mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
8b84ae5b35ee704fb8b8c786b8f9ae9bf6cccf68
511
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
df984cbc2c |
fix: dispatch queued legacy messages with operator identity and task permissions (#13315)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations save messages that arrive during an active turn. > - Legacy adapters deliver these messages in a later turn. > - A run can stop before the saved queue is delivered. > - The Interrupt button previously required an active run, so it could not release this queue. > - This pull request lets a board operator send the saved queue after the run stops and retries queues missed during finalization. > - Manual dispatch must use the clicking operator and must not require permission to create agents. > - The task can continue without a duplicate message or a second execution owner. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A legacy task retained a queued message after its run stopped. Interrupt was disabled because the queue had no active target. Finalization and deferred message admission can also leave a queue without a successor. **Expected behavior** Interrupt sends the saved messages when no runner is active. Messages that arrive during normal completion are delivered automatically. An uncertain previous execution still requires proof that its process or sandbox stopped. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Queue a user message during a legacy conversation turn. 2. Let the turn stop or simulate a server restart before queue promotion. 3. Open the task with a deferred queue and no active run. 4. Try Interrupt. Before this change, the button is disabled. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against `8f40b4ad4`. **Deployment mode** Legacy conversation adapter. The same persisted queue state is covered with an isolated PostgreSQL fixture. Related public work: #13275 adds active legacy interruption. #13291 addresses automatic sandbox conversation recovery. This change handles explicit saved-queue delivery and late queue promotion. ## What Changed - Accept a null Interrupt target while retaining queue identity, revision, company, and assignee checks. - Save the operator's request on the existing queue. Reuse normal admission after verified stop, including older messages, different authors, and queues whose original wake came from the system. - Strip interruption authority from caller-supplied wake payloads. Only the board queue route can persist that authority. - Retry durable interruption requests after restart and deferred queues after legacy cleanup. - Let an explicit Interrupt retry cleanup for its stopped run, including old ephemeral leases that recorded success without a provider stop receipt. Preserve retained resources, other lease owners, and the automatic retry limit. - Preserve the server's waiting explanation when normalizing and combining queue entries. - Revalidate the consumed board queue receipt at dispatch so a different message author does not cause setup failure. - Use the Interrupt user's execution identity for the new run. Preserve original message authors. Validate the receipt independently at startup and inherit the resulting identity on retry. - Persist authenticated board authority for ordinary manual wakes too. Adopting someone else's queued messages cannot switch a manual run to that author's permissions. Strip caller-supplied authority markers and retain private conversation ownership checks. - Keep the clicking user when a manual wake is merged into an older deferred receipt. Update its requester and payload in the same transaction. - Use the same current-queue/revision API on task details and pipeline conversations; show Interrupt after a legacy target stops. - Keep manual wakes out of active runs, including unscoped agent wakes. They receive their own execution identity; a matching receipt requester is not sufficient because an exact retry can retain a different originating identity. - Authorize both existing-agent wake endpoints with `agent:wake`, available to active non-viewer company members. Keep `agents:create` for hiring. Validate the stored task and current assignee before an exact task retry. - Reject viewer Interrupt requests before saving intent or stopping execution. Keep external chat retry authorization and per-action agent/user permission checks. - Preserve edits and discards until dispatch. Prevent another queue promotion when the same agent already has a successor. Keep independent reviewer recovery available. - Suppress cancelled/failed run toasts for intentional operator interruption. Keep ordinary runtime error notices. - Add UI, route, admission, restart, successor ownership, and toast regression tests. Document the behavior. - Reuse the existing socket reservation helper for both credential-quorum test cases after CI exposed an ambient-port collision. This changes test preparation only; production credential staging is still called exactly once. ## Verification - Failing regression tests reproduced the message-author identity bug and an operator's `agents:create` rejection before the fixes. - All 316 focused tests pass across eight route, queue, identity, authorization, continuation, and responsible-user suites, including the 44-test rerun of queue admission and actual startup after the final manual-wake restriction. Regressions reproduce cross-user merging both with and without a task, and same-requester receipt ambiguity. The cross-company existence guard also passes both tests. - Startup integration tests reach adapter execution under the clicking operator and retain that identity through follow-up. Coverage includes mixed authors, adopted queues, system-origin queues, restarts, forged or stale receipts, viewers, suspended memberships, changed assignees, private conversations, and caller-supplied authority markers. - The earlier queue/cleanup/UI regression suite passed 402 tests. The final review corrections pass another 180 tests across queue admission/persistence, real heartbeat startup, UI API, conversation rendering, and pipeline suites. Regression tests reproduced both review findings before correction. The final head has a 5/5 review with no unresolved threads. Full CI passes on `c2002979c`, including every general and serialized server shard, all browser shards, Paperclip Runner verification, typecheck, build, canary dry run, and the aggregate gates. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and UI token gates pass after the final application changes. CI identified an outdated task-page API mock after the shared helper extraction; the fixture now exercises the real helper, and all 131 task-page/API tests pass. The final application build passes with the additional manual-wake restriction. - CI exposed a pre-existing port collision in the Codex credential-quorum fixture. It reproduced locally; both listener cases now use the existing bounded reservation helper. All 41 credential tests pass on rerun. One intervening local run hit a separate ambient bind collision in the two-occupied-port case. - The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was stopped after host contention caused focused-suite timeouts. The affected focused tests passed on rerun. An expiring trace fixture and a missing private-conversation state were corrected. The successful full CI run is the complete-suite verification. - Hosted Interrupt previously cleared the original queue and produced exactly one successor with neutral interruption feedback. It exposed the dispatch authorization defect. Retry on that earlier build was rejected for missing `agents:create` before creating another run. - Deployed the final application build (`38257f391`) to the scoped hosted instance and verified readiness. The latest PR commit changes only the credential test fixture; application code matches that deployment. A live Retry by the same operator without `agents:create` created one successor attributed to that operator, passing the former dispatch permission gate. Startup then stopped at `configuration_incomplete` because that operator has not configured their required personal Claude Code OAuth secret; the post-deployment run page confirms the operator identity and no provider work started, and the My secrets UI still shows the token as not set. Provider execution remains unverified pending that credential. No permission grants or credentials were changed. ## Risks Queue admission and finalization can race. The task lock, durable queue receipt, current comment IDs, and successor guard prevent duplicate dispatch. Process and lease stop checks, task pauses, approvals, ownership, and budgets remain in force. The API change only allows null on legacy Interrupt; native steering still requires an active run. No schema migration is required. Active non-viewer board members can now invoke existing agents without agent-creation permission. Agent self-invocation rules, raw provider-trace admin access, task retry scope, external chat authorization, and action-specific user/agent permissions remain enforced. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The session does not expose an exact backend model ID or context-window size. Used reasoning, repository search, code execution, tests, and browser tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` 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
|
8d6232e7b0 |
feat: reuse provider sign-in across AI connection workflows (#13248)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Users connect provider accounts during onboarding and agent setup. > - They should reuse and manage those accounts through the existing Connectors interface. > - A second login wizard would diverge from the established provider workflows. > - This pull request composes the existing sign-in components into Connections and agent configuration. > - Users can select accounts without changing their agent's harness or model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** AI credentials are configured separately from Connections. Agents cannot consistently reuse a responsible user's account or a permitted shared account. **Proposed solution** Manage AI accounts with the existing Connections grants and permissions. Keep model and harness selection independent from credential selection. Preserve legacy authentication until validated adoption. **Alternatives considered** A separate credential registry would duplicate ownership and access policy. Automatic fallback would risk using the wrong account. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the shipped Apps, multi-user, secrets, and agent-runtime capabilities. The maintainer requested the feature and reviewed the UI. Related groundwork: #11899 (connection permissions), #10910 (connection wizard), #11692 (Claude subscription profiles), and #11854 (Codex account rotation). ## What Changed - Add compact AI-account management to the existing Connectors pages. - Reuse AgentProviderConnection, AdapterLoginPanel, AdapterLoginChrome, and authentication controllers. - Add the shared connection picker to agent setup/settings and task requests. - Preserve onboarding's sequence and reuse existing accounts. - Add local-login recovery, retry, cancellation, and React StrictMode handling. - Add interactive Storybook scenarios, design-guide examples, and app acceptance checks. This is part 2 of the AI Connections change. The runtime foundation in #13247 is merged. This PR now targets master. ## Verification - Updated against master `47ded8bf9`, including the landed runtime foundation and upstream task-search changes. - Full workspace typecheck, production build, Storybook build, and token gates passed on the integrated branch. Final local-login changes passed 59 focused tests; new-agent and inbox regression suites passed 63 tests. - Browser checks verified automatic local Claude account detection, resumable Codex login commands, retry, focus restoration, and desktop/phone layouts. Commands create their isolated directory before invoking the CLI. - All CI test, browser, build, packaging, and runner jobs passed on final head `dd17d3211931dd70aaa6ea619d83a7f9966dd18e`. The fresh Greptile review is 5/5, the security scan passed, and there are no unresolved review threads. The final CI aggregate gates passed. - Local general-server coverage passed 11,804 tests; three port-collision failures passed in an isolated 25-test rerun. All 6,111 UI tests passed. CLI coverage passed 484 tests; its remaining doctor test requires port 3199, which is occupied by an unrelated report server on this Mac. The complete CLI suite passed in CI. - Live browser testing verified Codex API-key reconnect inside a task card on desktop and phone. Real provider runs resumed and completed with unchanged connection/grant identity and agent routing. - Tested opening, cancelling, reopening, and completing connection creation. A regression confirms Connect another account cannot submit the new-agent form or copy provider keys into agent settings. - Added shared inline repair, automatic local sign-in checks, and responsive connection dialogs. Standalone Daytona installation ignores workspace configuration and suppresses dependency scripts. Its standalone build also passed with CI's exact pnpm 9.15.4. - Destructive live tests are excluded by default. Explicit opt-in, local deployment checks, and matching disposable fixture identities are required before any mutation. ## Risks - Local Codex/Grok creation requires the connection-specific terminal login command. - Browser sign-in uses the existing supported-environment controllers. - This update verifies live local Claude detection and Codex API-key task repair. New subscription authorization/refresh and independent-human/native-runner isolation were not reverified in this update. - No agent automatically adopts managed Connections. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact runtime model identifier 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
|
47ded8bf97 |
feat: manage AI runtime credentials through Connections (#13247)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs need credentials for a specific provider and sign-in method. > - Connections already owns accounts, grants, and access permissions. > - AI authentication should use those same boundaries. > - This pull request adds the storage, API, adoption, and runtime foundation. > - Legacy agents keep their authentication until they explicitly adopt a managed connection. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** AI credentials are configured separately from Connections. Agents cannot consistently reuse a responsible user's account or a permitted shared account. **Proposed solution** Manage AI accounts with the existing Connections grants and permissions. Keep model and harness selection independent from credential selection. Preserve legacy authentication until validated adoption. **Alternatives considered** A separate credential registry would duplicate ownership and access policy. Automatic fallback would risk using the wrong account. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the shipped Apps, multi-user, secrets, and agent-runtime capabilities. The maintainer requested the feature and reviewed the UI. Related groundwork: #11899 (connection permissions), #10910 (connection wizard), #11692 (Claude subscription profiles), and #11854 (Codex account rotation). ## What Changed - Add AI-purpose/runtime-auth contracts and an additive, idempotent migration. - Add Claude, OpenAI, OpenRouter, and Grok provider capabilities and catalog entries. - Store credentials on grants. Resolve responsible-user defaults or explicit permitted grants. - Isolate managed credentials and provider sessions across accounts. Block missing credentials without ambient fallback. - Keep imported legacy secrets unchanged during reconnect. Use independent local Codex/Grok sign-in attempts for rotating credentials. - Add authorization, migration, concurrent refresh, retry, cancellation, and legacy-compatibility tests. This is part 1 of a two-PR stack. The app UI follows in #13248. Merge the foundation first. ## Verification - Updated against master `04e364236`, preserving upstream provider login and connector workflows. - Full workspace typecheck, production build, Storybook build, and token gates passed on the integrated branch. Final local-login changes passed 59 focused tests; new-agent and inbox regression suites passed 63 tests. - Browser checks verified automatic local Claude account detection, resumable Codex login commands, retry, focus restoration, and desktop/phone layouts. Commands create their isolated directory before invoking the CLI. - All current-head CI checks passed on `2a996560a`, including all server/workspace tests, browser shards, runner verification, typecheck, build, and canary dry run. Greptile reviewed that commit at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Earlier local full-suite attempts hit the Mac PostgreSQL shared-memory limit; the complete suites passed in CI. - Renumbered the additive AI migration to `0276` after upstream migrations and regenerated its snapshot. Existing legacy agents retain their configuration. - Added local login status checks, owner-scoped retry, managed OpenCode remote homes, credential-aware model discovery, and task connection-repair delivery. ## Risks - Managed credential failures intentionally block execution. They do not restore legacy fallback. - Preview-era copied Codex/Grok subscriptions require independent reconnect. - The integrated branch has live provider acceptance coverage. This update verifies local Claude detection and Codex API-key task repair; it does not add a new subscription authorization/refresh or Daytona stress pass. - Runtime-auth connections must stay excluded from tool and channel handling. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact runtime model identifier 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
|
1652a5c7f2 |
fix: improve task search relevance with a PostgreSQL rubric (#13335)
Unify full and quick task search around PostgreSQL term coverage, explicit relevance bands, and conservative typo recovery. Preserve matching evidence and navigation, and add a judged corpus, regression tests, and documented performance measurements. Validation: local typecheck, build, focused PostgreSQL tests, and task-list tests pass. All final-head CI gates pass and Greptile is 5/5. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d317274ce |
