mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
93548e7f771f08bd4e5ab243b316aac2648b135d
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 SamandSami Rusani
|
14fd8aee36 |
fix(server): flag truncated issue descriptions (#4771)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The issue list API is one of the surfaces API consumers use to synchronize issue metadata. > - The list endpoint intentionally returns a bounded `description` preview so large descriptions do not bloat list responses. > - Before this change, that preview looked like a complete field value because the response did not say whether it had been shortened. > - That made round-trip clients vulnerable to accidentally PATCHing a preview back over the full description. > - This pull request keeps the existing preview behavior but adds an explicit `descriptionTruncated` flag. > - The benefit is backwards-compatible visibility into truncated issue descriptions, so clients can avoid data-loss workflows. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #4758. Related PR: #4792 also targets #4758, but it includes unrelated logger changes and currently has separate review/security concerns. This PR keeps the fix scoped to the issue-list description truncation API behavior. ## What Changed - Added `descriptionTruncated` to the issue list projection when `description` exceeds the existing 1200-character preview limit. - Exposed `descriptionTruncated?: boolean` on the shared `Issue` type. - Added service tests for truncated descriptions, exact-limit descriptions, null descriptions, and multibyte-safe preview truncation. ## Verification June 18, 2026 refresh after rebasing onto current `origin/master`: - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm typecheck` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - GitHub PR checks are green on head `12e828e6`. Earlier pre-review verification also included `pnpm test`. ## Risks - Low risk. This is an additive API response field; existing clients can ignore it. - The list endpoint still returns the same bounded `description` preview. Clients that need full text should continue fetching the issue detail, but can now detect when that is necessary. - No database migration or UI behavior change. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, via Codex desktop on April 29, June 15, and June 18, 2026. Used tool-assisted repository inspection, code editing, local test execution, GitHub CLI workflows, and PR review follow-up. Exact context window size is not surfaced by the tool. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A: no UI change) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A: additive API field covered by tests) - [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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani> |
||
|
SamandSami Rusani
|
39666aa906 |
fix(server): clarify execution policy decision comments (#9105)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Execution policies let issues move through enforced review and
approval stages before work is considered done.
> - Active reviewers and approvers must include decision rationale when
approving or requesting changes.
> - The server already requires the decision comment to arrive in the
same `PATCH /api/issues/:id` request as the status change.
> - When callers post a normal comment first and then send a status-only
`PATCH`, the existing 422 only says a comment is required.
> - This pull request keeps the atomic decision behavior but makes the
API error and docs explicit about the same-request requirement.
> - The benefit is that agents and API clients can recover immediately
by sending `{ status, comment }` together instead of dead-ending on an
ambiguous validation error.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes #9049.
Duplicate/related search completed before implementation: searched open
PRs for `9049`, `Approving a review or approval stage requires a
comment`, `Requesting changes requires a comment`, and `same PATCH`. I
did not find a direct open PR for the same error-message/docs fix.
Related PRs found but not duplicates: #8302 documents cross-agent review
gates in the skill API reference, and #5487 covers human approval UI.
## What Changed
- Expanded execution-policy 422 messages for approve and request-changes
decisions to say the comment must be included in the same `PATCH`
request and prior comments are not considered.
- Tightened unit coverage so the comment-required branches assert the
new actionable guidance.
- Documented the same-request `{ status, comment }` decision shape in
the execution policy guide, issue API reference, and agent communication
guide.
## Verification
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts --reporter verbose`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec node
../../../scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
Low risk. This does not change execution-policy state transitions or
relax the atomic decision guard; it only makes the existing requirement
explicit in errors and docs.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex (GPT-5 Codex), operating in Codex desktop with repository
file access, shell validation, and GitHub CLI workflow. Exact context
window size is not surfaced 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
- [ ] 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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani>
|
||
|
SamandSami Rusani
|
b565603a86 |
fix(server): accept Office issue attachments (#8562)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents and board users can attach files to issues so context and deliverables stay with the task > - Some clients upload Microsoft Office files with generic binary MIME types such as `application/octet-stream` > - Current `master` now accepts arbitrary issue attachment MIME types, so the upload should keep working for unknown binary files > - Office files still benefit from being stored with a specific Office MIME type when the filename makes that inference safe > - Shared attachment allow-list defaults should also include common Office MIME types for routes that still use that allow-list > - This pull request keeps the current arbitrary-MIME issue upload behavior and only narrows generic binary uploads to Office MIME types for known Office filename extensions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #8243 Duplicate search performed before implementation: - No matching open or closed PR found for `8243`, `Office document`, `attachment MIME`, or `openxmlformats`. ## What Changed - Added common Office MIME types to the default shared attachment allow-list. - Added upload content-type normalization that maps generic binary uploads to a specific Office MIME type only for known Office filename extensions. - Added an optional helper-level allow-list gate so callers that still validate against an effective allow-list can keep generic binary uploads generic when the inferred Office MIME type is not allowed. - Reused the shared generic attachment content-type list for response handling. - Preserved current `master` behavior for issue uploads that use unknown or arbitrary MIME types. - Added regression coverage for default Office allow-list matching, filename inference, optional allow-list fallback, official Office MIME uploads, inferred generic Office uploads, and preservation of unknown generic binary uploads. ## Verification - `env CI=true corepack pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --force` - `env CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/attachment-types.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` - `env CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk ensure-build-deps` - `env CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` GitHub CI, security checks, and Greptile pass on rebased head `acc364cfbe3440a59db6570bb907818046649eb4`. ## Risks Low risk. The issue attachment route continues to accept arbitrary MIME types as current `master` does; this change only stores a more specific Office MIME type for generic binary uploads when the filename has a known Office extension. Unknown generic binary uploads remain generic. For callers that use an allow-list before storing uploads, `normalizeUploadAttachmentContentType` supports an optional gate so inference can be limited to MIME types that are already allowed. No docs change included because this is a default upload compatibility fix covered by server tests. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. This is a narrow bug fix, not roadmap-level core feature work. `ROADMAP.md` was checked. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex using GPT-5, tool-enabled coding agent. Context window details are not exposed in 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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani> |