those rules. Refs: #13134. That PR improves model discovery for ChatGPT accounts. This PR exposes the rejection when a configured model still fails at execution time. ## What Changed - Return a bounded model rejection message in compact issue-run data. - Show “Model unavailable” and model-change guidance in the task thread and recovery notice. - Add database and UI regression tests, including both the original rejection text and master's fixed diagnosis. Document the new failure message. ## Verification - Focused merged-branch validation: 279 tests passed across activity service, native provider failure observation and PostgreSQL integration, TaskChatThread, and ExecutionBlockerNotice. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates` passed on the merged source tree. - Greptile reviewed conflict-resolution commit `1db39c4e636a92e2e76ba224b71c6f1e2f556c81` at 5/5 with no findings or inline comments. - All 55 check runs completed without failure on that commit. The two optional Storybook jobs were skipped. The legacy Snyk status passed. The branch has no merge conflicts. - UI regression assertion: the task's failure marker says “Model unavailable” and retains the account restriction. It no longer says that this failure happened after a final response. ## Risks - Provider recognition and recovery are owned by the existing master implementation. This PR exposes only bounded error text for failed runs with `native_provider_model_rejected`. - Historical runs with the generic `adapter_failed` code are not reclassified. No stored run is rewritten. - Existing retry and reconciliation gates remain in place. No schema migration or model configuration change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
96bf004a79 |
fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. **What happened?** Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. **Expected behavior** Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open **Design previews / Recovery notice** to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show **Agent needs attention**, a plain-language explanation, **Retry agent**, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## 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 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
|
ab15aff390 |
feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution history. > - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task properties. > - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned project tasks. > - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one squash merge. > - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance and shared UI. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid runner tests. **Problem or motivation** Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing controls. **Proposed solution** Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own disabled-by-default experimental setting. **Roadmap alignment** This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat). Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack. Consolidates the reviewed runtime [#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend [#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI [#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes the complete feature. ## What Changed - Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility, immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state. - Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause, and fence old provider context and delayed writes. - Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment, task lists, and rollups. - Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat subtasks. - Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and durable project-created cards. - Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag. - Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots. - Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message, and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls are stopped even if teardown fails. - Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with idempotent replay for development databases. ## Verification - Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build, typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile 5/5 and no unresolved findings. - Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests, all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88 focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server typecheck also passes. Current head `1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry, canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards ([CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)). Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped fixtures do not count as passing coverage. - The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32 screenshots: [report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat). It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head. - Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns are blocked. ## Risks - Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and ordinary task behavior. - Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is idempotent and preserves existing development chat history. - This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from Conference Room. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test subjects in the linked paid campaign. ## 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
|
bf95a7eae2 |
fix(ui): stabilize active-run steering queue (#12834)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue detail page shows a live agent run and accepts follow-up instructions. > - A follow-up must stay in a stable queue until the user sends, reorders, or removes it. > - Native runners can receive a steering event in the active run. > - Legacy runners must interrupt the active run and start a follow-up run. > - The current UI moved comments between the queue and the transcript and could show duplicate text or ambiguous chronology. > - This pull request makes the queue projection durable, keeps each message in one clear place, and labels when queued input was actually steered or delivered. > - The benefit is predictable steering with stable ordering, no duplicate messages, and visible causal timing. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11374. Refs #12591. **What happened?** During an active run, a new follow-up could first appear as a transcript bubble and then move into the steering queue. After a steer or remove action, it could appear again. Progress text could also repeat the final response text. Once consumed, a queued bubble displayed only its original submission time even though it moved to its later causal slot, and a native run split by steering looked like two unrelated runs. **Expected behavior** An active-run follow-up must appear in the queue immediately. A native steer must move it once into the active run. A legacy interrupt must move it once into the follow-up run. A removed item must stay removed. Progress text that is identical to the final response must appear once. Consumed follow-ups must show both queue and steer/delivery times, and post-steer native segments must identify themselves as continuations of the same run. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a long-running task. 2. Send two or more follow-up messages while the agent is active. 3. Reorder the messages and remove one message. 4. Send the first queued message as steering. 5. Observe the queue and transcript during and after both runs. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem reproduced on commit `da1e40302`. **Deployment mode** Local development with the embedded database. ## What Changed - Project queued comments into the steering well for native and legacy live runners. - Send native steering to the active run and use interrupt-and-follow-up for legacy runners. - Keep optimistic queue order stable across refreshes and roll back failed actions. - Remove discarded comments from the transcript cache and keep them removed when the queue becomes empty. - Collapse only the final progress occurrence matching the durable response, including across steered transcript segments. - Show `Queued … · Steered …` for same-run input and `Queued … · Delivered …` for successor-run input at their causal positions. - Label settled and live post-steer segments `Continued after steering` and time them from the steer boundary. - Add regression tests for queue display, steering, fallback interrupt, reorder, remove, rollback, duplicate text, causal timestamps, and live/settled continuation headers. ## Verification - Ran the final focused steering/chronology UI suite with 233 passing tests. - Ran the activity-service regression suite with 5 passing tests. - Ran the broader queue-focused UI suite with 298 passing tests before the final chronology refinement. - Ran `pnpm -r typecheck` successfully. - Ran `pnpm build` successfully. - Ran `pnpm check:token-gates` successfully. - Tested native steering in a real browser with a 90-second baseline wait and a three-second steering correction. - Confirmed that the old final response did not appear before the steered response. - Tested three queued messages in a real browser. - Confirmed that reorder changed delivery order and that the removed message was never sent or shown again. - Tested a legacy runner in a real browser. - Confirmed that it used the interrupt fallback and showed the follow-up once. - Reloaded a saved mixed-steer/successor-run thread and confirmed the causal timestamps and continuation header render in the correct positions. - The complete macOS suite reaches five unrelated platform assertions in workspace-runtime tests. Two compare `/var` with `/private/var`. Three require Linux `/proc` listener data. GitHub Actions provides the authoritative Linux run. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is limited to issue-chat queue projection and transcript presentation. - The server run-history API adds only a read-only `contextIssueId` projection; the database schema does not change. - Optimistic actions restore the prior UI state when a request fails. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, extended reasoning, browser automation, shell tools, 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 - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