feat(channels): add experimental iMessage Photon (#13299)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Channels connect external conversations to company tasks and agent execution. > - Slack, Discord, and AgentMail already provide durable delivery and access controls. > - People also need to reach an agent from Apple Messages and send photos. > - Photon provides shared Pro DMs, dedicated numbers, and authenticated event recovery. > - This pull request connects Photon to the existing channel services. > - People can message an agent while Paperclip retains task ownership and approval authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: channel services, shared contracts, database constraints, Apps, and agent Channels UI. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip has no iMessage channel. A person cannot use Apple Messages to start a task, send a photo, or answer an agent's pending question. **Proposed solution** Add experimental **iMessage Photon** with Pro-compatible shared DMs or a dedicated Photon Cloud number per agent channel. Reuse channel admission, identity links, task generations, publication, and interaction continuation. Keep groups disabled for shared allocation. Dedicated lines support groups that an operator explicitly enables. Require a fresh linked message and a published agent response before setup completes. **Alternatives considered** Shared allocation has no owned phone number, so it reserves one project and allows DMs only. Dedicated allocation reserves one stable number. Local Mac access needs a separate deployment model. The upstream Photon Chat SDK adapter does not persist the poll mappings and send receipts required here. This change uses the lower-level SDK without adding another agent runtime. **Roadmap alignment** This extends Connected Apps and agent communication through the existing channel subsystem. It does not add a parallel tool connection or agent loop. GitHub searches for Photon and iMessage found no matching provider implementation. **Additional context** This ships behind the existing experimental channel gate. Dedicated-line release qualification remains incomplete. Real Photon Pro DMs passed task/reply, native poll, text answers, confirmation rejection, media, restart, pause, reconnect, revocation, and removal tests. An operator-supplied iPhone camera HEIC also passed the full round trip. Dedicated groups remain unqualified. See [the verification record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) and [the implementation plan](doc/plans/2026-09-11-imessage-photon.md). ## What Changed - Add the provider catalog entry, shared setup contracts, and a forward migration. A global partial index reserves the dedicated number or shared project until its endpoint is archived. - Add Cloud project inspection, vaulted project credentials, selected-line token renewal, and a leased receiver. Persist checkpoint updates under the receiver lease. Shared project replay accepts sparse increasing sequences only after a complete recovery barrier. - Connect DMs and enabled groups to existing task generations, sender authorization, ordered delivery, and publication services. Keep each iMessage conversation on its task after completion; only explicit `/new` or `/close` releases the binding. Publish committed inbound comments live and label their human bubbles “Sent from iMessage” in both task-chat renderers. - Persist immutable text/file send identities, upload receipts, poll IDs, option IDs, per-person drafts, and canonical interaction continuation proofs. - Add source-bound file recovery, bounded HEIC/HEIF conversion, JPEG previews, and related Live Photo companion video retention. - Add the three-step setup flow and channel management surfaces with official branding. Preserve the experimental gate and existing pause/disconnect behavior. - Add interactive production-component Storybooks for setup, access, recovery, and ongoing conversations. Add provider, integration, catalog, and browser regression coverage. Document setup, recovery, supported boundaries, and qualification gaps. ## Verification - Live Photon Pro, SDK 2.1.0: linked iPhone messages create a task and receive native Codex replies in Apple Messages. Unlinked senders cannot start work. - Three real follow-ups each reopened the same completed task. Incoming bubbles appeared on its open page without reload and showed “Sent from iMessage.” The third follow-up ran after restarting the server on `4d7222110`; the agent correctly repeated its previous reply from before the restart. - Native polls after restart, sequential text drafts, required-field correction, explicit submission, approval rejection with a required reason, and native continuation passed against Photon. - PNG, text documents, synthetic HEIC, and a real iPhone camera HEIC passed in both directions. The camera photo produced a 3024×4032 JPEG preview. The native agent described it and returned the received HEIC byte-for-byte. - Pause/resume, reconnect, identity revocation, removal, `/status`, `/new`, `/close`, and stale answers after close passed live. Messages suppressed by pause did not become work on resume. Removal stopped intake and removed credential bindings. - All 304 focused tests passed on `4d7222110`. These cover Photon unit/integration behavior, both task-chat renderers, live comment hydration, completed-task continuity after restart, enabled groups, duplicate delivery, and explicit reset/close. The selected Teams completion-boundary regression also passed. Full workspace typecheck/build and token gates passed for the conversation fix; the final UI changes passed their affected typecheck/build and tests. - All 26 new Photon Storybook Playwright cases passed in light and dark themes, including the complete shared-DM setup journey and 390px mobile follow-ups. UI typecheck and the Storybook build passed. These stories use simulated Photon responses and do not replace the live evidence above. - The full chat-adapters browser suite previously passed all 39 cases. Migration checks passed, and migration 0275 applied to the isolated live instance with the earlier Photon migration already applied. - The local full Vitest run was previously interrupted by the host's embedded-Postgres shared-memory limit; it is not a full-suite pass. All 30 applicable CI checks passed on preceding head `7a5419cac`, with two skipped checks and Greptile 5/5. Head `24f8e1aae` adds an explicit required-story discovery guard to the 26 passing Storybook cases. Greptile rates this final head 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. All 30 applicable CI checks passed, with two optional checks skipped. - A repeated live send key suppressed the duplicate but returned gRPC 6 / SDK `internalError` without an original receipt. Paperclip keeps unknown delivery unresolved. This provider behavior is covered by a regression test. - See [the verification record](doc/connections/IMESSAGE-PHOTON-VERIFICATION.md) for package versions, redacted live evidence, deterministic coverage, and remaining qualification gaps. ## Risks - Dedicated group qualification remains unrun; groups are disabled for the approved Pro scope. Real iPhone camera HEIC passed transport, preview generation, agent inspection, and return. Keep the channel experimental; the dedicated-line release matrix remains incomplete. - Shared recovery and attachment aliases were verified against the live gateway. Duplicate writes currently return an error without the original receipt; unresolved sends require operator resolution. The implementation fails visibly on invalid replay ordering, a reset cursor, or changed identity. - The HEIF converter passed on macOS arm64 and in Linux CI. Windows HEIF binaries have not been executed in this work. Linux musl has no packaged converter. Unsupported conversion retains the original and reports the missing preview. - The migration adds a global reservation across companies for Photon numbers and shared projects. Paused and revoked endpoints keep that reservation until removal. - Integration touches shared channel services. Existing provider browser coverage passes; broad repository verification is recorded above. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded under repository policy. The repository bot owns lockfile updates. The additional Superagent supply-chain scan is neutral/inconclusive because these new dependencies are not yet in the committed lockfile. Its security scan passed; all required CI checks pass. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, browser testing, and tool use. The exact served model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No sub-agents were used. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
44f6312cd8 |
fix(ci): reuse one available Cloud registry cache (#13334)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud needs a verified image for each merged source commit. > - Fresh builders restore compiled native dependencies from registry caches. > - The current workflow imports up to eleven historical cache manifests at once. > - Live builds missed native layers that a fresh builder reused from one manifest. > - This PR selects the nearest available cache and tests reuse across fresh builders. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13329 and #13330. A search of open cache PRs found no duplicate of this change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Remote Docker cache reuse on fresh Cloud image builders. **Current behavior** [Cloud run 34714483272](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34714483272/job/103609096836) imported the previous cache manifest successfully but rebuilt `cargo-chef` and Rust dependencies. The dependency compile took 3m43s. The preceding image build had already exported those layers. A controlled [fresh-builder diagnostic](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715336530) used the same source and registry cache. The single-manifest job reused both layers immediately. The multiple-manifest job rebuilt them and failed the cache assertion. Both jobs used GitHub-hosted runners with read-only access. **Proposed behavior** Inspect cache manifests in first-parent order and import only the nearest available one. Keep full-SHA cache exports, the ten-commit search bound, and the legacy fallback. If caches cannot be read, permit a cold build. **Reason and benefit** Avoid the observed cache misses without changing image contents or builder sizes. Expected savings include about four minutes of native tool/dependency compilation when those inputs are unchanged. The final merge-to-deployable gain still needs a post-merge measurement. **Breaking changes** No image, artifact, deployment, or runner-routing contract changes. ## What Changed - Select one available ancestor cache after Docker login and Buildx setup. - Preserve separate writable cache tags for each full source SHA. - Test cache ordering, missing caches, registry errors, and workflow integration. - Add the selector tests to the existing release-registry suite. - Export a local test cache, remove the first builder, and verify a source rebuild on a fresh builder. - Document cache selection and the stronger Docker check. ## Verification - Passed 456 focused workflow, routing, readiness, preview-artifact, and cache-selector tests. - Passed shell syntax, ShellCheck for the changed probe, actionlint workflow validation, and `git diff --check`. actionlint's shell checks were disabled for the workflow validation because unchanged migration-label commands trigger existing SC2012 notes. - The fresh-builder registry diagnostic proves the single-cache behavior. The [permanent two-builder probe passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715771048/job/103612624090), including a changed real binary and dependency-declaration invalidation. - Passed all 35 latest-head checks (green or intentionally skipped), including full typecheck, test, build, and browser suites in [PR CI run 34715771217](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34715771217). - The real selector CLI inspected registry metadata and chose the nearest available ancestor cache. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no open findings. The PR title was corrected to meet the source-change naming rule; the review check passed after that correction. - Local full-suite runs and Docker builds are unavailable because the local Docker daemon is unresponsive after disk exhaustion. CI provides the Linux verification. ## Risks - Missing or unreadable caches cause a slower cold build. The selector logs that condition and preserves image publication. - Inspecting several missing ancestors adds lookup time. Each lookup has a ten-second timeout and the search is bounded. - The Docker test now exports a local cache. It removes the first builder before starting the second to release disk space, then cleans up its builders and files. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
0ce7df2648 |
ci: keep Cloud readiness markers out of the builder queue (#13330)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud consumes versioned readiness markers for each merged source commit. > - Those markers can be published only after the required checks and artifacts pass. > - The marker jobs currently wait for the same AWS runner capacity as builds and tests. > - A busy builder pool can delay readiness after all required work has finished. > - This PR moves the small readiness jobs to GitHub-hosted runners while retaining every dependency gate. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13326 and #13328. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Time from completed Cloud verification to a deployable marker, and AWS capacity occupied by artifact polling. **Current behavior** In [Cloud readiness run 34711557083](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711557083), all builds and tests finished at 18:43:05 UTC. The source marker did not start until 18:44:21, and the deployable marker did not start until 18:44:37. Merge-to-deployable was 11m33s, although the prerequisite work finished in 9m44s. **Proposed behavior** Run the artifact wait and both versioned marker jobs on `ubuntu-latest`. Keep the compute jobs on the approved post-merge AWS fleet. **Reason and benefit** Avoid builder-pool queue delays after verification finishes. This also removes the long artifact-wait job from AWS capacity. Expected savings depend on queue depth: the observed run had over 90 seconds of avoidable marker waiting. The marker commands themselves take only seconds. **Breaking changes** Runner placement changes for three bookkeeping jobs. Marker names, exact-source artifact checks, required verification, and image verification stay the same. **Additional context** Searched the related runner and Cloud readiness work. This addresses queue time observed after the parallel verification change. ## What Changed - Place the artifact wait, source-verification marker, and deployable marker on GitHub-hosted runners. - Keep all existing job dependencies, source guards, permissions, and commands. - Extend routing regressions to enforce this placement and retain fail-closed readiness gates. - Document why readiness bookkeeping uses separate runner capacity. ## Verification - Passed 433 workflow, routing, source-verification, and Cloud readiness tests with `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/cloud-readiness.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. - Passed `actionlint` and `git diff --check`. - Passed all latest-head CI gates in [run 34712624340, attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34712624340), including typecheck, build, browser, Runner, and all general/serialized tests. - Attempt 1 had one localhost readiness timeout in an unchanged test. A single targeted retry passed all 166 files (3,225 tests passed, one existing skip), including all seven tests in that file. No timeout, assertion, or application source was changed; the retry is documented in the PR comment. - Local full-suite verification is limited by local disk exhaustion; the focused checks above pass. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. ## Risks - GitHub-hosted capacity can also queue, but these jobs no longer compete with AWS build/test demand. The change does not reserve instances or change box sizes. - Readiness must still fail if any prerequisite fails. The existing `needs` relationships and success-only execution are preserved and tested. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
7435b2ee9c |
ci: cache compiled Docker Rust dependencies separately from source (#13329)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys images that contain the native Rust Runner. > - The image already builds that Runner before copying ordinary app source. > - A Rust source change still invalidates its entire compiled dependency layer. > - Compiled dependencies can survive source changes when their recipe is unchanged. > - This PR adds a separate locked dependency build before compiling the real workspace. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13195. A search of related Docker and Cargo cache PRs found no duplicate dependency-recipe change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Docker image build time after Rust source or embedded protocol changes. **Current behavior** The `runner-build` stage compiles dependencies and workspace code in one layer. In Cloud readiness run 34698143548, that stage took about 3m48s when its cache was unavailable. **Proposed behavior** Generate a recipe with pinned cargo-chef 0.1.73. Build locked release dependencies in `runner-deps`, then copy and compile real Rust source and embedded protocol inputs in `runner-build`. Source edits can reuse the dependency layer from the existing registry cache. **Reason and benefit** Reduce dependency recompilation during source changes and merge bursts. Expected savings are roughly 2–4 minutes when the old native layer would miss but dependency layers are available. Full cold builds also pay for the recipe tool installation. Ordinary app-only cache hits gain little from this change. **Breaking changes** None to the shipped application or image tags. The recipe tool and compiled dependencies remain in build stages. ## What Changed - Install a pinned recipe generator with its locked dependencies and the existing package-owned compiler. - Add recipe planning and compiled dependency stages. Use the same release profile, package, binary, and lockfile enforcement as the real native build. - Remove generated source stubs before copying actual source. Preserve protocol inputs, timestamp normalization, binary staging, and application checks. - Add Docker cache wiring regressions and update the Docker cache documentation. - Run a two-build probe in Docker Runner check. It requires dependency reuse, changed real binary metadata after a source edit, and a changed recipe after a dependency declaration edit. It uses a disposable tracked-source context and exports only small metadata files. ## Verification - Passed all five Docker build-stamp and dependency-cache tests with `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/docker-build-stamp.test.ts`. - Passed the local ARM64 `docker buildx build --target runner-build --progress plain`. Local Docker then hit storage errors during a runtime probe; cache invalidation verification continues on GitHub-hosted Linux. - Passed `bash -n scripts/check-docker-runner-cache.sh`, `actionlint`, and `git diff --check`. - Passed a [Linux AMD64 cache probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711042199) against the PR source: dependencies compiled in 3m49s for the baseline and were `CACHED` after a source edit; real source compilation took about 37 seconds. Binary metadata changed and dependency declaration changes altered the recipe. The permanent probe is also running in latest-head Docker Runner check. - Passed latest-head [Docker Runner check](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711145160), including the permanent source/dependency invalidation probe. - Passed full [PR verification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34711145352/attempts/2): typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build, release dry run, and browser checks. One unrelated signoff-policy browser test failed waiting for a heartbeat run on attempt 1; only that failed shard and dependent checks were retried, and passed. - Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Full local tests/build were limited by local disk exhaustion; Linux CI completed those checks. ## Risks - The two-build CI probe has a 20-minute job limit to cover the cold build and source rebuild. It adds no AWS routing. - A fully cold build must install cargo-chef and populate the dependency layer. Both become reusable registry layers; no Actions cache is added. - The recipe and final build must keep the same compiler, build profile, package, binary, and directory layout. A source-change rebuild probe checks real cache reuse and binary invalidation. - Dependency or compiler changes still require rebuilding dependencies. Existing image verification and full-SHA publication gates remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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
|
ed50a39c3f |
fix: preserve NUL characters in run-event payloads (#13325)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d2e940f4c1 |
ci: run release Runner protocol and Rust checks in parallel (#13326)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys verified images from merged source commits. > - Cloud readiness waits for every release verification check. > - Runner verification currently runs long TypeScript tests before Rust checks. > - These checks can run on independent runners with their own build directories. > - This PR runs them in parallel while preserving all checks and the shared dependency cache. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13194. Related prior work: #13142 and #13259. A search found no duplicate parallel release-check change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Time from merge to Cloud source verification and deployment readiness. **Current behavior** Recent successful runs take roughly 13 minutes from merge to deployable. In run 34705914878, Runner verification took 11m23s. Protocol tests finished before Rust tests and API authority checks started. **Proposed behavior** Run protocol and Rust verification in two matrix jobs. Cloud readiness still requires both jobs to pass. **Reason and benefit** Remove the serial dependency between independent checks. Expected improvement is about 2–3 minutes on a typical cached run, until the image build or server tests become the longest job. This is an estimate; post-merge timing will confirm it. **Breaking changes** Individual release Runner job names gain a lane suffix. Cloud source and readiness marker names stay the same. PR runner routing is unchanged. ## What Changed - Split release Runner checks into protocol and Rust lanes. Keep every constituent of `check:all` exactly once. - Restore the existing Rust dependency cache in both lanes. Allow only the Rust lane to save it after warming both build profiles. - Add coverage and cache authorization regressions. Document the parallel verification and single cache writer. ## Verification - Passed 477 workflow and source-verification tests with `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`. - Passed `actionlint`, `git diff --check`, and the private AWS routing regression suite. - Passed local `pnpm -r typecheck` and the standalone `check:runner && check:api-authority` lane, including all 1,671 API tests before the protocol lane had built TypeScript output. - The broad local protocol run under Node 25 had four failures. The two affected files passed under CI's Node 24.19.0: 67 passed, 6 platform skips. - Local `pnpm test:run` aborted when disk space ran out; local `pnpm build` could not run afterward. These are local verification limits. [Linux CI run 34710421424](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34710421424) passed full typecheck, all grouped tests, native verification, build, release dry run, and browser checks. Native protocol CI passed 1,986 tests, plus 1,671 API tests and the Rust suites. - Latest-head Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. All 33 current-head checks are successful or intentionally skipped. ## Risks - Uses one additional short-lived verification runner per release verification. The existing AWS exact-master restriction remains in place. - The Rust lane warms debug dependencies so its cache save also serves protocol tests. Both lanes always rebuild workspace code. - A workflow regression could omit a check. The new coverage test compares the matrix checks directly with `check:all`; Cloud readiness depends on the complete reusable workflow. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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
