mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-20 15:09:57 +02:00
7eea9d8214fec00dfde32bda7fcf9b20a428e330
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
45dfb183b6 |
fix(ui): add undo action to inbox archive toast (#11220)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps operators supervise AI-agent work. > - The Mine inbox keeps tasks that need an operator's attention in one place. > - Operators can archive a task from its detail page after they finish triage. > - That action is easy to select accidentally and did not offer immediate recovery. > - This pull request adds Undo to the archive success toast and keeps inbox caches consistent. > - The benefit is fast recovery without searching for or reopening the task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Archiving a task from the Mine inbox removed it and showed a success toast with no recovery action. **Expected behavior** The success toast should offer Undo. Selecting Undo should restore the task through the existing unarchive API while preserving a consistent inbox view. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task from the Mine inbox. 2. Select the archive action. 3. Observe that the task leaves the inbox and the success toast has no Undo action. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local dev, built from source. Related prior work: #9931 and #10668. ## What Changed - Add an Undo action to the successful inbox archive toast. - Optimistically restore the task in captured inbox query caches before the unarchive request completes. - Cancel in-flight inbox fetches and clear the local archive guard so stale responses cannot hide the restored task. - Reapply the archive guard and remove the cached task if the unarchive request fails. - Add regression tests for successful Undo, the in-flight cache race, and failed Undo rollback behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/lib/inboxArchiveCache.test.ts` — 51 tests passed on the final head. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — the general server and UI groups passed. One CLI doctor assertion detected injected host AWS credentials and passed all 8 tests with those unrelated variables unset. A task-watchdog scheduler test also passed all 18 tests in isolation after one full-suite timing failure. ## Risks Low risk. The change uses the existing unarchive endpoint and inbox cache helpers. Undo failure returns the task to its archived state, shows an error toast, and invalidates the inbox queries for server reconciliation. > 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, model ID GPT-5. The service manages the context window. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were 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 - [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
|
ec84eb7342 |
fix(ui): defer Inbox re-sort to attention boundaries (#10623)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Inbox lists work items by recent activity. > - An archive changes activity data and can change the computed order. > - The list can then move rows under the pointer during a fast archive sequence. > - The Inbox must keep its shown order while the operator is engaged. > - This pull request adopts fresh order only at an idle, visibility, or view-change boundary. > - The benefit is a stable Inbox that still receives fresh data and new items. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** The Inbox re-sorts while an operator archives items quickly. An archive can lower a parent group's activity time. Unrelated rows then move, and the row under the pointer can change. **Expected behavior** Keep the shown order stable while the operator works in the Inbox. Insert new items at their computed positions. Adopt a fresh order after an idle period, after a long hidden-tab interval, or when the view changes. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open the Inbox on the Mine tab with several items, including nested items. 2. Archive several items quickly with the pointer or keyboard. 3. Observe rows move before the archive sequence is complete. **Deployment mode** Any deployment. This change affects only the web UI. **Additional context** This PR supersedes the closed subset PR #10621. It keeps the full change in one review. ## What Changed - Added an order-pin utility for sections, root rows, non-issue items, and nested children. - Kept archived rows in place for the existing five-second undo interval. - Added an attention-boundary hook for idle, visibility, and view-change commits. - Connected pointer, wheel, hover, keyboard, and archive interactions to the idle boundary. - Made idle commits repeat while the Inbox stays idle. - Made view changes adopt the fresh order in the same render. - Added unit and integration coverage for order pins and attention boundaries. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/hooks/useInboxSortAttention.test.tsx ui/src/lib/inboxOrderPin.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 33 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 3,429 tests passed, 2 skipped, and 1 unrelated server test failed. The isolated failure expects `issue_commented` but current master records `heartbeat.scheduling_suppressed` in `plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts`. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is client-only and does not change the sort algorithm. - A bad pin can show an old order until the next boundary. The tests cover repeated idle commits and immediate view 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, tool use, and code execution for the implementation. - OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5`), reasoning, tool use, and code execution for PR preparation and verification. The serving snapshot, context-window size, and hidden reasoning configuration were 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
59eee4829c |
fix(inbox): stop archived items from resurfacing (#9931)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to coordinate AI-agent companies and review work needing attention. > - The Inbox is the operator-facing surface that aggregates tasks requiring attention across server state and shared client polling. > - Archiving a task optimistically removed it, but ordinary background activity and stale polling responses could make it reappear seconds later. > - The server therefore needs to distinguish genuine user-attention events from routine agent/system activity. > - The client also needs a bounded local archive guard across every Inbox query path while the server mutation and in-flight polls settle. > - This pull request fixes both resurrection paths and adds race-focused regression coverage. > - The benefit is stable archive behavior without hiding a genuine archive failure after reconciliation or reload. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] Searched existing open and closed issues and pull requests; no duplicate implementation was found. - [x] Reproduced on `master` before this branch. - [x] Confirmed this is a Paperclip core bug, not adapter or provider behavior. ### What happened? Archiving an Inbox task hid it optimistically, then background refresh activity could insert it back into the list seconds later. ### Expected behavior A successfully archived task remains hidden during normal polling. A genuine failed archive may become visible again after reconciliation or reload. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open Inbox with a visible task. 2. Archive the task. 3. Wait for shared polling or routine agent activity to refresh task data. 4. Observe the archived task reappear without a hard page refresh. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` before this branch. ### Deployment mode Built from source using the local development application. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core Inbox bug. ### Database mode Not database-mode-specific. ### Access context Board (human operator). ### Additional context The failure had independent server and client causes: routine activity could resurface archived rows server-side, while stale shared-poll responses could bypass optimistic client removal. ## What Changed - Restrict server-side Inbox resurfacing to explicit user-attention events rather than any issue activity write. - Add a bounded client-side archive guard with confirmation, failure restoration, and cache reconciliation behavior. - Apply the guard to Inbox rendering, badge counts, optimistic cache updates, and shared-poll result application. - Classify the generic compact Inbox query so stale shared-poll data cannot bypass the guard. - Add server visibility-matrix tests and UI race-condition regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/hooks/useSharedPolling.test.ts src/lib/inboxArchiveCache.test.ts src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 25 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — 107 passed. - Branch rebased cleanly onto current `origin/master` before push. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: resurfacing is intentionally narrower, so the server tests cover human comments, mentions, interactions, and status transitions that must still regain attention. - The client guard is bounded and cleared on mutation failure, limiting the risk of hiding a task whose archive did not persist. - No schema, migration, public API, workflow, dependency-lock, or visual-token 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 - Anthropic Claude via Claude Code (`claude_local`; prior implementation/review run, exact underlying model ID and context window were not retained in the handoff metadata), with repository tool use and test execution. - OpenAI `gpt-5.5` via Codex CLI for final review repair and PR preparation, with reasoning, repository editing, GitHub tooling, 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/described the result 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 task identifier - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation where needed; no documentation change is required for this bug fix - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip-authored commits include the required co-author trailer --------- 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. |