88ce6d3575 |
Speed up issue detail payloads (#9125)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators spend a lot of time in issue detail pages and agent activity views while supervising work > - Those views were receiving large embedded project, workspace, runtime-service, and heartbeat context payloads > - Large payloads make issue comments and page loads slower, especially on active issues with workspaces and runtime metadata > - This pull request trims the issue detail and activity ledger response shapes to the fields those views need > - The benefit is faster issue detail loading without changing the underlying project, workspace, or run persistence model ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this exact problem, so this PR describes the bug inline using the bug report template fields. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip (or can reproduce on `master`). - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself — not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? Issue detail and related activity responses could include bulky embedded metadata such as project environment values, workspace metadata, stopped runtime services, and heartbeat context snapshots. On active issues with workspaces and long activity history, that makes issue comments and page loads slower than needed. ### Expected behavior Issue detail endpoints should return bounded, UI-oriented embeds that avoid shipping large or sensitive internal blobs when the full object graph is not needed. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create or open an issue with a project workspace and execution workspace. 2. Ensure the workspace has runtime services and heartbeat runs with context snapshots. 3. Inspect `GET /api/issues/:id` and the issue activity ledger payloads. 4. Observe that the response includes large embedded project/workspace/runtime/run fields unrelated to rendering the issue detail page. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against current `master` lineage before this change. ### Deployment mode Local dev / server API behavior. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific (core API payload shape). ### Database mode Not database-related; no migration. ### Access context Board and agent-facing issue detail consumers can both benefit from smaller payloads. ### Node.js version Not version-specific. ### Operating system Not OS-specific. ### Relevant logs or output Not applicable. ### Relevant config (if applicable) Not applicable. ### Additional context Related search: - Searched public GitHub issues for `currentExecutionWorkspace metadata runtimeServices issue detail`; no matching issue found. - Searched public GitHub PRs for `compact currentExecutionWorkspace metadata runtimeServices`; no matching PR found. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII (usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, company names) and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added compact response shaping for issue detail project, project workspace, execution workspace, and runtime-service embeds. - Dropped large project `env`, workspace `metadata` / embedded runtime service lists, execution workspace `metadata`, and non-active runtime services from `GET /api/issues/:id` responses. - Removed heartbeat `contextSnapshot` from the activity ledger query result. - Added focused route and activity-service tests covering the compact response shape. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `git diff --check public/master..HEAD` - Confirmed the branch is based on current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and contains no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The persisted data model is unchanged, but consumers relying on the full embedded project/workspace/runtime metadata from `GET /api/issues/:id` will now need to fetch the dedicated resource endpoint instead of depending on the issue detail payload. > 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 with repository file access, shell command execution, GitHub connector usage, and local test execution. Context window and exact hosted model variant 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) - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
5a0c1979cf | [codex] Add runtime lifecycle recovery and live issue visibility (#4419) | ||
|
Dotta
|
09d0678840 |
[codex] Harden heartbeat scheduling and runtime controls (#4223)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state > - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without stranding work > - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and operator-facing run state > - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts, migrations, and runtime status semantics > - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work > - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls, and more predictable recurring execution behavior ## What Changed - Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and Codex transient failure recovery handling. - Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and activity/dashboard bounds. - Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue workspace runtime management. - Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and `0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`. - Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared types synchronized. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server` ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch, which are central execution paths. - Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields. - Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed. > 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 runtime, shell/git tool use enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip heartbeat 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
236d11d36f |
[codex] Add run liveness continuations (#4083)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of each agent execution window. > - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still holding useful next-step state. > - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path to be durable and visible. > - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers. > - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff. ## What Changed - Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking, and an idempotent `0058` migration. - Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill. - Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context through shared adapter utilities. - Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness continuation state. - Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run ledger, with component tests. - Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance, onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation behavior. - Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run, excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence, importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts, documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness backfill off the request path. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a plan document update"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity service|treats a plan document update"` - Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and Snyk all passed. - Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after fetching `public-gh master`. - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff. - Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after `0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application. - Greptile inline review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery, activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI. - Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent guards. - Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the background backfill completes. - UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass; validation is currently through focused component tests. > 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-5.4, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git, GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API access. ## 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 Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7f893ac4ec |
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep regressions visible > - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area > - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch overlapping issue APIs > - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat, telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting ## What Changed - Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and blocked-to-todo wake resumption - Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads, compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces - Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material - Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation from local state, and repo verification follow-ups - Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were dropped during branch reconstruction ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` - `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they are noted as environment-limited ## Risks - Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow rather than isolated UI polish - Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure modes and not just reshaping harness behavior ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning enabled, tool use and local code execution 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) - [ ] 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> |