|
c9021c6721 |
fix: require explicit native completion reviews (#13314)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native runs report their outcome through paperclip_finish. > - The server previously turned incomplete reports into human approval requests. > - Those requests could block a later successful run, even when no person had requested review. > - This pull request creates review cards only for explicit attention requests and withdraws proven old fallback cards. > - Agents receive useful completion feedback, while explicit approval gates and task state protections remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #13266 removed reviews caused by policy upgrades. This change removes the separate completion fallback. **What happened?** An agent reported needs_review while waiting for checks without requesting a human decision. Paperclip created a generic Native completion review. A later successful report could not complete the task because that old card remained pending. **Expected behavior** Ordinary low-risk work completes after a valid done report, a successful run, and workspace finalization. Incomplete work stays with the agent. Explicit approval requests remain visible and must be resolved. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Complete a native run with needs_review and no attention requests. 2. Continue the task and submit a successful done report. 3. Observe that the old implementation leaves the task in review behind a generic confirmation card. ## What Changed - Require explicit attention requests to create native review cards. Route each request independently and preserve pending or declined decisions. - Withdraw only pending system cards with matching old decision, assessment, effect, contract, and prompt provenance. Preserve history and explicit or answered requests. - Reassess an affected current result without overwriting later task edits, runs, contracts, or workspace failures. - Return pending approval links and required actions through the completion tool. Reject contradictory done reports and empty review requests before accepting a result. - Allow one corrective continuation for incomplete results, then expose a recovery action. - Update status fixtures, database regressions, runner tests, and the completion contract documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after merging current master. - `pnpm build` passed after merging current master. - The combined branch passed 89 completion and Agent Chat tests. Other targeted tests passed: 170 external-chat and reconciliation tests; 50 runner-resume and control-plane tests; 13 arbiter tests; 7 chat delivery tests; 21 runner completion and runtime-context tests. - The full local test attempt exposed old review fixtures and a missing fake-provider binary. The fixtures are fixed and the helper is built. All affected suites pass in fresh reruns. The timing-sensitive Discord test also passed on rerun. - All latest-head CI checks passed, including build, typecheck, general and serialized tests, runner verification, browser tests, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved comments. ## Risks - Cleanup changes existing pending cards. It requires exact system provenance and only applies to low-risk agent-claim contracts. It does not delete history or dismiss explicit requests. - Status still commits after the turn and workspace finalization. Completion feedback reports current constraints and does not claim an early status commit. - Incomplete reports now request a bounded corrective run instead of an automatic approval. Repeated failures expose recovery. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The exact deployment identifier 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
|
0e14c61da7 |
fix: fence native startup against cancellation (#13316)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Users can pause a task while its runner prepares to start. > - Cancellation must prevent preparation from creating new execution authority. > - Native runtime selection could run after cancellation and leave an unclaimed recovery coordinator. > - Saved user messages then waited for recovery that had no eligible worker. > - This pull request fences startup and lets explicit user continuation settle verified, unclaimed startup state. > - Tasks can continue after cleanup while keeping provider ownership and execution safeguards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13285 for startup controller leases and #13270 for explicit continuation and saved-message recovery. Related #13293 covers retained processes that actually started; this change covers cancellation before the native provider claim. Related #13315 covers legacy queued-message delivery. **What happened?** Pausing a task during startup could cancel its heartbeat before native runtime selection. Stale preparation then created an observed native coordinator on the cancelled run. The coordinator had no provider result or eligible recovery worker. A later Continue message stayed queued indefinitely. **Expected behavior** Cancellation fences native startup. After verified cleanup, a newer user message starts one fresh conversation turn. An unverified execution keeps its hold and a clear explanation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task with the native runner and delay startup preparation before runtime selection. 2. Pause the task, then release preparation. 3. Resume the task and send Continue. 4. Before this fix, native selection can persist after cancellation and block the saved message. 5. Repeat from persisted cancelled startup state after a server restart. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master at `586b5ec82` with isolated PostgreSQL regression fixtures. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server built from source, with Paperclip Runner. ## What Changed - Serialize the cancellation fence and native runtime selection on the run row. Revalidate the startup controller lease. - Refresh the runtime before dispatching cancellation, and reject terminal or cancelled runs at the native provider claim. - Recognize never-claimed coordinators only after startup and environment cleanup are verified. Reject process, provider, owner, and conflicting launch evidence. - Settle that coordinator atomically with a new authenticated user turn. Preserve history, unknown outcomes, and attempt counts. - Reuse the saved-message worker after restart and retain pause, budget, approval, and ownership gates. - Add startup, restart, duplicate-admission, and negative-proof regressions. Document the rule. ## Verification - All 687 tests pass across the complete heartbeat recovery, explicit continuation, and native session executor suites on the rebased branch. - Six focused race regressions also pass: cancellation before and after native selection, Stop racing adapter registration, process termination during a database failure, and a run finishing during cancellation. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass after rebasing on master at `ab15aff39`. - Greptile is 5/5 on `f3dea2ab27facdf0360b56172ebd3e5219e25538`, with no open review threads. Policy and security checks pass. - All 32 CI checks pass on the final head, including the full server/workspace test matrix, all three browser shards, runner verification, typechecks, build, and canary dry run. The two optional Storybook jobs are skipped. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34697945514). - Local full-suite limitation: the broad `pnpm test:run` attempt reported two failures outside the changed area after unusually long test durations (about 65 seconds for supporting skill-file saves and 933 seconds for setup-token login). Both cases passed isolated reruns, with no code changes. The broad local run was stopped after CI completed successfully; no clean full local-suite pass is claimed. ## Risks Cancellation and startup overlap. The run and coordinator locks provide the authority fence; cleanup and process evidence provide the containment proof. Historical runs without sufficient evidence remain blocked. A saved user message authorizes a fresh turn, not automatic replay. No schema migration or dependency change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, using reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and tests. This session does not expose the exact backend revision or context-window size. ## 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
|
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
|
8f40b4ad4b |
fix(connections): repair and simplify Google Workspace setup (#13289)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - App connections give agents controlled access to external services.
> - Managed Google Workspace methods depend on profiles enabled for each
Paperclip instance.
> - The catalog used those profiles, but connection creation used static
availability and rejected enabled connections.
> - Switching capabilities also reset personal ownership to company-wide
ownership.
> - This PR uses the same availability rules for catalog and setup, and
preserves supported ownership choices.
> - Paperclip is the default Google authentication method. A small link
opens custom OAuth settings when needed.
> - Local and cloud instances can start the selected Workspace
connection without broadening its audience.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A fresh enrolled instance showed managed Google Workspace apps as
available. The issue was first found with Gmail. Selecting Continue to
sign in returned HTTP 422 with “This app does not have an available
connection method.” Changing from Read & create drafts to Read only also
reset Just me to company-wide ownership.
**Expected behavior**
Start Google authorization for an enabled profile. Keep personal
ownership when the selected method supports it. Reject profiles that the
instance cannot use.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a fresh source test-drive and enroll the instance with
Paperclip Cloud.
2. Open Apps and select Gmail.
3. Select Just me and choose the agents that can use the connection.
4. Continue to setup and select Read only.
5. Go back to inspect ownership, then continue to sign in.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master commit
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
44dde2dec4 |
ci: reuse dependency caches without per-PR uploads (#13300)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Cloud releases wait for source verification before deployment.
> - That verification reuses compiled Rust dependencies to finish
sooner.
> - PR jobs save large pnpm stores under separate merge refs and
different lockfile keys.
> - Those copies compete with master build caches for the repository's
10 GB cache limit.
> - This PR makes PR dependency caches restore-only and reuses
master-compatible keys.
> - A separate pin update will activate the reviewed workflow.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
PR merge refs accumulated roughly 700 MB copies of the same pnpm store.
Master Rust caches disappeared, and Cloud readiness run
[34656098157](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34656098157)
rebuilt dependencies after cache misses. The repository currently has a
10 GB limit. GitHub rejected a request for 50 GB; that setting needs
separate organization/billing access.
**Expected behavior**
PR jobs should reuse downloaded packages without evicting post-merge
compilation caches through duplicate uploads.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run several PRs while the checked-in lockfile needs policy
regeneration.
2. Compare the setup-node keys in PR jobs and master jobs.
3. List Actions caches by ref, key, and archive size. The PR keys repeat
across merge refs.
**Paperclip version or commit**
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
dbf5ea432d |
fix: protect starting runs during overlapping deployments (#13285)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip controls agent work across service deployments. > - A run can provision a remote sandbox before a process or invocation event exists. > - Each container previously treated its own missing process handle as proof that the run was orphaned. > - Overlapping deployments could therefore fail a run owned by another container. > - This pull request records and renews a controller lease before provisioning. > - A recovery worker must revoke an expired owner before it finalizes the run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Merged PR #13272 records startup adapter identity and restores explicit user continuation. This PR adds controller ownership on top of current master. Refs #7997 and #10442 for related replica and ownership problems. Related #13138 addresses silence and detached local processes; this change does not infer death from silence. **What happened?** During an overlapping hosted service deployment, a new container reaped a legacy conversation run that another container was provisioning. The run had no PID or adapter invocation yet. **Expected behavior** A live controller keeps its run. After controller loss, one recovery worker takes cleanup authority and the old controller cannot dispatch further work. **Steps to reproduce** Claim a legacy run in controller A. Start controller B against the same database before A finishes provisioning. Run the startup reaper in B. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on `663c44cb2b9c28336d38d0b4a6971f4f1964bce6` in a hosted Railway deployment with a Daytona environment. ## What Changed - Add nullable controller boot ID, lease deadline, and execution stage columns. Claim ownership in the queued-to-running update. - Renew ownership independently of run output. Abort and reject dispatch if renewal fails. - Serialize reaper revocation against renewal. Let unfinished recovery claims expire after a restart. - Restrict graceful shutdown to legacy runs owned by the current controller. - Hand ownership back to the existing native coordinator when runtime selection becomes native. - Add twelve database regressions and document the lease contract. Update the task-drain regression to require controller expiry before reaping. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/legacy-controller-lease.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-task-drain-admission-release.test.ts`: 14 passed after rebasing onto master (`f12b647ae`). - Queue-interruption regressions in `heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`: 2 passed after preserving the new cleanup promotion from #13275. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`: passed after rebuilding runner TypeScript outputs for the updated master. Broad local tests are omitted at the maintainer’s request; CI owns broad coverage. - Latest-head CI passed on `f255e8e4d5ab2b24b12638a02434e6aa8a2285c5`: [run 34658248569](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34658248569). All test shards, browser suites, typecheck, build, canary, and security checks passed. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Additive, idempotent migration; historical rows retain the previous recovery behavior. - Database unavailability aborts new dispatch rather than permitting an unfenced controller to continue. - Lease expiry is permission to clean up, not evidence that remote inference stopped. Follow-up PRs add persistent cleanup and automatic continuation. - Mixed-version deployment still includes old binaries whose reapers do not understand controller leases. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, using reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The precise backend revision 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
|
f12b647ae8 |
fix: reliably interrupt and resume legacy message queues (#13275)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task can collect more messages while its agent works. > - Legacy runners must stop the active process before they can receive those messages. > - The old Interrupt action cancelled the run but could leave the queue idle and hidden. > - Codex could also classify a cancelled run as successful or start a fresh process after cancellation. > - This pull request joins cancellation, preserves the provider session, and dispatches the current queue after cleanup. > - The benefit is reliable interruption with the saved message order, edits, and deletions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Interrupt could strand a legacy message queue. The UI could hide pending messages after the run stopped. A Codex signal exit could race the cancellation write. A stale session warning could also trigger a fresh process after an interrupted resume. **Expected behavior** Interrupt stops the active turn and sends the remaining messages once, in their saved order. Deleted messages stay deleted. An interrupted Codex turn keeps its session and does not restart itself. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a task to a legacy Codex agent that runs a long command. 2. Queue three messages. Edit one, discard another, and move the last message first. 3. Click Interrupt in the queue. 4. Repeat the interruption while the resumed session runs another command. Related work: Refs #13160, which moves native queue steering into the wake-queue module. This change fixes legacy interruption and keeps native steering unchanged. ## What Changed - Add a revision-checked, company-scoped endpoint for legacy queue interruption. - Promote only the requested queue after the provider stops and releases its lease. Retry its persisted interrupt intent from the scheduler after a promotion error or server restart. - Keep pending legacy queues visible after a run stops. Use server state for the interrupt result. - Serialize owned process cancellation before classifying the adapter result. Preserve late session and log metadata. Acknowledge cancellation only when an actual process or process group was owned; scheduler placeholders retain their normal release policy. - Send Ctrl-C to legacy Codex. Prevent missing-session fallback once the session has started. - Add cancellation race, multi-actor queue order, durable retry, resume fallback, and stale request regression tests. Document the behavior. ## Verification - Real browser tests passed with legacy Codex CLI and ACP engines, using Codex 0.153.4 and gpt-5.6-sol. - All three automated ACP browser scenarios passed locally: immediate Interrupt delivery, no replay of an unfinished write, and pause requiring Resume. Updated the old test expectation that required a separate “go” after Interrupt. - Browser tests covered queued edits, deletion, reordering, deleting the final message, and repeated interruption. - Two consecutive CLI interrupts kept one provider session. Both stopped processes exited. The final message arrived once. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - All 346 post-review scheduling, recovery, queue-route, archived-company, worktree-suppression, and stale-queue regression tests passed. - All 318 process-recovery and durable-chat tests passed after the final cancellation guard. - Codex adapter, queue UI, issue-page, and OpenAPI contract tests passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - Full local suite coverage completed with `PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE=false`, using the stable runner and its CI shards: 618 general server suites, all 145 serialized server suites, and all workspace groups. Every failing suite passed a targeted rerun after the fixes, rebuilding the native test fixture, correcting macOS temporary-path setup, or retrying setup/timing failures. Existing skips remain. - The original monolithic run reported failures before the final fixes; its failed suites were rerun rather than rerunning all 618 suites again. The final process-recovery/durable-chat regression run passed all 318 tests. - All CI checks passed for `e30eaf787f23a5511a3cb3cdb5abbccab9ed001d`: [run 34654820774, attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34654820774/attempts/2), including typecheck, build, all test shards, E2E, and canary. The signoff and Cursor sandbox tests each hit a timeout in the initial attempt; both suites passed locally, and both failed shards passed their single CI rerun. All three corrected ACP browser scenarios passed in CI. - Greptile reviewed `e30eaf787f23a5511a3cb3cdb5abbccab9ed001d`: 5/5, no open review threads. ## Risks Cancellation order affects local adapters. The tests cover signal exits, graceful exits, adapter exceptions, termination errors, and cancellation write errors. Embedded adapters keep their cancellation controls. Ordinary run cancellation and task pause keep their distinct queue policies. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, browser testing, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The live test runner used OpenAI gpt-5.6-sol. ## 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
