2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	90182b4f8b	Report bounded Cloud portfolio failure diagnostics (#15340) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work for AI agents and their companies. > - Cloud instances proxy a trusted user's portfolio through the control plane. > - A failed request returns a generic error to the client. > - That replacement error loses the failure phase and network code in Sentry. > - Operators need bounded evidence without upstream messages or credentials. > - This PR adds safe diagnostics while preserving the existing request behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10850, which added the portfolio proxy. No open PR for this diagnostic gap was found. **What happened?** A rejected portfolio fetch becomes a generic 502 in Sentry. The event cannot distinguish a connection reset, deadline, HTTP response failure, or body failure. The route's previous warning also included the original error and a stack identifier. **Steps to reproduce** Make the portfolio proxy's fetch reject with a TypeError whose cause has `code: ECONNRESET`. The client correctly receives the generic 502, but the captured replacement error loses that code. **Expected behavior** Keep the existing client response. Attach only bounded server-side diagnostic fields to the failure event. Do not retry the request or expose the original error. ## What Changed - Add a typed portfolio error with a private frozen diagnostic record: phase, upstream HTTP status, elapsed milliseconds, and an allowlisted network code. - Read at most four error/cause objects through own data properties. Unknown codes, messages, getters, and out-of-range values do not enter the record. - Replace the route's raw-error warnings with safe fields. Send a plain error plus event-local context through the existing optional Sentry gate. Keep the route callsite and default fingerprint policy. - Preserve authentication, trusted headers, cookies, exact HTTP error bodies, cache behavior, the ten-second deadline, and one fetch per request. Public responses receive no diagnostic fields. - Document the fields and test HTTP behavior, privacy, and event isolation with the real Sentry SDK. ## Verification - `PAPERCLIP_REQUIRE_SENTRY_TEST_SDK=1 pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/cloud-portfolio-error.test.ts server/src/__tests__/cloud-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/sentry.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-failure-sentry-real-sdk.test.ts`: 65 passed, with the audited optional SDK installed. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on Node 24.21.0 and pnpm 9.15.4. - Independent review found no blockers and independently passed all 65 tests, including the real SDK checks, on this exact commit. - Full Linux CI passed on this exact commit and provides aggregate suite coverage (54 successful checks, 2 intentional skips). A duplicate full local aggregate was not run. - The first SDK contract job failed before tests when npm could not resolve an OpenTelemetry transitive package. A subsequent empty-cache install first encountered a missing tarball, then succeeded after the registry artifact became available. All 6 real-SDK tests passed against that fresh install; the single unchanged-head CI retry passed. The SDK pin, workflow, and dependency files are unchanged. - The first browser shard 8 run timed out waiting for the inbox retry reply after 45 seconds. The unchanged isolated case passed (1/1), and the test, UI handler, fixture, and recovery files match the base commit. The failed log contains no wakeup POST before the test's immediate navigation; a navigation/request timing race is suspected but unproven without a trace. The single unchanged-head shard retry passed (20 passed, 1 skipped); no timeout or source change was made. - Greptile reviewed this exact commit at 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. - No live portfolio request was replayed. Route tests use controlled local upstream responses. - The added diff passed the secret and PII scan and `git diff --check`. ## Risks This is a diagnostic change. It does not identify or repair the origin of a connection reset. Unknown transport failures remain `unknown`. Elapsed values outside 0–60,000 ms become null. Default Sentry fingerprinting remains enabled; exact historical group membership is not guaranteed. No retry, migration, deployment, or configuration change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, code execution, and independent agent review. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-06 06:58:36 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	5858ccb981	feat: make in-app features cloud-aware (#10850) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators use the same board application in self-hosted and Paperclip Cloud deployments. > - A Cloud tenant contains one company, so an in-app company switch does not change the active Cloud stack. > - Cloud operators need the sidebar and company surfaces to use the signed-in user's stack portfolio. > - The server must derive Cloud identity and links from trusted instance context instead of client input. > - This pull request adds canonical Cloud context, a trusted stack portfolio proxy, and Cloud-aware navigation. > - The benefit is consistent stack switching on Cloud while self-hosted company behavior stays unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server REST routes and the React board UI. **Problem or motivation** A Cloud-managed instance contains one company. The existing company switcher could only switch records inside that tenant. It could not move the operator to another Cloud stack. The existing header also gave long organization names too little width. **Proposed solution** Expose a canonical public Cloud context in health data. Add a trusted server proxy for the current user's stack portfolio. Use that data in the board UI to switch stacks with top-level navigation. Keep the existing company behavior on self-hosted instances. Move search into the navigation and keep long organization names inside the sidebar panel. **Alternatives considered** An in-app `/stacks` route was rejected because Cloud tenant hosts reserve that path and stack selection must wake or authenticate another tenant. Client-supplied user identity was rejected because the server can derive the trusted Cloud actor. **Roadmap alignment** This change advances the Cloud deployments milestone. It keeps the product local-first and Cloud-ready without changing the self-hosted mental model. ## What Changed - Added canonical Cloud instance context and public health metadata. - Added a Cloud-only stack portfolio proxy with trusted actor forwarding and per-user caching. - Prevented normal company creation on Cloud-managed instances. - Switched the sidebar and Companies page from company actions to stack actions on Cloud. - Added full-page stack navigation and Cloud create-stack links. - Moved search into the sidebar navigation so the organization name keeps more width. - Added truncation and hover recovery for long organization and stack names. - Added server and UI regression coverage for Cloud and self-hosted behavior. - Updated the implementation specification for the Cloud contracts. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` passed. All three token gates are clean. - `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/__tests__/health.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-instance.test.ts src/__tests__/cloud-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/company-cloud-floor.test.ts src/__tests__/company-portability-routes.test.ts` passed: 5 files and 66 tests. - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx` passed: 1 file and 11 tests. - Pre-PR QA report `7da87ca7` passed all 8 acceptance criteria with real HTTP route factories and real Chromium screenshots in Cloud and self-hosted modes. - Security reviews passed for the canonical Cloud context and stack portfolio proxy. ## Risks - Cloud stack switching depends on the configured Cloud application and tenant portfolio URLs. - The new health `cloud` block is public by design, but it contains only canonical public instance metadata. - The stack proxy fails closed on self-hosted instances and derives the user identity from the trusted actor. - Self-hosted navigation and company creation retain their existing paths and behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5`. The run used reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub integration. The deployment did not expose its 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>	2026-08-04 23:00:14 -05:00