|
30c63af0e6 |
fix(cli): recover abandoned workspace build locks (#13288)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The test-drive command starts an isolated instance for local testing. > - Source startup builds shared packages before it starts the server. > - An interrupted build can leave an empty lock directory. > - Later starts wait without output and fail after 60 seconds. > - This pull request recovers abandoned locks and shows build progress. > - Local testing can start again without manual lock removal. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** `pnpm paperclipai test-drive` stopped at “Starting Paperclip server…” in a source checkout. A leftover plugin build lock caused a silent 60-second wait and then a timeout. **Expected behavior** Startup should recover an abandoned build lock. It should show when it waits for a live build. An interrupted or failed build should not leave partial output that the next start accepts as complete. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Leave an empty `node_modules/.cache/paperclip-plugin-build-deps.lock` directory after an interrupted build. 2. Make the shared or plugin SDK build output out of date. 3. Run `pnpm paperclipai test-drive --api-key placeholder --no-browser` with a fresh data directory. 4. Observe the silent wait at server startup. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced at `2083bf6f9`. **Deployment mode** Local source checkout with an isolated embedded PostgreSQL instance. Related work: #12894 added test-drive. #12898 restored its credential inputs. Neither change handles abandoned workspace build locks. No duplicate fix was found. ## What Changed - Publish a lock directory with an owner record in one rename. - Recover locks after their owner and compiler exit. Recover legacy empty locks after two minutes. - Keep the lock until the compiler stops on SIGINT or SIGTERM. - Print build and lock-wait progress. - Record source, dependency, compiler-config, and output content fingerprints only after a successful compile. Recover partial output even when modification times are unchanged. - Add 12 process-level regression tests and update the development guide. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/ensure-plugin-build-deps.test.mjs`: 12 tests pass. - `pnpm exec vitest run --config cli/vitest.config.ts cli/src/__tests__/test-drive.test.ts`: 32 tests pass. - `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm --filter paperclipai build`: passed. - Live smoke tests: fresh startup and startup with an abandoned lock both reach ready state. The API and UI respond. The command creates the company and CEO and enables worktree execution. Test instances stop cleanly. - Full repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - Full Vitest suite coverage completed using the repository-supported server, chat, workspace, and serialized shards. The initial local run needed the fresh-worktree fake native-provider binary built and focused reruns for port/socket races and load-related timeouts; all affected tests passed on rerun. Suites skipped by fail-fast exits were run separately and passed. The initial serial `pnpm test:run` was stopped in favor of these shards. - Greptile: 5/5 on commit `8b5a790c2af06a52b5dc76e5f52331966df990b8`, with all review threads resolved. - CI: 31 checks passed and two Storybook checks intentionally skipped. The initial workspace and browser jobs were interrupted by runner shutdowns; both passed on the second attempt. Build, typecheck, canary dry run, all general and serialized tests, all browser shards, security checks, and final verification summaries are green. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34654730783) ## Risks - This changes shared source-build locking for the CLI and plugin SDK commands. - Legacy locks have no owner identity. Recovery uses a two-minute age threshold for empty legacy directories. - Startup reads and hashes source and output files to verify the build cache. Identical direct builds reuse the cache. Changed or partial output requires a rebuild. - A reused process ID can delay recovery. Live owner or compiler processes keep their lock. - No database, API, or UI contract changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and process-level testing. A more specific API model identifier 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 #` 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
|
a38ccf9972 |
fix: retry transient continuation admission locks (#13290)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and the tasks that they execute. > - The run scheduler checks continuation authority before it starts a provider. > - This check uses database locks to order execution against conversation closure. > - A short lock conflict could fail a valid user follow-up before the provider started. > - This pull request retries the admission transaction after the locks are released. > - Valid work can start after normal contention, while closure and cancellation still stop execution. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13038. Related continuation work: #13270 and #13239. **What happened?** A user comment started a run through the automation queue. Its source records and admission marker were valid. A database lock conflict at dispatch caused `chat_control_recovery_proof_unresolved` and stopped automatic recovery. The provider received no work. **Expected behavior** Retry short database lock conflicts before failing admission. Read current ownership and conversation-close evidence on each attempt. Do not retry provider execution. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Queue a user follow-up through the automation transport. 2. Hold the task row lock in a separate transaction at the dispatch boundary. 3. Release the lock after 250 ms. 4. Before this fix, the run fails before provider dispatch. With this fix, the run passes admission once the lock is released. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on base commit `1c4bcff2b`. Disabling the new retry reproduces the original error in the regression test. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server with PostgreSQL. Regression tests use embedded PostgreSQL. ## What Changed - Retry rolled-back admission transactions after lock conflicts, with up to 50 waits of 100 ms. - Keep queue claims nonblocking. Keep provider dispatch outside the retried transaction. - Recheck current run state and committed close evidence after every conflict. - Explain persistent database contention in the exhausted admission error. - Add real database contention tests and bounded retry tests. Document the behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/services/chat-control-admission-retry.test.ts`: 273 passed. This includes task, wake, and run locks, the native runner, close/cancel races, unrelated failures, and retry exhaustion. - Regression proof: disabling retries makes the user-follow-up test fail with `chat_control_recovery_proof_unresolved`. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm test:run`: stopped after all equivalent CI server/workspace shards passed. The local run exposed a missing `fake-codex-app-server` fixture binary in the fresh worktree; after `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner run build:rust`, the complete affected `native-session-resume.test.ts` suite passes (37 tests). - Greptile: 5/5, no findings, on commit `c974a496a`. - CI: all 31 checks passed on commit `c974a496a`, including all server/workspace test shards, browser tests, typecheck, runner verification, build, and the release dry run. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34654770074). ## Risks - A contended dispatch can wait through 50 short delays, plus transaction time. - Persistent contention still fails closed after the retry budget. Invalid source evidence fails without retrying admission. - No schema, permission, provider retry budget, or queue-claim behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployed model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9031516a7e |
fix: recover legacy Daytona startup failures from task and inbox (#13272)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Legacy conversation adapters can run in Daytona sandboxes. > - A server restart during provisioning can occur before the invocation event exists. > - Recovery then lacks the old adapter identity and leaves a hold that ordinary user retries cannot clear. > - A remote launch can also fail when its host relay looks for Node in the sandbox PATH. > - This pull request records the adapter at claim time and restores explicit user continuation after verified cleanup. > - Users can recover from the task or inbox while the failed run and uncertain action history remain intact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13237, #13239, #13254. Those changes cover recorded conversation runs, native user continuation, and explicit remote Stop. This change covers legacy failure before `adapter.invoke` and exact task/inbox Retry. Refs #9771 for overlapping generated-command quoting. This change also supplies the absolute host Node executable. Refs #13163 and #13264 for the separate native restart and retained-workspace work. **What happened?** A legacy Daytona run interrupted during provisioning became `process_lost` without an invocation event. Recovery preserved an execution hold, and Retry or a new task reply could not resume it. Cleanup could also run before the Daytona plugin was ready. On a macOS host, a subsequent ACP relay launch failed with `env: node: No such file or directory` because the remote launch environment did not contain the host Node path. **Expected behavior** An interrupted conversation can continue after its previous execution stops. Explicit Retry and new user replies should start a fresh turn with the task history. Cleanup failures must remain visible and recoverable. The host relay must use the host Node executable. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Use a legacy Claude adapter with a Daytona environment. 2. Interrupt the server after it acquires the sandbox lease and before it records `adapter.invoke`. 3. Restart and inspect the task hold. 4. Retry from the task or inbox, or send a new task reply. 5. Confirm the old sandbox has stopped and one new response arrives. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from master at `3bafac12f796fbea02e609e1074a9639f872e9c4`. The branch is rebased on `51b0e01ea`, including #13261 and #13270. **Deployment mode** Built from source on macOS with a real Daytona sandbox and the legacy Claude ACP adapter. ## What Changed - Count new browser specs with the scheduler's median duration in the shard-balance check. This fixes a false policy failure after new specs arrive from both branches. The balance threshold is unchanged. - Persist server-owned adapter identity in the queued-to-running claim before provisioning starts. - Wait for provider plugin startup before restart cleanup. Keep failed cleanup leases as active ownership blockers. - Admit exact board retries and new user comments after verified termination. Retain the old run, task history, approvals, and unknown action outcomes. - Adopt repeated Retry requests. Permit one scoped cleanup attempt per explicit user Retry after the automatic limit, with an activity record. A later user Retry can recover after a transient provider failure; automatic attempts remain capped. - Resume replies deferred during cleanup, including historical legacy startup failures. - Launch the host ACP relay through the absolute host Node executable. - Add a task-level Retry button and return actionable blockers when retry admission is refused. - Add database regressions and three browser recovery journeys. Exclude installed third-party dependency skills from the shipped-skill audit. ## Verification - Current head: `d23c84181`, rebased on `51b0e01ea`. Conflict resolution retains the saved-message recovery, local stop receipts, and wait reasons from #13270 alongside exact legacy Retry support. - Real Daytona: interrupted the server after lease acquisition and before adapter invocation. Restart cleanup confirmed provider termination. Task Retry cleared a seeded historical hold and a real Claude agent returned `Recovery verified.` in the task. Removed the disposable sandbox and environment after testing. - All three browser recovery journeys passed again after the final rebase. Task Retry, Inbox Retry, and a new reply each produced one fresh successor, completed the task, preserved the failed run, and retained the answer after reload. - All 29 e2e/server shard-partition tests passed. The balance check now uses the scheduler's median fallback for unmeasured specs, with the same balance threshold. - Server typecheck passed after rebuilding the generated runner dependencies. The combined recovery/route run passed 136 of 137 tests. Its remaining route test timed out during the first cold module import at its explicit 10-second limit; an isolated rerun reproduced that timeout and passed the other 51 route cases. The complete CI suite passed on this head. The same route file passed all 52 cases in CI, including the first cold import in 7.5 seconds. - Before the final rebase, recursive typecheck, full build, UI token gates, 132 targeted server tests, and the complete [CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34650004085) passed. The subsequent CI failure was the shard-balance accounting mismatch fixed here. - Greptile reviewed `d23c84181` at 5/5 with no outstanding actionable findings. The complete [current CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34653327949) passed on attempt 2. All test, typecheck, build, and canary jobs passed on the first attempt. Docker setup timed out fetching BuildKit from Docker Hub; retrying that job and its dependent aggregate succeeded. ## Risks - Recovery admission changes executable authority. Company, task, agent, user, approvals, process ownership, and provider termination checks remain required. - Explicit continuation starts a fresh conversation with history. It does not certify unknown external action outcomes or rerun non-conversation adapters automatically. - Changing task status alone does not clear an execution hold. The task now offers an explicit Retry action. - Historical adapter claims and invocation events take precedence over current agent settings. Known process or webhook runs retain their hold. Pre-upgrade rows with no adapter evidence may receive only a new explicit user turn after termination proof; they do not become eligible for automatic replay. - No schema migration or sandbox-image change is required. This branch has not been deployed to production. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution, browser automation, and test execution. 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 - [ ] 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
37d7dfb0e3 |
ci: allow dependency changes in cloud eval verification (#13286)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud deployment requires source verification for the exact merged commit. > - Contributor PRs leave lockfile updates to a separate bot PR. > - Most release checks can refresh an outdated lockfile while installing dependencies. > - Two Runner checks still require a frozen lockfile and fail after dependency changes. > - This PR gives those checks the same install policy as the other release checks. > - A valid dependency change can become deployable without waiting for another merge. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13257. The dependency change in #13256 exposed this gap. The separate lockfile update is #13279. Related #12115 addresses the bot PR check trigger; this PR fixes exact-source cloud verification itself. **What happened?** [Cloud readiness for |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
51b0e01ead |
fix: resume saved user messages after execution recovery (#13270)
Preserve verified native process-stop evidence and retry saved user messages through normal continuation admission after recovery cleanup. Show the current wait reason and serialize delivery so a saved message starts one fresh turn. Validated with 410 focused tests, typecheck, build, token gates, all PR CI checks, and Greptile 5/5. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2083bf6f9a |
feat(connections): add AgentMail inboxes and email tasks (#13256)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connections give agents controlled access to external services. > - Experimental channels already map conversations to tasks and durable work queues. > - Email needs inbox ownership, recipient envelopes, delivery records, and explicit sends. > - This pull request adds AgentMail to that infrastructure and keeps the provider key in the server vault. > - Agents can receive and send email from local or sandbox execution while the board follows each conversation in its task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Agents need dedicated email addresses. Incoming email should become assigned work. Internal task comments and progress must never become outgoing email by accident. **Proposed solution** Add experimental AgentMail connections, an inbox assignment wizard, durable email intake and publication, task email cards, and authenticated API, CLI, and native runtime actions. Agents use Paperclip credentials to request sends. Paperclip owns the provider key and enforces access and task authority. **Alternatives considered** A general mailbox MCP connector does not provide durable task binding or publication boundaries. A separate mailbox application duplicates task collaboration. The board instead directs the agent through the normal task conversation. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing experimental connections and task infrastructure. Product scope and interaction design were reviewed with the maintainer. Related connection authority work: #11831 and #11818. The duplicate search found no competing task-based AgentMail integration. ## What Changed - Add AgentMail catalog data, shared contracts, company-scoped email records, and an additive migration. - Add vaulted setup, inbox assignment, access grants, trust guidance, and provider-side allowlist guidance. - Support WebSocket and signed-webhook intake through a shared durable pipeline, deduplication, catch-up, and task wakeups. - Queue explicit new conversations and replies with immutable send intents, idempotency, delivery state, and uncertain-send resolution. - Show inbound and outbound email cards in normal task conversations. Keep internal messages internal. - Add task-scoped CLI actions and the sandbox callback routes required for Daytona execution. - Provide a dedicated AgentMail skill automatically only to agents with active authorized inbox assignments. Keep email instructions out of the universal Paperclip skill. - Advertise connector-owned `agentmail_inboxes`, `agentmail_read_thread`, `agentmail_send`, and `agentmail_delivery` tools only in eligible native sessions. Recheck live authority on execution. - Isolate Codex CLI connector skills by agent and skill revision. Deliver the assigned skill in the run prompt for adapters that use shared skill directories, including resumed turns. Keep automatic skills out of manual persistent sync. Show them as read-only and document the pattern in the connector playbook. - Fix AgentMail health checks that entered local-stdio validation and optional missing Codex credential cleanup in sandboxes. - Add API, pipeline, authorization, sandbox, browser, and Storybook coverage. ## Verification - Live AgentMail testing covered WebSocket intake, signed webhooks, restart catch-up, and a full receive → task → Daytona Codex CLI → explicit reply → Delivered round trip. The reply was verified in the other inbox. The normal task composer also initiated an outgoing email child task. - The connector-skill change was verified in the browser: AgentMail appears once as an automatic, read-only skill with its assigned address. Disabling experimental chat connections removes it; re-enabling restores it. A regression test covers assignment data arriving after library data. - Connector regression coverage passed 178 runtime utility, email integration, skill-route, and heartbeat tests. All 17 Codex execution tests passed, including per-agent skill isolation, model identity, revision changes, removal, and prompt delivery without shared skill files. - After rebasing onto master, all 44 focused email, heartbeat, and native-authority tests passed. All 313 native-session executor tests passed. The UI regression suite passed all 3 tests. These test sets overlap earlier focused runs. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed after the rebase. Token gates passed. Earlier focused Playwright task/setup coverage and the Storybook build also passed. - Native connector tool execution uses deterministic integration tests. Live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter; the new shared-home prompt fallback has deterministic coverage. - The full repository suite is run by CI. The earlier unsharded local full-suite attempt was stopped after the equivalent CI suites passed and is not reported as a completed local run. Greptile reviewed `7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb` at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. All server, workspace, serialized server, and browser suites passed in CI. The build job hit a five-second timeout in a runner transport test; both variants and the full 80-test file passed locally with unchanged timeouts. The build passed on retry on the same commit without code or timeout changes. All required CI gates, including the final `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` summaries, are green on `7e57dc267a8446d3c906e3cc5b8abc94fb8860eb`. ## Risks - Email from external senders can start normal agent work. Setup recommends a low-trust agent and AgentMail sender controls. Sender addresses never grant board membership. - Provider timeouts can leave uncertain sends. Retries retain their idempotency key; expired windows require reconciliation or operator resolution. - Connector skills and native tools are assignment-dependent and require current access. Revocation denies retained calls; assignment changes select a new runtime context. - Activation remains behind the experimental-channel setting. The native runner path has deterministic coverage; live Daytona qualification used the Codex CLI adapter. - Schema changes are additive. Inbox ownership is unique across companies. Disconnect preserves provider inboxes and task history. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size were 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
|
a12bbd1824 |
fix: stop completion reviews caused by policy upgrades (#13266)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runtime records completion assessments and task decisions. > - An application update can change the assessment policy version. > - The previous code treated that version change as a reason for human review. > - An upgrade alone does not give the user a new decision to make. > - This change keeps existing decisions and withdraws obsolete upgrade review cards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A rules version change moved unfinished tasks into review and created a card that said, "Review the superseding native policy assessment." The task did not need new work or a human decision. **Expected behavior** New runs use the current rules. An upgrade leaves existing task decisions alone. The saved policy version remains available in the audit history. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save a native run assessment and a task decision. 2. Change the native status policy version. 3. Run finalization reconciliation without new task evidence. 4. The previous code created a review card. The corrected code keeps the saved assessment and decision. Related context: #13038 changed the native policy version. Searches found no duplicate fix for upgrade-only completion reviews. ## What Changed - Remove policy-version mismatch as a reconciliation trigger. - Withdraw pending cards only when their source decision, effect ledger, creator, key, and prompt match the old upgrade-only review. - Restore the previous status only while that decision and status version remain current and no other review gate is pending. - Preserve answered cards, real review requests, later task changes, and historical assessments and decisions. - Record cleanup activity and retire any corresponding chat review actions. - Isolate cleanup failures so one old card cannot block other cleanup or normal finalization. - Update the status conformance fixture, regression tests, and architecture documentation. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/native-status-arbiter-corpus.test.ts` (23 tests, including the 53-fixture status corpus). - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: `git diff --check`. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - Passed: fresh Greptile review at 5/5 on `d24e5ecaf`, with no open review threads. - Passed: the 23 focused tests in the isolated full-suite environment. - Local `pnpm test:run`: the server group finished with 10,638 passed and one missing-fixture failure. Built the required `fake-codex-app-server` fixture and reran the entire affected native session-resume suite: 37/37 passed. The initial full command exited on that server-group failure, so remaining groups are covered by CI. - Passed: the workspace-runtime-exposure suite (25 tests, 3 platform skips). - Passed: all CI gates, including every test shard, browser tests, typecheck, and build. The server shard passed on one retry after an unrelated host-port conflict in the unchanged workspace-exposure tests. - Cleanup tests cover repeat runs, real reviews, answered cards, later statuses, newer decision identity, status changes back to review, other pending requests, run scope, cleanup failures, retry, and live publication failures. ## Risks - Cleanup changes stored task state. It checks the exact obsolete decision and status version under database locks before restoring status. - Pending approvals, interactions, and execution stages prevent restoration out of review. - The cleanup handles at most 100 matching cards per reconciliation pass. It does not rewrite old decisions or accept an agent's completion claim. - New evidence and explicit task changes still use the existing reconciliation paths. This change does not reevaluate old work merely because Paperclip was updated. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact deployment identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, and automated tests. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
19c76bfc3f |
fix(ci): avoid empty pnpm caches from lockfile refresh (#13267)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - CI installs dependencies before it verifies and builds cloud artifacts. > - Install jobs share a pnpm package-store cache with lockfile refresh. > - Lockfile refresh resolves versions without downloading packages. > - That job saved an empty cache before full install jobs could save theirs. > - This PR prevents lockfile refresh from publishing that empty entry. > - Full install jobs can then populate the cache and reuse dependencies. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13259 for the related cloud verification cache work. No duplicate empty-cache fix was found. **What happened?** Refresh Lockfile run 34517514932 saved a 216-byte default-branch pnpm cache at 18:58:08 UTC on September 10. Full install jobs still restore that empty entry. The cache API reports 216 bytes for master and about 703 MB for populated entries with the same key and cache version in PR scopes. **Expected behavior** A job that installs dependencies should populate the shared package-store cache. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run lockfile refresh with a new lockfile cache key. 2. Its resolution-only command leaves the package store empty. 3. The Node action saves the empty archive before a full install finishes. 4. Later jobs report a cache hit but download packages again. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on master |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
778ac33308 |
feat: accept a base64-encoded Cloud UI snippet (#13245)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip Cloud instances can inject a trusted operator HTML snippet before `</body>` in served UI pages (#13168) > - Operators deliver env vars to managed instances through hosting-provider APIs > - Web application firewalls in front of those APIs reject request bodies that contain raw `<script` markup > - The snippet value always contains a script tag, so the firewall blocks its delivery every time > - This pull request adds `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET_B64`, which carries the same snippet as standard base64 > - The benefit is that operators can ship the snippet through WAF-fronted delivery pipelines without firewall exceptions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13168 (introduced the Cloud UI snippet). **Subsystem affected** Server UI shell serving: `server/src/cloud-ui-snippet.ts`, used by `static-index-html.ts` and `app.ts`. **Current behavior** `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET` is the only way to configure the Cloud UI snippet. The value is raw HTML. Delivery pipelines that write env vars through provider APIs can fail to deliver it: web application firewalls classify a request body that contains `<script` as an injection attempt and block it. Verified against Railway's GraphQL API, which sits behind Cloudflare: a variable value with a bare `<script></script>` returns HTTP 403 before authentication, and JSON unicode escapes (`<script`) do not bypass the block. The snippet is exactly the kind of value that always contains a script tag, so such pipelines cannot deliver it at all. **Proposed behavior** A new optional `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET_B64` carries the same snippet as standard base64 of the UTF-8 HTML. The server decodes it and injects the result through the existing path. The plain variable wins when both are set. Whitespace and line wrapping in the value are tolerated. A value that is not canonical base64, or that decodes to blank, is ignored instead of injected as garbage. **Reason and benefit** Operators can deliver the snippet through WAF-fronted APIs without requesting firewall exceptions. Base64 contains no markup, so the firewall has nothing to match. Existing deployments see no behavior change. **Breaking changes** None. The new variable is optional. The existing variable is unchanged and takes precedence. ## What Changed - `server/src/cloud-ui-snippet.ts`: resolve the snippet from `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET` first, then from base64-decoded `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET_B64`; ignore non-canonical or blank-decoding values. - `server/src/__tests__/cloud-ui-snippet.test.ts`: cover decode-and-inject, plain-wins precedence, whitespace tolerance, invalid/blank values, and the self-hosted no-op. - `doc/cloud-ui-snippet.md`: document the variant, how to produce the value, and the ignore rules. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/cloud-ui-snippet.test.ts server/src/__tests__/static-index-html.test.ts` — 13 tests pass. - `tsc --noEmit` in `server/` passes. - Manual check: on a Cloud-managed instance, set `PAPERCLIP_CLOUD_UI_SNIPPET_B64="$(base64 < snippet.html)"`, restart, open `/`, and confirm the decoded snippet appears before `</body>`. On a self-hosted instance, confirm no snippet is injected. ## Risks Low risk. The injection path and the Cloud-managed gate are unchanged. A malformed base64 value is ignored, so the failure mode is a missing widget, not corrupted HTML. The decoded value is trusted operator configuration, the same trust model as the plain variable. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`) via Claude Code CLI, agentic workflow with tool use (code edits, test runs, and live API verification of the WAF behavior). ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
bc68312327 |
ci: use reserved AWS capacity for post-merge cloud verification (#13257)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Cloud deployments consume a verified image and exact-source
migrator.
> - An image alone is not deployable until source checks and artifact
checks pass.
> - GitHub-hosted queues delayed those checks and the final readiness
signal.
> - This PR gives trusted master work a separate concurrency allowance
on existing AWS runners.
> - Community PRs and arbitrary source inputs keep the GitHub-hosted
fallback.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13243.
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
Time from a master merge to the Cloud deployable v1 signal.
**Current behavior**
For merge
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3bafac12f7 |
refactor: remove automatic productivity reviews (#13263)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its recovery loop keeps assigned work moving after execution failures. > - Productivity review used run counts, comment counts, and elapsed time to create management tasks. > - Infrastructure failures could satisfy those rules and create more tasks without evidence that the source work needed management review. > - This pull request removes that detector and its continuation holds. > - Bounded recovery, budgets, explicit blockers, and normal review stages remain in place. > - Existing task records stay readable and unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #5897. That request describes unwanted automatic productivity reviews and asks to preserve existing tasks. This change retires the feature instead of adding another configuration switch. Related prior approaches: Refs #9191, Refs #12489. Those changes excluded infrastructure failures or bounded review creation. This removal replaces the detector rather than tuning its thresholds. ## What Changed - Delete the scheduled detector, automatic task creation, evidence refresh, and productivity continuation holds. - Remove computed productivity fields, special attention items, badges, and Storybook fixtures. - Retain historical origin values, decision compatibility, and recovery recursion exclusions. Add no migration and change no existing task data. - Update the execution contract. Replace feature tests with regressions for legacy task reads, ordinary attention, and bounded continuation in the presence of an old review. ## Verification - Targeted attention, issue-route, startup, and UI tests: 4 files and 101 tests passed. - Updated issue-route and UI tests: 2 files and 61 tests passed. - Bounded continuation regression: 2 cases passed, including a legacy review plus pre-dispatch cancellation churn. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: all four gates passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. - Greptile: 5/5 on `a5a612eea`, with no actionable findings. - Scheduler and historical recovery regressions: 2 files and 28 tests passed. - Repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - The complete `pnpm test:run` suite passed across the CI server, serialized-server, and workspace shards on `a5a612eea`. Stopped the duplicate local monolithic run after the full CI suite passed; no completed local full-suite result is claimed. The targeted local suites above passed. - CI serialized shard 5 initially hit a 10-second timeout in the first interaction-route test. The complete file passed locally (78 tests), then the single CI rerun passed. - All CI gates are green, including the build and end-to-end suites. - A local merge check against current `master` (`ce09ea40b`) completed without conflicts. ## Risks - API responses no longer include the computed `productivityReview` field. Consumers must stop using it. - The scheduler no longer creates management work from elapsed time, run counts, or missing comments. This is the intended behavior change. - Existing review tasks and explicit dependencies remain in place. Historical origins still prevent recursive recovery treatment. No task cleanup or data migration occurs. - The native review handoff repair is separate from this removal. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact runtime model identifier 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
|
663c44cb2b |
fix: continue conversations after confirmed remote runner stop (#13254)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Users can stop a run and send another message on the same task.
> - Remote runners need evidence from their sandbox provider that
execution stopped.
> - Local process checks cannot prove that a remote process exited.
> - This pull request records provider stop receipts and uses them for
conversation admission.
> - New user messages can proceed after confirmed cleanup without
repeating interrupted actions.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #13237 and #13239. Related: #13163 covers app-restart recovery;
this change covers an explicit stop followed by a new user message.
**What happened?**
A stopped remote Claude ACP task kept its execution hold after Daytona
cleanup succeeded. Native runners also rejected remote process
identities and retained stale session cleanup gates. A message sent
during cleanup could stay deferred after the sandbox stopped.
**Expected behavior**
After the provider confirms that the old execution stopped, a new user
message starts a fresh turn. Pending user messages must not need another
message to trigger admission. Prior action outcomes remain recorded.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a long-running task in Daytona with a legacy Claude ACP or
native ACP runner.
2. Cancel the run while its tool is active.
3. Send a new message immediately, or after cleanup completes.
4. Observe the execution hold despite the old sandbox having stopped.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
a23ae894a5 |
ci: cache Rust dependencies used by post-merge typecheck (#13259)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud images become deployable only after source verification passes. > - The typecheck job builds the native Runner binary through the server package. > - Fresh runners repeatedly compile Rust dependencies for that binary. > - This PR caches those dependencies for exact-source master verification. > - Workspace code and every typecheck still rebuild or run as before. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13243 and #13257. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The typecheck portion of post-merge cloud source verification. **Current behavior** The typecheck job has no Rust dependency cache. An observed release build in this job took 4m 13s, including dependency compilation. **Proposed behavior** Restore dependency build outputs for canonical master pushes with the exact source SHA. Use a separate cache key from the Runner verification job, which builds other profiles. **Reason and benefit** A warm cache should remove roughly 2–3 minutes of dependency compilation from this job. Overall deployment gains depend on the remaining critical path. The first cache population still compiles from scratch. **Breaking changes** None. All checks remain enabled. Non-master callers compile without restoring or saving this cache. ## What Changed - Select the pinned Rust toolchain before the typecheck cache lookup. - Reuse the existing pinned Rust cache action with a typecheck-specific key. - Exclude workspace crates and installed cargo executables. - Test restore/save trust boundaries and document cache behavior. ## Verification - All workflow script tests pass locally, including nine new cache trust/contract cases. - actionlint passes for release-verify.yml. - Full local typecheck and build pass on the same source base (167s and 206s); `pnpm test:run` is still running and is recorded with #13257. This PR changes only the workflow, cache guard tests, and documentation. - All 32 current-head checks are successful or intentionally skipped, including the complete Linux test matrix, build, and Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Verify cache population and subsequent restore on actual master runs. ## Risks - The first run and any toolchain/dependency invalidation compile from scratch. - Cache restore/save overhead reduces the benefit for small dependency graphs. - Disable the cache step to roll back; the existing uncached build remains valid. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. Exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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 — focused change tests pass; full-suite local permission failures are disclosed above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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
|
2904a3a6cc |
fix(ui): hide retry countdown after execution starts (#13258)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip helps operators manage AI agents and their tasks.
> - Task pages show countdowns for deferred checks and automatic
retries.
> - A retry keeps its scheduled start time after it enters the queue or
starts running.
> - The countdown treated that historical time as a pending deadline and
showed an overdue warning beside active work.
> - This pull request limits retry countdowns to retries that are still
scheduled and hides waiting surfaces on terminal tasks.
> - Operators now see a warning only when the displayed retry is still
waiting to start.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #9783, which added the monitor surfaces. Searched related PRs and
issues; no duplicate fix was found.
**What happened?**
After a service restart resumed a task through an automatic retry, the
task showed an overdue retry banner while the agent was running. The
banner also remained when the task became done.
**Expected behavior**
A queued or running retry must not show a countdown against its past
scheduled start time. Done and cancelled tasks must not show waiting
banners.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task with an automatic retry scheduled for a known time.
2. Let the retry enter the queue and start running.
3. Wait until its scheduled time is more than one minute in the past.
4. Observe the overdue banner and Check now button while the agent is
working.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on source commit
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d0b7ba4194 |
ci: route approved master cloud builds to AWS (#13243)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Cloud deploys images built from master commits. > - Cloud image builds share GitHub-hosted capacity with other workflows. > - The organization already operates AWS runners through RunsOn Fleet. > - This pull request allows approved master builds to use a dedicated cloud Fleet. > - The benefit is separate build capacity with a quick operator rollback. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13189, #13192. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Placement of the Docker cloud build after a master merge. **Current behavior** Every Docker cloud build uses a GitHub-hosted runner. Busy periods delay the job. **Proposed behavior** An operator variable enables the approved cloud Fleet for canonical master pushes and manual master builds. Other events, refs, and repositories use GitHub-hosted runners. ## What Changed - Add a guarded AWS runner selector to the Docker cloud job. - Keep the existing image cache, verification, and publication steps. - Test the selector against master, branch, tag, PR, fork, and disabled contexts. - Document provisioning requirements, placement checks, and rollback. ## Verification - 29 focused Node tests pass for routing, readiness, and disk handling. - The full workflow-script Node suite passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes locally. - The pinned PR routing regression suite passes. The first live PR run assigned 21 jobs to the approved AWS PR group. AWS then reclaimed 16 Spot instances. The failed run is being repeated on GitHub-hosted runners while the Fleet moves to On-Demand. - Actionlint passes with existing shellcheck findings excluded (SC2012, SC2016, SC2129). - `git diff --check` passes. - Greptile reports 5/5 on commit `764d505a41dd2023751c3f361906fa9ea35bf0c6`, with no review threads. - All 30 current-head CI checks pass, including typecheck, build, all server/workspace test shards, Runner verification, and browser tests. Two Storybook checks are intentionally skipped for this change. Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34630550799 - The broader local test/build sequence is still running. This Mac has reported failures in unchanged application suites; their complete Linux CI shards pass. Local targeted workflow tests and typecheck pass. - Both On-Demand Fleets are deployed and healthy. Live master cloud-build verification follows the merge. ## Risks - Missing Fleet capacity or runner-group authorization can leave an AWS job queued. Disable `AWS_CLOUD_BUILDS_ENABLED` and rerun the workflow to use GitHub-hosted capacity. - The runner group must restrict access to this repository and the master version of `docker-cloud.yml`. - Docker needs more disk space than the PR Fleet. Provision 120 GiB disks and retain the free-space check. - This changes image build placement only. Source verification and migrator publication remain separate prerequisites. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed by this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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
|
7b829efdf6 |
feat: show tasks created from a task by project (#13241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A task can cause an agent to create more tasks. > - Those tasks can belong to other projects or have another parent. > - The subtask view does not show all work created from the current task. > - This pull request adds a Tasks tab with separate subtask and creation groups. > - Operators can follow created work without changing its parent or project. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Operators need to see all work that an agent creates while running for a task. Parentage alone does not describe this relationship. Legacy and native runs must follow the same rules. **Proposed solution** Show all subtasks in one section. Separately group tasks created from the source task by their current project, with a No project group when needed. A created subtask appears in both sections. Use saved run context and recorded creation activity to find the source task. **Alternatives considered** Making all created tasks children would change their hierarchy. Removing overlap between sections would hide the creation relationship. This change keeps the two memberships separate. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Activity log & action attribution capability. It does not add a new roadmap area. Related PR: #9727 adds a stored source-task field and inbound attribution UI. This PR adds the outgoing task list using existing run and activity records and does not require that schema change. ## What Changed - Add a company-scoped createdFromIssueId filter to issue lists. - Save the actor run during task creation, including legacy child-helper calls. - Recover historical run attribution from creation activity when the origin run is absent. - Render the production Tasks panel with all subtasks and independently grouped created work. - Keep progress only for subtasks. Add folding, hover fades and project links. - Fetch all result pages and refresh on issue activity. Show load failures with Retry. - Add database, API, UI and pagination tests, design-guide examples and Storybook pages. ## Verification - Before rebase: 158 targeted tests passed. Workspace typecheck, UI/server builds, Storybook build and token gates passed. - After rebase: full workspace typecheck and build passed. The cursor fix passes 26 focused tests and UI/server typechecks. - The full local test command completed its general-server group with 10,563 passing tests and two failures: a missing native-runner fixture and a concurrency-test timeout. Building the fixture and rerunning both affected files passed all 41 tests. The local command stopped before its remaining groups; all corresponding GitHub test shards passed on the submitted head. - GitHub checks on commit |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5545f6d166 |
feat: let user messages continue stopped native tasks (#13239)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A failed native run can leave a durable execution hold. > - The hold prevents automatic replay of actions with unknown outcomes. > - It can also prevent the agent from answering a new user message. > - A new user message should authorize a fresh turn after the prior execution stops. > - This pull request adds that admission path and preserves the existing execution gates. > - Users can continue the conversation without certifying every past action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Server task wake admission and native execution recovery. **Problem or motivation** A native task can remain blocked after automatic recovery stops. A new user message is saved, but its run is cancelled before the agent can answer. **Proposed solution** Use a new authenticated user comment to authorize a fresh turn. Check stopped predecessor ownership and available history. Retain uncertain action outcomes. Commit the new run and hold retirement together. **Roadmap alignment** This is a focused improvement to the existing self-healing runs and recovery behavior. Builds on merged #13237, which covers legacy conversation continuation. This PR adds native admission and preserves native automatic-recovery eligibility and budgets. ## What Changed - Admit a fresh native turn for a new user comment after every held predecessor has stopped. - Validate the comment author, task, timing, process ownership, controller, and cleanup leases. - Preserve failed runs, unknown action outcomes, and the failed incident's attempt count. - Record the new comment and run in the existing recovery audit history. - Validate the saved continuation source and discard consumed user-wake authority from later automatic replacements. - Keep pause, approval, budget, ownership, and dependency interaction rules. - Add database and actual wake-path regressions. Update the execution contract. ## Verification - [Full CI run 34626750213](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34626750213) passed on `c58e6c087e0df7530c747d80b27d491da925a9c4`: all 31 reported checks passed, including all server/workspace suites, browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. All review threads are resolved, and security checks passed. - All 218 local targeted tests passed across explicit native continuation, continuation history, safe replacement, durable chat wakeups, wake queue, issue liveness, native session resume, and run dispatch. The native implementation is unchanged by the final rebase onto master. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final head. Complete test coverage is supplied by the green CI suites; local tests used the targeted suites above. - Regressions cover scoped authorization, concurrent delivery, live ownership, later admission gates, retained message receipts, and automatic replacement after terminal-task or reviewer changes. ## Risks - A fresh model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip preserves prior history and does not replay recorded calls. - Missing process identity and remote ownership without a target-aware stop proof retain the hold. A terminal database row alone does not prove that execution stopped. - No schema or dependency changes. Existing historical tasks are not awakened by deployment. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. This session does not expose a more specific model build ID or context-window size. ## 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
|
b1efd65edc |
fix: continue interrupted task conversations with bounded retries (#13237)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A task can outlive a provider process or a server restart. > - Legacy recovery treated unknown tool outcomes as a permanent execution hold. > - That hold could also reject a later user message. > - A conversation turn can use prior history without replaying prior tool calls. > - This pull request lets supported conversation adapters continue within the existing retry budget. > - Users can send a new message after automatic attempts stop. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A server restart could interrupt a local ACP run and leave its task behind a permanent recovery hold. A later user message could be cancelled before the provider answered. The immediate recovery path could also create a successor outside the durable failure counter. **Expected behavior** Continue with a bounded new conversation turn. Preserve a compatible provider session or use full task context when it is unavailable. Do not replay recorded tools. When automatic attempts stop, allow a new user request through the normal execution gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a task with a local conversation adapter. 2. Restart the server while the provider is working. 3. Let the previous run become interrupted. 4. Send a follow-up message and observe the recovery hold on the old behavior. Related work: Refs #13075 for durable task recovery. Refs #12946 for retry-limit and checkout-lock handling. This change routes conversation recovery through the existing bounded scheduler. ## What Changed - Mark supported local conversation failures for continuation. Keep native-runner and non-conversation recovery rules. - Carry an interruption notice into the next turn. Retain stopped ACP session history even when a write outcome is unknown. - Clear unavailable ACP sessions so the next bounded attempt can use full task context. - Route immediate failure recovery through the same durable scheduler as process-loss recovery. Release only the predecessor checkout when its retry takes ownership. - Retire obsolete conversation holds using immutable run evidence, in bounded batches with an activity record. Preserve outcome evidence and do not wake historical tasks. - Block actual admission and Resume while a predecessor process or environment lease is still active. Keep the original interruption notice after a rejected wake. Preserve the upstream blocked-wake waiting contract: bounded retry planning can happen during cleanup, while deferred messages and execution remain gated. - Add subprocess and database regression tests. Update the execution contract. - Add the current thread-status field to the native recovery provider fixture so its damaged-journal test reaches the intended boundary. Tolerate an already-exited fixture process during test cleanup while still asserting both processes terminate. ## Verification - Workspace typecheck passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Build passed: `pnpm build`. - Module boundaries passed: `pnpm check:module-boundaries`. - Focused tests passed: 293 recovery/session/dispatch tests, 66 retry and response-gate tests, and 37 native-session tests. Some suites overlap. - Tests cover interrupted writes, missing sessions, concurrent retries, restart persistence, pending questions and approvals, execution gates, and historical holds. - Built the Rust test executables with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust` for native-runner verification. - Full Vitest coverage verified locally using the repository’s general and serialized shards, with focused reruns for failures and files not reached after a shard stopped. The ownership-gate regression is fixed and the complete affected server shard passes (1,390 tests). Local parallel runs also hit temporary-directory, resource, and timing failures; those suites pass with canonical temporary paths and sequential reruns. No test timeouts were increased. - Final merged-branch regression run: 577 tests pass across process recovery, retry scheduling, liveness, durable chat, wake-queue application/adapter, dispatch, continuation, native sessions, and task chat. Earlier focused verification also passed 19 native control tests. Token gates and whitespace validation pass. - Browser verification passed all three ACP Stop/continue/pause scenarios, including a rerun after merging the upstream waiting behavior: `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3397 pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. The interrupted-write case verifies that follow-up completes without a repeated write. - Final-head [CI run 34625037394](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34625037394) passed on `06ac4bd9d150f8b209a96e5fd609c696958794a0`: all 31 reported checks are green, including server/workspace suites, all browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5; all review threads are resolved. ## Risks - A new model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip does not replay recorded tool calls and does not certify unknown action outcomes. - Conversation adapters now stop after their retry budget instead of requiring action reconciliation. Explicit Stop, pause, dependency, approval, budget, and ownership gates remain in force. - No schema migration or dependency changes. Historical holds are folded without changing task status or waking work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The session does not expose a more specific model build ID or context-window size. ## 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
|
42a4f5b15b |
feat(ui): advance single-choice questions on selection (#13234)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents ask structured questions in task threads and the composer. > - The shared form shows one question at a time. > - A single choice already completes an answer, but the form requires another click on Next. > - This pull request moves to the next question when the user selects one option. > - Multi-select and custom answers keep their Next step. The last page keeps explicit submission. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The paged question form in the task composer and task interaction cards. **Subsystem affected** ui/ — React board UI. **Current behavior** The user clicks a single choice, then clicks Next to reach the next question. **Proposed behavior** A single choice shows its checked state for 160 ms, then opens the next question with an 80 ms fade. Reduced-motion mode skips the animation. Multi-select stays on the current page until Next. Other stays open for typing. The last question waits for Submit answers. **Reason and benefit** Remove an extra click from each single-choice question while preserving explicit submission. **Breaking changes** Single-choice selection now changes the page. Answer payloads and APIs do not change. The user can return to earlier answers with the previous arrow. **Additional context** Related work: #12640 introduced the task workspace. No duplicate auto-advance change was found. ## What Changed - Confirm a single-choice answer with a brief radio animation and row highlight, then fade into the next page and focus the new question. - Use motion tokens for the 160 ms confirmation and 80 ms page fade. Honor reduced motion and cancel pending advances when the user changes direction or closes the form. - Lightly highlight every selected row with a foreground tint that remains visible against the composer in both themes, for single-select and multi-select answers. - Preserve multi-select, custom answers, back navigation, and final submission. - Ignore repeated number-key events and selection during an upload or submission. - Update composer and card tests. Add interactive and verified composer stories to the existing interaction Storybook group. - Document the Storybook scenario in the developer guide. ## Verification - Focused composer, card, and motion-catalog tests: 121 passed, including animation timing and cancellation. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. Browser interaction story: passed with the selection animation enabled. - Selected-row refinement: 121 focused tests, token gates, and Storybook build passed. Browser inspection confirmed row highlighting for single-select and multiple selected checkboxes, plus light-theme contrast. - Manual browser check: select SQLite, select two features, click Next, select Now, then submit. The summary contains every answer. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - All 31 remote checks passed on the latest commit (`04a3f3983`), including typecheck, general and serialized tests, production build/native-runner verification, canary validation, and browser tests. Two optional Storybook deployment/visual jobs were skipped. Greptile reviewed the same commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. The selected-row highlight refinement is included in that verification. - Animation refinement: UI typecheck, UI build, token gates, and 121 focused tests passed. - The broader UI run had 5,940 passing tests and three failures in unchanged Inbox/IssuesList tests. Both affected suites passed in isolation (73/73), including all three previously failing cases. - The broad local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after reproducing the native-runner failure below and after the full remote suite passed. It is not a clean local full-suite result. - Local runner limitation: `server/src/services/native-runtime/native-session-resume.test.ts` has one reproducible failure in unchanged code. The damaged-epoch recovery test expects `run.attach requires a settled Codex provider session`; the runner instead reports `semantic tool input content digest does not match its transmitted input` at line 1019. After building the missing fake provider with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner build:rust`, the isolated suite has 36 passing tests and this one failure. No server or runner files changed in this PR. ## Risks - Selecting a single choice changes the visible question after a brief checked-state confirmation. Back navigation preserves the choice so it can be edited. - The final page still requires Submit answers. Selecting Other still requires text and explicit progress. - No database, server, API, or dependency changes. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, code editing, terminal tools, and browser verification. Exact serving revision 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 - [ ] 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
|
eb640ec129 |
fix(execution): keep blocked wakes waiting without repeated runs (#13236)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Wake admission decides when a task can create an execution run. > - Recovery can prohibit replay while the previous execution needs review. > - Dependency reconciliation kept creating runs before dispatch rejected that same hold. > - Each rejected run added another startup notice without doing useful work. > - This change checks the hold during admission and records repeated automatic waits once. > - Tasks keep their messages and can resume when the current gates permit execution. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related changes: Refs #13173 (stale completed-task continuations). Refs #12651 (dependency waits during recovery). **What happened?** A blocked task with completed dependencies can remain under a durable execution reconciliation hold. Each scheduler pass created a queued run. Dispatch then cancelled it before the adapter started. The skipped wake did not satisfy dependency wake deduplication, so this repeated and filled the conversation with “Couldn't start” notices. **Expected behavior** A known execution hold creates a waiting diagnostic without a run. Repeated automatic observations share that diagnostic. Clearing the hold permits a new wake only after the other gates pass. New comments remain available for the next eligible execution. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Assign a blocked task with a completed blocker. 2. Give the task an active reconciliation action, or a resolved action whose automatic recovery evidence still prohibits replay. 3. Run dependency reconciliation repeatedly. 4. Observe repeated cancelled pre-start runs on the base branch. This branch creates no runs while held and admits work after the effective hold clears. ## What Changed - Check effective execution holds under the issue admission lock before inserting runs. Keep the final dispatch check for races. - Share automatic wait diagnostics across producers, wake keys, and service restarts. Apply the helper to reconciliation, dependencies, pause holds, availability, budgets, and disabled heartbeats. - Preserve ordinary comment and interaction receipts during execution holds. Prevent release from draining them while replay is blocked. Keep external-chat receipt authorization intact. - Group empty pre-start reconciliation cancellations into a neutral waiting notice. Keep started runs and the full run history. - Document the waiting contract and add database-backed, UI, and browser regressions. - Stabilize two existing verification tests: allow the asynchronous chat lease transition a bounded five-second wait, and accept either legitimate damaged-session refusal while retaining exact archive-evidence assertions. ## Verification Passed targeted tests: - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts server/src/modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts` — 28 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx` — covered in the initial combined test run; UI suite passed. - Run-dispatch adapter tests passed in the combined gate regression run. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/durable-chat-wakeup.test.ts` — 41 tests, including held receipt replay, promotion, and revoked access. - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_PORT=3294 pnpm test:e2e tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` — all 3 browser scenarios pass. Repeated held messages create no additional runs or provider prompts and do not replay writes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm check:module-boundaries` - `git diff --check` `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. The full local `pnpm test:run` invocation did not finish green: it encountered exhausted local PostgreSQL shared-memory slots, a missing fresh-worktree runner test binary, and tests loaded across in-flight edits. The affected chat/database suites passed on rerun (81 tests), and the targeted lifecycle/recovery verification passed (3 tests). After building the runner test binary, the full native session suite also passed (37 tests). Final-head [CI run 34621288475](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34621288475) passed on `8659618b0ed2b98df002a28f4c1bd97321b0db04`, including all server/workspace test shards, all three browser shards, runner verification, typecheck, build, release dry run, and the aggregate verification gates. All 31 reported checks passed; the two conditional Storybook checks were skipped as intended. Greptile reviewed that exact commit at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks The wait record is diagnostic only. It must never count as a delivered wake or bypass a current gate. Tests cover repeated and concurrent admission, resolved no-replay evidence, a remaining dependency after hold clearance, deferred comments, and release gating. Explicit user requests and authorized chat receipts do not share automatic diagnostics. No migration or historical data deletion is required. Existing provider retry budgets remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The runtime does not expose the exact hosted snapshot ID or context-window size. Used repository inspection, code editing, command execution, tests, and review tools. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1d26ae965e |
fix(ui): keep active runner status current and say Working (#13238)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task transcript shows a running agent's progress.
> - The active-run query stops polling when the live-run list has data.
> - The transcript still preferred that initial snapshot, so an old
execution-confirmation state could remain after work resumed.
> - This pull request uses the refreshed snapshot for the same run and
keeps active status text at Working.
> - Operators can see current activity without connection-state jargon.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The task transcript said Reconnecting while the runner continued sending
messages and calling tools. The stale projection could also hide the
Thinking tail or stop the status spinner and timer.
**Expected behavior**
The selected run uses its current live snapshot. Active transcripts say
Working and show current activity. Completed and failed runs say Worked
and Stopped.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a running task before its execution confirmation arrives.
2. Let the active-run query stop polling when the live-run list returns
the run.
3. Let the list refresh to working while the cached active-run snapshot
still says reconnecting.
4. Inspect the transcript status and activity tail.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Base commit:
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4fde92107e |
fix(ci): reuse cloud source verification for npm canaries (#13233)
Reuse the exact master source-verification result before npm canary publication, removing a duplicate verification matrix while preserving fail-closed release checks. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
52811c6ce6 |
fix(tasks): require resume before sending to paused tasks (#13232)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task execution controls let board users pause a task or its subtree. > - The composer still accepted messages while a pause hold was active. > - A paused task must require an explicit resume before the user can send another message. > - This pull request replaces the composer with an amber pause card and checks board comment writes on the server. > - The user keeps their draft and resumes through the existing task controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13104. Refs #13119. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The task composer and existing task/subtree pause controls. **Current behavior** A paused task can still receive a board message. The pause notice sits outside the composer, which leaves the send action available. **Proposed behavior** Show an amber takeover in both task chat and the classic composer. Preserve the draft. Require the user to resume the task or the ancestor subtree before sending. Reject board comment writes through either supported write route while the pause hold is active. **Breaking changes** Board comment writes to a paused task now return HTTP 409. Agent run reports remain supported during a pause. There is no schema migration. ## What Changed - Add a shared amber composer takeover with task, subtree, saved draft, pending, and error states. - Use effective ancestor pause state in both composer interfaces. Refresh it after pause events, task updates, and rejected sends. - Preserve draft text and attachments. Hide editor, send, queued edit, and pending question controls while paused. - Check active pause holds before board comment writes can mutate tasks, store comments, or wake agents. - Connect the approved Storybook examples to the production component and update the design and behavior docs. - Add browser coverage for both composers, draft persistence, resume, inherited holds, and rejected writes. Update ACP continuation coverage for the explicit resume requirement. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: `pnpm build`. - Passed: `pnpm build-storybook`. - Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check`. - Passed: focused UI tests (398 tests) and server route tests (127 tests). - Passed: `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/paused-composer.spec.ts tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts` (5 tests). - Passed: manual browser walkthrough in a disposable local instance. Pause with a draft, refresh while paused, resume, send, and reopen. The draft returned, and one message persisted. The amber card and resume dialog were readable with no clipping. - Full local `pnpm test:run` did not pass: the general-server stage recorded 9,072 passing tests, 6 database setup failures from macOS shared-memory exhaustion, and 4 failed tests. This stopped the script before its later groups. Latest-head CI runs those groups independently. - Local follow-up: the Git file-resource load test passed on rerun (4 tests); native finalization migration passed after clearing the abandoned browser-test database allocation. Building the native debug fixtures fixed the missing fake provider. The remaining native-session recovery assertion also reproduces on untouched base commit `87b3e5fc6` (36 pass, 1 fail on both base and PR). It expects a settled-session error but receives a semantic-input-digest error. - The final UI build, UI typecheck, token gates, both thread suites (182 tests), and all five browser tests passed after the queued-action review fix. All 31 latest-head CI checks passed, including all server, workspace, browser, build, release, and security gates. Two optional Storybook jobs were skipped by workflow policy. Greptile reviewed `32d8fb5f5` at 5/5 with no open findings. - Review the Paused Composer and Tasks / Execution Controls stories. Pause a task with a draft, verify the amber card, resume, and verify the draft can be sent once. ## Risks - Clients that used board comments to continue paused work must resume first. The response is an explicit HTTP 409. - Pause state can change while a page is open. Live updates refresh the composer, and the server rejects stale sends before their side effects. - Resume keeps the existing dialog and optional agent wake behavior. Agent reports from interrupted runs remain allowed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, assisted with design, implementation, code execution, and browser verification. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. The agent used reasoning and tool calls. ## 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 the relevant tests locally and they pass; the full local-suite limits are documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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
|
96bba78fba |
feat: add readable Storybook branch bookmarks (#13231)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Maintainers use Storybook previews to review the board UI. > - Branch previews need stable bookmarks that people can read. > - The current publisher only provides a hashed branch path. > - This pull request adds a readable branch bookmark after each successful upload. > - Existing branch and build links keep working. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13226. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Manual Storybook publication for repository branches. **Current behavior** The stable branch path contains a hash. The expected `/storybook/branches/master/` URL does not exist. **Proposed behavior** Each publication updates a readable bookmark. The action summary and Markdown artifact link it. Master uses `/storybook/branches/master/`. Other names use a safe path segment that preserves case and escapes special characters. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can save and share a readable URL that opens the latest published branch build. **Breaking changes** None. Existing hashed branch entries still update. Existing build URLs remain valid. **Additional context** This follows the publisher in #13226. A duplicate search found no related bookmark change. It does not overlap planned core work in ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Generate readable branch bookmarks without collisions with existing build directories. - Upload the bookmark only after the full build and compatibility entry uploads succeed. - Link the bookmark in the existing summary and Markdown artifact. - Document branch-name escaping and test path isolation, stable links, and upload order. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 20 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - `git diff --check`: passes. - [Master bookmark publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613344758): passed. Opened `/storybook/branches/master/` in the browser and confirmed a story renders. Downloaded the Markdown report and verified its bookmark link. - [Feature branch bookmark publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34613449034): passed. Its separate bookmark uses `codex~2Fstorybook-bookmarks`. - Greptile: 5/5 on `dccaf10413ecf447cb34e622b6b3c505791abb51`, with no unresolved review threads. All current-head Paperclip CI gates pass, including typecheck, tests, build, browser suites, and the canary dry run. - Full local repository checks were not repeated for this focused publisher change. The preceding run passed typecheck but encountered unrelated native-session test failures. ## Risks - Special characters in branch names use `~HH` byte escapes. For example, `feature/foo` becomes `feature~2Ffoo`. - Names that could overlap an existing hashed build directory escape the final hyphen. Very long names retain a hash suffix. - The two branch entries update separately. If the final upload fails, the workflow fails and a rerun can repair the bookmark. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and live deployment verification. The exact runtime model ID 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
974949a39b |
ci: spread cloud server verification across ten runners (#13227)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud waits for source verification before deploying a new image. > - The slowest server verification job spends about ten minutes running tests. > - Each job uses one test worker to preserve test isolation. > - This pull request distributes those suites across ten standard hosted runners. > - The benefit is a shorter verification path with the same test coverage. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Current behavior** In [readiness run 34572340764](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34572340764), the slowest server job ran for 638 seconds. Test execution used 594 seconds. This held readiness behind the image job. **Proposed behavior** Use ten general server jobs in the reusable release verification workflow. Keep the three chat jobs and every existing prerequisite. The complete partition test verifies that no server suite is omitted or duplicated. **Reason and benefit** Reduce merge-to-deployable time on the existing runner type. The next longest prerequisite was Runner verification at 526 seconds, so the initial expected total gain is about two minutes rather than a halving of readiness time. Measure actual queue and execution time before claiming a result. Related: #13198 introduced the separate chat lane. #12577 refreshes duration estimates; this change leaves that manifest alone. ## What Changed - Increase the general server matrix from five jobs to ten. - Verify the ten-way partition covers the complete server suite when combined with the chat lane. - Document runner demand and the unchanged local and PR grouping. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 29 passed. - `actionlint .github/workflows/release-verify.yml`: passed. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed. - All latest-head GitHub CI checks passed, including the complete Linux test partition, build, typecheck, and browser gates. Greptile: 5/5 with zero open findings. - [Ten-shard timing probe](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34606772388): all 16 jobs passed; slowest server job 6m 23s versus 10m 38s in the earlier five-shard sample. This compares the server lane, not total readiness, and is not a controlled same-source A/B. - The full local `pnpm test:run` is also running. It has reproduced previously observed macOS-only failures in unchanged skill-cache and native-session suites; the corresponding Linux CI suites passed. Final local results will be attached separately. No affected-workflow test failed. ## Risks Five additional concurrent jobs per release verification run increase runner demand and repeated setup work. Queueing can offset the gain. Test workers, timeouts, permissions, and readiness requirements stay unchanged. Revert the matrix and its partition test to restore the previous split. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed by 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 the affected workflow tests locally and they pass; full-suite macOS limitations are disclosed above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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
|
a20ecce409 |
feat: publish CODEOWNER-approved Storybook branch previews (#13226)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Maintainers use Storybook to review the board UI. > - Reviews need public previews of selected repository branches. > - Each branch needs its own URL so previews do not replace each other. > - This pull request adds manual, CODEOWNER-controlled publishing to S3 and CloudFront. > - The action returns stable branch links and permanent build links in its summary and a Markdown artifact. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The existing Storybook build and manual visual-review workflow. **Current behavior** The repository has no manual branch-preview publisher. A single GitHub Pages site cannot support independent publishers without combining their output. **Proposed behavior** A CODEOWNER selects a source branch and approves publication. Each branch has a stable CloudFront URL. A completed build becomes the branch target only after its upload succeeds. The action attaches `storybook-deployment.md` with the preview links and source commit. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can share multiple branch previews at the same time. Branch builds have no repository token permissions or AWS credentials. Dependency caching and install hooks are disabled. The publisher cannot write runner dashboard files or delete objects. **Breaking changes** None. Normal visual checks keep their existing behavior. This does not change application code or GitHub Pages settings. **Additional context** Searched public issues and PRs for Storybook deployment work. No duplicate deployment proposal was found. This is maintainer infrastructure, not a roadmap-level core feature. ## What Changed - Add `Storybook Deploy` with a source-branch input and a manual entry through `Storybook Visual`. - Check the original actor and rerunner against default-branch CODEOWNERS. Require a protected deployment environment with CODEOWNER reviewers. - Separate public-source builds with no repository permissions from an OIDC publisher restricted to the Storybook S3 prefix. - Publish distinct branch URLs and retain build URLs. Preserve Storybook deep links across the branch redirect. - Add the run summary, a downloadable Markdown deployment report, focused tests, and operator setup docs and IAM policies. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-deploy.test.mjs`: 19 tests pass. - `actionlint .github/workflows/storybook-deploy.yml .github/workflows/storybook-visual.yml`: passes. - [Feature branch live publication and deployment-only rerun](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533202273): passed. - [Master branch live publication](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34533204743): passed. - Both public branch URLs render a component story without browser errors. A deployment-only rerun updates only the selected branch entry and preserves the previous build URL. - AWS policy simulation allows Storybook uploads and denies dashboard writes and object deletion. - Full local typechecking passes. Full local tests, build, and current-head PR checks are running. - [Revised build and Markdown artifact validation](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34605623088): passed. Downloaded the report and verified its branch URL, build URL, and source commit. - The public verifier also checks that the stable branch URL points to this build and rejects stale targets. ## Risks - Storybook previews are public. Maintainers must publish only public UI fixtures. - Retained builds accumulate until an operator prunes them. - Environment reviewers must stay synchronized with CODEOWNERS. The workflow fails closed if its environment loses required protection. - The existing CloudFront distribution is shared with runner reports. Separate S3 prefixes and a dedicated role prevent the publisher from overwriting those reports. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, shell tools, and browser verification. The exact runtime model ID 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d10cbde815 |
fix(recovery): reject stale productive continuation wakes (#13173)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and runs. > - Recovery continues assigned work when no live execution path remains. > - A recovery sweep can read an in-progress task before its run completes. > - The sweep can then observe the successful run after completion has changed the task status. > - This pull request checks current status and assignment under the existing enqueue lock. > - A stale continuation leaves a skipped wake receipt and creates no run. > - Task chat also omits an empty continuation cancelled before it started because its task had become terminal. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related public work: #10779 and #8419. Those older open changes address terminal disposition across other recovery paths. This change uses the existing scheduler guard for productive successful-run continuation and adds real database lock contention coverage. **What happened?** Recovery could combine an old in-progress task snapshot with a newer successful run. It queued an automatic continuation after the task was done. Dispatch cancelled that run before it started, but task chat displayed “Couldn't start” below the successful answer. This can happen after the native runner's finish result has already been accepted. It does not require a missing comment. **Expected behavior** Productive continuation must remain eligible when enqueueing acquires the task lock. Completion, cancellation, reassignment, or a move away from in-progress must prevent creation of the run. Actual execution stops must remain visible. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let recovery select an assigned in-progress task whose latest run succeeded with productive progress. 2. Hold the task row lock in another transaction and change the task to done. 3. Let recovery attempt to enqueue while that transaction holds the lock. 4. Commit completion. Before this fix, recovery creates a redundant run from the stale snapshot. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master at `4042eb1c4` with deterministic integration tests. **Deployment mode** Built from source with PostgreSQL. The bug is in core recovery and is not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Pass the existing status-and-assignee guard for productive terminal continuation recovery. - Preserve a skipped wake receipt with the expected and actual task state, without creating a run. - Test actual PostgreSQL lock contention for native and legacy completion, cancellation, backlog, review, blocked state, and reassignment. - Omit empty redundant pre-start cancellations from native and legacy task chat. Preserve stop markers for runs that started. - Document recovery eligibility at enqueue time. ## Verification - All seven new race cases failed before the guard was connected. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Task chat suite: 98 tests passed. - Recovery integration suites: 290 tests passed, including 31 stale-queue tests. - Full CI verification passed on `7ea71f04d`: all 31 active checks succeeded, including all test shards, browser tests, build, typecheck, and canary release dry run. Storybook visual regression was skipped by its path filter. - Greptile reviewed this commit at 5/5 with no review threads. - The local `pnpm test:run` aggregate reported a setup failure in the unchanged `tool-access-service.test.ts` suite. Its isolated rerun passed all 231 tests without edits. The duplicate aggregate was stopped after the complete CI matrix passed; it is not counted as a successful local full-suite run. ## Risks Low risk. The backend guard applies only to productive successful-run recovery. It requires the task to remain in-progress with the same agent. Other wake sources keep their current policy. The UI change only suppresses empty redundant cancellations; run records remain available. No schema change or migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code edits, and local test execution. The exact deployment snapshot and context window are not exposed by 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 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
|
a05b828bcd |
Reduce run polling and workspace inspection amplification (#13174)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and shows run progress to operators. > - Run lists, live events, transcripts, and workspace details must remain responsive as usage grows. > - Run-list redaction rereads the full context for every run. Hidden tabs can still trigger requests through live events and manual timers. > - Workspace detail reads repeat Git inspection even when concurrent callers request the same state. > - This pull request batches registry reads, pauses hidden-tab refreshes, and caches Git inspection for display. > - Cleanup keeps fresh Git checks, and redaction keeps company and run boundaries. ## Linked Issues **What happened?** Run-list responses perform one extra database read per run and parse full context JSON to obtain small secret registries. Hidden tabs continue transcript reads and event-triggered refetches. Workspace detail requests repeat Git scans. **Expected behavior** A run list reads registries once. Hidden tabs stop recurring run reads and reconcile when visible. Concurrent workspace detail reads share a short-lived Git result. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open run lists and task transcripts in several tabs while agents run. 2. Hide some tabs and observe transcript and event-triggered requests. 3. Request a 200-run list and count redaction database queries. 4. Request the same workspace detail concurrently and count Git inspections. Related: #5255 adjusts polling cadence. This change addresses hidden-tab lifecycle, batched registry reads, and workspace inspection reuse. No duplicate with this scope was found. ## What Changed - Batch heartbeat and live-run redaction into one company-scoped registry query. Select only registry JSON for run and issue redaction. - Resolve duplicate secret values once per request. Preserve each run's registry and remove registry material from responses. - Suspend company event sockets and transcript reads while hidden. Refresh active queries and resume transcript offsets on return. - Prevent queued event invalidations and developer health polling from fetching in hidden tabs. Gate legacy run-log readers in both UI variants. - Exclude legacy plugin placeholder connections from remote health probes. Select only due connection IDs in SQL before the sweep limit. Preserve existing plugin records. - Cache concurrent Git display inspections for five seconds, with at most 256 entries. Leave close-readiness and cleanup checks uncached. - Add regression coverage and document the performance behavior. - Stabilize the existing Rust descendant-lineage fixture: allow a bounded 30 seconds for 300 durable notifications under concurrent test load, retaining every correctness assertion and adding timeout diagnostics. ## Verification - Regression coverage verifies one registry query for 200 runs, per-run isolation, request-local secret resolution, decryption failures, Git cache expiry/bounds, hidden-tab pause, and visibility recovery. - Real PostgreSQL redaction/run-route suites passed all 57 tests; workspace-service coverage passed. The health-sweep regression verifies plugin placeholders and chat connections remain untouched and do not consume the sweep limit. - Both legacy transcript viewers retain history and resume their byte offset after visibility changes. The related visibility/progress/chunk suites passed all 29 tests. Other focused UI suites and token gates passed. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. Affected-package typechecks/builds passed after review fixes. The concurrent Rust provider suite passed 84 tests (two ignored), and Rust formatting passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` stopped after the general-server group: 10,538 passed, 65 skipped, four failed. Fresh chat-delivery and health-sweep reruns passed; building the debug runner fixture cleared the native-event test. One unchanged native-session recovery assertion still fails locally with a semantic-digest error instead of the expected settled-session message. The full local command is therefore not green. CI runs the later groups separately and skips the two native-session tests requiring a prebuilt runner binary (confirmed in its 37-test native-session suite). - All CI gates pass on final head `ee610e737`: typechecking, general and serialized tests, browser tests, runner verification, build, and canary dry run. One server shard passed on its single retry after exposure fixtures encountered port 42001 where they assumed 42000; that suite also passed locally (25 passed, three platform-specific skips). - Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5 with no actionable findings. ## Risks - Workspace delivery display can lag local Git changes by five seconds. Destructive operations still inspect current state. - Hidden tabs do not receive company live-event notifications until visible. Active queries refresh on return. - This change preserves legacy plugin records and does not repair instance-specific workspace rows. There is no database migration. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. The exact model identifier 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 (targeted regressions; full-suite limitation documented above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
932c8bec56 |
fix(ci): bake the managed runtime identity into cloud images (#13210)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed deployments start from the image built by the Cloud workflow. > - The managed runtime requests user and group 1001. > - The image currently builds the node user as 1000. > - Startup must remap that user, which can walk a large mounted home directory. > - This pull request uses the existing Docker build arguments to bake user and group 1001 into Cloud images. > - Matching the runtime identity removes that startup work and helps avoid health-check retries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13208, #1923, and #7861. Searched open and closed PRs for the Cloud UID change. The older #7861 addresses build context and volume ownership repair. This change uses the existing identity arguments in the Cloud workflow and preserves ownership repair. **What happened?** A measured rollout had a container log `Updating node UID to 1001` after startup. The container stayed at this step for at least 2 minutes 55 seconds before rollback stopped it. The baked node identity was 1000, while the managed runtime requested 1001. A health check timed out and the target required a second deployment attempt. **Expected behavior** Cloud images should already have the managed runtime identity. A matching image should skip user and group remapping. Fresh or mismatched volumes must still receive ownership repair. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Build the current Cloud image with its default build arguments. 2. Start it with `USER_UID=1001`, `USER_GID=1001`, and a populated home volume. 3. Observe the startup user remap before the application starts. **Paperclip version or commit** `fc06f7f05f42c675be71ff0927b6334405d520ed` **Deployment mode** Docker on managed hosts. ## What Changed - Pass `USER_UID=1001` and `USER_GID=1001` to the Cloud image build. - Check the pushed digest's baked identity before the entrypoint can repair it. Then check the normal entrypoint's effective identity and writable home before publishing the verified full-SHA tag. - Add a workflow regression and two entrypoint cases for a matching Cloud identity, including a mismatched volume. - Document the runtime identity and the first-build cache cost. ## Verification - Focused workflow and artifact tests: 27 passed. - Entrypoint tests: 11 passed. Actionlint passed. Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Full local `pnpm build` passed. The manual [Cloud image build](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34575473213) passed on the exact PR head. It checked Sentry, baked and effective identity, writable home, orphan reaping, and full-SHA publication. The new identity check took one second. All 30 PR checks passed; the Storybook workflow was intentionally skipped. Greptile reviewed commit `114d408f637a0b53e2e2b1339c263779b1e4ae54` at 5/5 with no findings or open threads. - The full local suite for the same application source was already run in #13205. Its macOS general-server phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged files. Those failures included missing Runner fixtures, filesystem errors, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-count mismatch. After configuring Cargo and rebuilding fixtures, 37 of 38 native tests passed; one unchanged native-resume assertion still failed. Linux PR CI passed. This change adds entrypoint tests and does not change application code. ## Risks - The first build must rebuild layers that depend on the base image identity. Later builds can reuse them. - A future managed runtime identity change must update these build arguments and checks together. - The Dockerfile's self-hosted defaults remain 1000. Runtime overrides and mounted-volume ownership repair remain supported. - The observed startup delay supports this change, but fleet timing also includes provider startup, image pull, canary order, and retries. No fixed end-to-end gain is claimed before a live rollout. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and tool use. The exact serving model ID 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 (focused workflow tests; full-suite limitations are listed above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
fc06f7f05f |
fix(ci): isolate chaos verification by caller workflow (#13208)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Cloud deployments require verified artifacts for the merged source commit. > - Cloud readiness and the npm release independently run the same source checks. > - Their shared chaos workflow used only the source ref as its concurrency key. > - One caller could cancel the other caller's required job for the same commit. > - This pull request scopes that key to the caller workflow and source ref. > - Both callers can finish their checks without blocking deployment readiness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13192 and #13205. Searched for related open issues and PRs; no duplicate fix was found. **What happened?** The master push for `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f` started Cloud readiness and Release together. GitHub cancelled the Cloud readiness chaos job before it acquired a runner. Its annotation reported a higher-priority waiting request for the same concurrency group. The required readiness gate cannot pass after that cancellation. **Expected behavior** Cloud readiness and Release must each finish source verification for the same SHA. Standalone chaos evals must also have a separate group. **Steps to reproduce** Merge a commit to master while the npm release queue is empty. Both callers reach the reusable chaos workflow with the same source SHA. See [the cancelled job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34569569760/job/103168603926). **Paperclip version or commit** `398d304e15739d1ee6105633bd8a0e42c929d33f`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions on master. ## What Changed - Add the caller workflow name to the chaos workflow concurrency group. Retain source isolation and cancellation of duplicate calls within the same workflow. - Add a regression test that evaluates the group for Cloud readiness, Release, and standalone evals at the same source SHA. - Document the concurrency boundary in the readiness runbook. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/preview-artifacts.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passed: 26 tests. - The new regression test fails against the previous concurrency key and passes with this fix. - `actionlint -shellcheck= -pyflakes= .github/workflows/runner-chaos-evals.yml .github/workflows/release-verify.yml .github/workflows/cloud-readiness.yml` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - The full local typecheck passed for the same application source in #13205. Its macOS general-server test phase had 10,471 passes and 70 failures in seven unchanged application test files: missing Cargo/Runner test binaries, filesystem permissions, timeouts, a port conflict, and a load-test count mismatch. Linux CI test checks passed. The full local build passed with Cargo on PATH. This PR changes workflow configuration, its test, and documentation only. - All CI checks pass on the final head, including typecheck, tests, browser suites, build, and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings. After merge, verify both callers' chaos jobs complete for the same master SHA and record the resulting readiness time. ## Risks - Two callers may now run chaos tests at the same time. This uses two existing GitHub runners, which is the intended cost of independent verification. - Renaming a caller changes its concurrency group. The fixed prefix keeps this child group separate from caller-level concurrency groups. - The readiness gate continues to require every verification prerequisite. No gate is bypassed. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, and command/API tools. Exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed by 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 (26 focused workflow/artifact tests) - [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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
398d304e15 |
docs: measure cloud deployment through target health (#13205)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Hosted deployments need a verified image and migrator for the same source commit. > - The cloud readiness workflow certifies those inputs before a deployment consumer acts. > - Its completion time does not show when a tenant runs the new commit. > - This pull request documents each milestone from merge through target health and fleet completion. > - Operators can use the evidence to find the slow stage and measure a complete deployment. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13192, #13188, and #13189. Searched related issues and PRs; no duplicate timing documentation change was found. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `doc/cloud-build-readiness.md`, Timing and rollout. **What's wrong?** The timing instructions stop at the readiness job. That omits consumer queues, artifact resolution, and target deployment. An image can be ready while the tenant still runs an older commit. **Suggested fix** Record separate merge, image, readiness, canary health, and fleet completion timestamps for the same full source SHA. Keep preparation-only runs out of deployment results. ## What Changed - Define the evidence needed for each merge-to-deployment milestone. - Explain how consumer queues can hide upstream build gains. - Require target source identity as well as health, and report exclusions, retries, cache state, and queue conditions. ## Verification - `git diff --check` passed. - `node --test scripts/preview-artifacts.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` passed: 25 tests. - Cross-checked the readiness identity and artifact prerequisites against the current workflows and consumer contract. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` passed using the session's installed Rust toolchain. The full local test suite and subsequent build are still running. - All CI checks pass and Greptile is 5/5 on the exact head, with no unresolved findings. This changes one documentation file and adds no runtime behavior. ## Risks - Low risk: documentation only. Timing must still use trusted run evidence and the actual target commit. A single measured run is not a latency guarantee. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 / Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, and command/API tools. Exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed by 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 (25 focused workflow/artifact tests; full checks pending) - [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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d56be3f3fc |
fix(ci): verify deployable cloud artifacts independently (#13192)
Verify source, build the cloud image, and wait for exact-source migrator packages concurrently. Emit Cloud deployable v1 only when every prerequisite succeeds for the merged full SHA. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5cc51fad06 |
fix(release): publish exact-source cloud migrators on merge (#13188)
Publish exact-source shared and database migrator packages for each master merge through the existing trusted Release workflow, independently of the full release and image build. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |