mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-06 23:20:53 +01:00
9fb06afbfab284f8dcecf6ebc3dee3bfcda4e09d
12
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
b8f8b904fa |
feat(routines): preserve automation ancestry through webhooks (#18772)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Routines let external services start agent tasks through a normal webhook. > - A repair routine must recognize failures from work that it created. > - The receiver added in #18714 put Sentry payload parsing and repair policy in core routine intake. > - This pull request replaces that receiver with verified creation provenance on normal routine calls. > - Sentry can filter the resulting tags before it sends a normal routine webhook. > - The benefit is reusable provenance and loop prevention without a provider-specific route. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A Sentry repair alert can start another repair when its own work fails. The dedicated receiver in #18714 solved this through a Sentry-specific payload contract. Ordinary routine webhooks also need a trusted way to retain the automation that created their tasks. **Proposed solution** Use the existing public `/fire` route and its current authentication. An optional source run credential proves a live Paperclip caller. Store the caller separately from webhook JSON. Follow recorded task creation links and export bounded ancestry tags on run-failure events. Let Sentry alert filters exclude repair-origin work. **Alternatives considered** Keep the dedicated Sentry receiver, accept sender-supplied origin IDs, or filter only the immediate routine. The first couples core intake to one provider. The second accepts unverified claims. The third misses child tasks, standalone follow-ups, and calls through another routine. **Roadmap alignment** This improves the shipped Scheduled Routines and Activity log capabilities. It does not add a new scheduler or incident system. Related work: #18714 is the implementation replaced here; #9727 adds source-task navigation and UI attribution; #10206 proposes exception-led routine dispatch. This PR uses existing task creation records and does not implement either of those broader proposals. ## What Changed - Remove the Sentry-only route, parser, authentication exception, and payload-specific tests and documentation from #18714. - Add optional `X-Paperclip-Source-Run-Token` support to normal routine webhooks. Validate the standard run JWT, company, instance, agent, live run, and cancellation state. Authenticated routine API calls also retain their validated caller. - Add nullable `routine_runs.created_by_run_id`. Keep the reference after source-run deletion so missing history becomes unknown. Separate callers during coalescing, including legacy open tasks. - Follow company-scoped routine receipts, creator runs, task parents, and legacy creation activity. Mark missing, foreign, cyclic, private, or excessive ancestry for safe alert filtering. - Add event-local `automation_origin_status`, `automation_routine_ids`, and `task_shareable` tags through the existing Sentry SDK hook. Cap ancestry at 32 reads and share a 750 ms deadline across metadata and ancestry lookup. Keep the SDK one-second wait and eight-lookup concurrency bound. Redact the source credential from HTTP logs and Sentry request headers. - Preserve unexpected database failures as server errors without rejection bookkeeping in an aborted transaction. Document 409, 415, and 422 responses for the normal webhook. - Keep `routineScopedRunId` as generic opt-in `X-Paperclip-Idempotency-Scope: routine` support. Default trigger receipts and timestamped HMAC replay protection retain their current scope. - Add [the Sentry repair tutorial](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/codex/routine-creation-provenance/docs/guides/board-operator/sentry-run-failure-repairs.md), API documentation, OpenAPI headers, and capability-map updates. ## Verification At commit `0f4a0051528edd1367a921a76a8050c3fd087872`: - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed for the full workspace. Migration numbering and safety checks passed. - The focused service, route, Sentry, redaction, and OpenAPI suites passed 228 tests in five files. The database Sentry resolver and OpenAPI invocation passed 33 tests in two files. These are separate invocations with some overlap. - The full routine HTTP suite passed all 15 tests. The authenticated API case failed before the caller-wiring fix and passed after it. The fixture loads the real route-owned services. No test deadline was raised. - The real `@sentry/node@10.71.0` suite passed all 12 tests. It uses an in-memory transport and sends no events to Sentry. It covers terminal failures, saved-message interruptions, event isolation, and source-token redaction. - Regression tests also cover forged, expired, foreign, and cancelled caller credentials; payload spoofing; inherited routine ancestry; legacy coalescing; deleted history; private work; cycles; query and time limits; database error causes; and routine-wide receipts. The new error and budget cases failed before their fixes. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `git diff --check` passed. The map check covers 35 areas and 192 capabilities. - The full local Vitest command was stopped for a required master merge after four chat shards passed 1,278 tests. No full local pass is claimed. An earlier combined HTTP run hit an existing malformed-ID timeout whose original cause is not established; the final full HTTP suite passes. An extra local run of the unchanged heartbeat scheduling file passed 12 of 13 tests and failed a readiness-status assertion. Its logs also reported a missing fixture user membership. The same 13-test file now passes in current-head CI. - All GitHub Actions checks pass on this commit. Three jobs initially lost their self-hosted runners. One server shard initially failed while deleting a company in an unchanged heartbeat test because of a `company_skills` foreign key. One retry passed all affected jobs without code changes. That server shard passed all 499 tests, and all eight browser shards passed. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on this commit. All six review threads are resolved. The separate Paperclip Review check remains queued. Its bot reports that work is paused. A maintainer must resume the assigned review work to complete that check. No full green check state is claimed while this external gate is pending. - Live Sentry configuration and deployment are outside this PR's acceptance evidence. The tutorial describes setup, a controlled failure, and a repair-origin exclusion check for operators to run after deployment. ## Risks - Normal app webhooks retain the sender's full JSON in company-readable routine history and the execution task. Alert filters and task visibility are not content scrubbers. Operators must scrub sensitive event data in Sentry before forwarding it and keep connection tests in setup mode. - Existing users of `/sentry-run-failures` must move to `/fire` and add the documented Sentry filters before enabling repair intake. The old route is removed. Stored tasks and receipts remain. - The additive migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`. It does not rewrite historical tasks or infer missing provenance. - Unknown or unshareable ancestry is excluded by the tutorial's alert rule. Missing history, an enrichment timeout, or more than five routine IDs can therefore suppress a repair webhook while retaining the Sentry error. - An external webhook without a verified source credential starts a new receiving-routine origin. Its JSON cannot establish upstream Paperclip ancestry. Sentry must not store a Paperclip run credential. - Routine-wide receipt reuse needs a stable sender key. A static Sentry custom header is not a per-event key. The tutorial keeps delivery deduplication separate from loop prevention. > 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-6 model family, with reasoning, repository access, code editing, and test execution. The session does not expose the exact model variant 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 - [ ] 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
|
a61cf38106 |
docs: keep the feature map focused on substantial features (#18767)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product capabilities and user journeys. > - Small fixes and test changes have added long notes to that map. > - These notes make substantial features harder to find. > - This pull request removes those additions from the last week's changes and sets a clear rule for future additions. > - The benefit is a smaller map with stable capability IDs and accurate entry points. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Unclear or confusing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/`, the map maintenance instructions, and repository rules. **What's wrong?** Between October 27 and November 3, 2026, 115 commits changed the feature map. Many additions describe bug fixes, performance details, small UI changes, or new tests. They do not introduce substantial product features. The old synchronization instructions also encouraged a map edit for every behavior change. **Suggested fix** Add a rule that requires a substantial new feature before expanding the map. Remove minor-update notes. Keep genuine feature additions and minimal corrections to existing instructions. The review covers master through `b22ef22d56`; it does not revert application code. Conflict resolution preserves later map changes from master outside that audit snapshot. Searched open GitHub PRs and issues for related feature-map work. No duplicate cleanup was found. Substantial feature additions retained here include Coordinator (#17983), the agent YAML editor (#18036), document image galleries (#18157), remote workspace storage (#18403), native Kimi (#18391), proactive chat messages (#18374), and the Sentry receiver added in #18714. ## What Changed - Add `rules/feature-map-scope.mdc` and register its `maps/**` scope with Greptile. - Align `AGENTS.md` and the shared map contract with that rule. Routine fixes and test changes no longer require incidental map edits. - Remove 755 net lines from 23 feature recipes. Preserve all 35 areas and 192 capability IDs. - Keep substantial features and the corrections needed for current navigation, provider availability, and access boundaries. Examples from the reviewed changes: | Removed or shortened addition | Why it does not need a feature-map expansion | | --- | --- | | Rounded composer image thumbnails (#18689) | Small UI change within existing task creation. | | Connection profile reads and review-count queries (#18687, #18688) | Performance details within existing app permissions. | | Warm-session, Retry, export-capacity, and tool-wait cases | Regression details for existing execution and recovery. | | New task-search, project-context, document-persistence, and routine test journeys | Test additions for existing capabilities. The tests remain in place. | | New task button placement (#18703) | Another entry to an existing task form. | | Local browser verification notes | Run evidence belongs in the PR or test report. | ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes: 35 areas, 192 capability IDs, valid references and contract fields. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` passes: 328 files and 3,068 stories. Generated indexes remain ignored. - Compared capability keys and navigation metadata in every edited recipe with the original source. All are unchanged. - Checked rule frontmatter, Greptile registration, representative scope matches, and `git diff --check`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on `9a60eef8eb8da9bc7c3a02203c79bec12e8c8b6b`. The final `a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94` commit only corrects two lines in the plugin-panel recipe; map and catalog checks pass again. - Greptile reviewed the final `a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94` head at 5/5 with no findings. The earlier review found one inaccurate phrase about unavailable plugin panels. The hook confirms that readiness gates automatic opening, while declared panels remain selectable. The final documentation commit corrects that phrase and the thread is resolved. Paperclip's refreshed review is advisory and remains queued. - The earlier CI run failed two assertions: [server 4/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41634761842/job/125914173960) counted three Anthropic identity calls instead of two in `connection-management.integration.test.ts`; [chat 1/3](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41634761842/job/125914174257) observed zero publications instead of one in the same-principal endpoint-settlement case. Both exact tests pass locally on the rebased head. This PR changes neither their source nor their expectations. These failed results remain historical evidence. - Final-head CI passed server 4/12 and all other suites except the first [chat 1/3 attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/job/125925926131), which repeated the same zero-publication assertion. The browser gate passed. The single failed-job retry was accepted for this unchanged head in [workflow attempt 2](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/attempts/2). [Chat 1/3 passed on that retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41637834618/job/125933199635), and the aggregate verification gate passed. Both required gates, `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`, are green on `a0801e8a939494ecde3739097a80258917428e94`. The one retry allowance is consumed. - The first full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was interrupted before completion so master could be rebased without changing source under running tests. It is not a passing test result. Full current-head CI remains required. - No application code, tests, schemas, or lockfiles changed. ## Risks - Low runtime risk. This change only edits documentation and review guidance. - Detailed regression instructions become less visible in the feature map. Their tests and technical documentation remain available. - Some additions mix a new feature with a small fix. Those blocks retain the feature and shorten the incidental detail. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, Git history inspection, repository tools, and code execution. The session does not expose a more specific model deployment 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 — map, catalog, capability-ID, and rule-scope checks; full Vitest limits are stated above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable — no new runtime tests apply to this documentation change - [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
|
e5713d95c6 |
test(e2e): add scheduled routine journey (#18728)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks, projects, and routines. > - Daily QA must exercise the staging app through normal browser and API surfaces. > - A schedule must create real work and retain its result and history. > - Pausing that schedule must prevent the next invocation. > - The routine journey in #18652 passed in QA, while its separate completion journey has not passed. > - This PR delivers the routine test independently and preserves its measured flow and assertions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #18652. This is the routine-only delivery from that PR. The original completion implementation and its failed attempts remain on #18652. ## What Changed - Add the target-independent `routine-scheduled-run` journey with one native run and seven required checks. - Start from the measured routine source `ac4efb7c6f4782ea806661683c656fd2b4cc3189`. Keep its request, seven success assertions, one native-run limit, and 65-second pause check. - Bound each observed GET by the original remaining journey deadline. Preserve the normal API timeout for other callers. Keep the original routine error if final trigger disabling also fails, save a closed secondary receipt, and fail an otherwise successful journey when disabling fails. - Narrow the shared output-reader type to its one-argument GET capability without changing its runtime code. - Register only this case in the catalog, types, feature associations, dispatcher, and definition hash. Keep the strict catalog expectation in sync. - Retain the real Routines component controls and the existing project-flow coverage for the shared browser helper. - Document resource cleanup and the 65-second pause observation. Preserve the current routine map content. ## Verification - The original source passed [QA staging run 41567574185](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41567574185-1/). TestOps launch 1657 / result 3431 maps to case 718. All seven checks and five phases passed. One scheduler-bound native run, saved output attribution, the full pause window, and cleanup were verified. - Current source `8f62137f130f59fd3e39276e3d60185ddff24517` passed [fresh QA staging run 41582706162](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41582706162-1/) against Core `09162fe893b464dd2ccdafd14bd3ef1611202a86`. TestOps launch 1855. All seven checks, five phases, and all three workflow jobs passed. The run used one scheduler-bound native turn and observed 65.352 seconds after pause and completion. Canonical evidence collection and normal cleanup completed, with no active operations and the owned agent terminal. - This fresh pass covers the reviewed deadline and failure-reporting changes in the current source. The earlier ac4 pass and the byte-preserving b940 extraction remain historical records under their original conditions; neither failed attempts nor prior source conditions are regraded. - Causal controls: six assertions failed on the old behavior, then all 62 focused controls passed after the repair. Local: 834 related support tests, 41 shared chat/output-reader tests, and 26 unchanged real component controls passed. Runner E2E typecheck, recursive typecheck, build, maps, token gates, and `git diff --check` passed. The temporary output-reader type mismatch exposed by typecheck was corrected by narrowing the capability type. - The first restricted build/typecheck invocations failed because local tsx IPC was denied. A restricted support run also lacked the report CLI output. The same source passed with normal owned local IPC allowed; the original logs remain retained. - The original head's hosted e2e shard 2/8 failed at the unchanged mobile preference frame-count test: expected more than five frames, observed five. The cause is unknown. Its original log remains retained; it is not labeled a proven flake. No CI rerun was requested. - Current-head full CI run 41580423918, attempt 1, passed. The fresh review is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. The broad local suite was not repeated. The earlier full local run recorded in #18643 had four failures and did not reach 164 serialized groups; this PR does not claim an all-local pass. - Prior failed routine attempts remain recorded. They exposed composer focus, collapsed schedule controls, pending browser events, and Markdown serialization problems. The measured later pass does not regrade those attempts. ## Risks - The shared browser-event helper also serves task creation and project creation. Its regression tests and existing consumers remain included. - The staging pass qualifies the captured source and configuration. The coordinator retains source merging, daily pinning, and plan selection. - The repository test and the unpassed completion test are not registered by this PR. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact deployment ID 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 issue/PR references) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1e3ab690b0 |
fix(routines): prevent recursive Sentry run repairs (#18714)
Validate Sentry failed-run alerts before routine dispatch. Reject repair-generated provenance and private sources. Deduplicate source runs through stable primary-key receipts, including setup retries and suppressed deliveries. Verified with 166 focused tests, server typecheck and build, generated-reference checks, passing required CI, and Greptile 5/5. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
946735d03a |
Persist task sorting in URLs and show newest routine tasks first
Save task sort choices in URLs across task views. Open routine tasks by creation time, newest first, with stable sorting before pagination. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <Paperclip-Paperclip@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b31ec0a2dc |
feat(ui): link routines to a filtered task list (#18317)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Routines create tasks that people need to inspect and manage. > - The routines list sends its View all runs link to Audit. > - Tasks already supports routine origin filters in its API, but the page has no control for them. > - This pull request adds a Routine tasks checkbox and links to that selection. > - People can inspect routine work in the normal task list, search, and board views. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The routines list link and the Tasks filters. **Current behavior** View all runs opens Audit. People cannot select routine-created tasks in the Tasks filter menu. **Proposed behavior** View all tasks opens `/issues?view=all&originKind=routine_execution`. Routine tasks is selected. People can toggle or clear it from Tasks. **Reason and benefit** People can use normal task controls to inspect work created by routines. The filter includes manually started routine runs. It excludes manual tasks and other automatic work. **Breaking changes** The routines list link changes its label and destination. No API, schema, authorization, or routine execution contract changes. ## What Changed - Add Routine tasks under Visibility in the current, streamlined, and legacy Tasks filters. Keep Live runs only in the same group and use Show agent-created tasks with proper capitalization where that control is available. - Keep the selection in the URL through reload, search, task navigation, and checkbox changes. - Apply the existing API origin filter before pagination. Include routine tasks even when other automatic tasks are hidden. - Keep source filtering in the shared task filter module and collection owners. Reuse the existing company-scoped issue-list contract. Hide the live-run control in the design sandbox, which does not load live-run IDs. - Update regression coverage, product docs, feature/access maps, and the toolbar preview. ## Verification - All 58 final-head checks are complete with no failures for `f46c2e409b20fa372d166f4721601a0471894fb0`, including successful `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e` gates. Greptile and Paperclip Review rate this commit 5/5 with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41078093110). - Local checks pass: full repo typecheck/build for the feature, UI typecheck/build after the final refinements, token gates, feature-map checks, and Storybook catalog generation. - Regression coverage exercises both real list implementations, filter grouping and selection, search and all board columns, URL/pagination state, and mixed pending-decision batches. The Visibility update passed all 89 relevant tests across separate runs. The final sandbox correction passes all 10 filter-menu tests, including three cases that reproduced the bug before the fix. The earlier broad UI run passed 10,043 tests across 845 files. - Browser proof used the actual local app with disposable PostgreSQL data: three tasks created through the routine-run API and one manual task. Followed View all tasks; verified the selected Routine tasks checkbox under Visibility, toggling, reload, search, and board view. Checked current, streamlined, and legacy filter presentations. Screenshots show the link, routine-only results, and requested capitalization/grouping. - Failure accounting: the initial broad UI run found two preference expectations that needed the new false default; those were corrected before the full UI pass. Scrolling tests hit five-second timeouts in combined runs and passed in isolated reruns without timeout changes. A duplicate full local UI run was stopped after the earlier final-commit CI UI lanes passed, with no failures reported in that stopped run. - Full local `pnpm test:run` could not complete because native PostgreSQL initialization exhausted the host semaphore pool. A direct initdb probe confirmed `could not create semaphores: No space left on device`. Browser verification used a disposable container; no host settings or other workspace processes were changed. - Review found that the newly exposed live-run control could empty the design sandbox, which has no live-run IDs. The sandbox now disables that unsupported control; its regression test failed before the fix and passes after it. ## Risks - Low risk. The change uses the existing routine origin and read permissions. A routine task remains automatic work, including when a person starts it manually. - The routine checkbox is exposed only on the Tasks collection. Other filter consumers retain their controls and normalize the new field to false. - Routine histories and Audit run links inside routine details keep their current behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6, through Codex, assisted with implementation and verification. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: repository editing, command execution, tests, and browser interaction. ## 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
|
9ef434fe79 |
docs: expose feature map IDs and add a recipe index (#16987)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its feature map describes user journeys and their verification paths. > - The map already defines feature IDs and full capability IDs. > - The README and child pages did not show those IDs consistently. > - Readers need those IDs to connect issues, tests, stories, and evidence. > - This pull request adds a recipe index and displays the existing IDs. > - The benefit is clear references across the product and agent access maps. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `maps/feature-map/README.md`, the child recipes, and their agent access companions. **What's wrong?** The README sends readers to Storybook to browse features. Child pages show local keys, such as `installation`, without the full `plugins/installation` ID. Readers must inspect the generator to find the full reference. **Suggested fix** List recipe links and existing IDs in the README. Show each feature ID and full capability ID in its child pages. Explain capability IDs and entry-point references. Keep the current keys and anchors. Related work: Refs #15288. Refs #16052. Refs #15983. No duplicate open PR or issue was found by title search. ## What Changed - Add an index grouped by feature area. It lists every recipe, feature ID, and full capability ID. - Explain how IDs are formed and used in issues, tests, Storybook, and evidence. - Add feature IDs to all product recipes and agent access companions. - Show full capability IDs beside recipe keys and below access and Storybook guidance headings. - Preserve existing keys, heading anchors, and generated ID values. Keep the latest upstream company capability in the index. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passes for 34 feature families and 175 capability IDs. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs` passes all 17 tests. - `node scripts/storybook-feature-index.mjs` passes on this checkout and generates the feature indexes and overview inputs. - `git diff --check` passes. - A source comparison confirms that the README matches the recipe index. After removal of the added ID labels, all 68 child pages match the upstream prose and headings. - Full workspace checks were attempted: `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and `pnpm build`. They could not start because the local pnpm wrapper could not fetch and verify the pinned pnpm 9.15.4 release. This checkout also has no workspace dependencies installed. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` could not run because `storybook/internal/csf-tools` is not installed. The direct map and index checks above pass without that dependency. - Remote typecheck, release-registry, and full build checks passed. The first attempts of [server shard 3/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758430448) and [server shard 12/12](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39460473910/job/118758429932) stopped after their runners received a shutdown signal. The test steps were canceled. GitHub rejects the rerun request with HTTP 403: "The workflow run containing this job is already running". Five other CI jobs remain active. The next action is to rerun the two interrupted shards after workflow 39460473910 ends. No application changes were made to address these runner interruptions. - To inspect the result, open the feature-map README, follow a recipe link, and compare its full capability IDs with its access companion. ## Risks - Low risk. The change updates map documentation only. It changes no application code or ID schema. - The readable README index and child labels repeat source IDs. Keep them aligned when a capability changes. - Generated capability descriptions now include the visible ID prefix. Generated IDs, labels, navigation order, and verification fields remain the same. - Full local workspace checks and catalog generation remain unverified for the environment reasons above. > 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-6.1-sol`, with a 475,000-token context window and `xhigh` reasoning effort. The model used local file tools, shell commands, and GitHub CLI access. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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 - [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
|
9077748894 |
Remove the Pipelines experiment and preserve its data (#16834)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Pipelines was an unused experiment with its own UI, API, CLI, and automation. > - Keeping it leaves unsupported product surfaces and extra task-detail queries. > - Removing the experiment must preserve data that users already saved. > - This pull request removes the feature and keeps its database schema and migration history. > - Cases and Routines remain available as separate features. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Remove the unused Pipelines experiment across the application. **Current behavior** The experiment includes pipeline boards, stage settings, case automation, review queues, learnings, permissions, and CLI commands. Task detail also queries pipeline links. **Proposed behavior** Remove all these product surfaces and their implementation. Preserve existing tables, records, and documents. Ignore the retired boolean in older managed configurations so upgrades still start. **Breaking changes** Pipeline URLs, API endpoints, CLI commands, and `pipelines:write` are removed. Task detail no longer includes the old `linkedCases` field. The independent Cases API remains available. No database migration or cleanup is included. Related feature work: #7907, #9110, #10905, #11375, #13004, #14671, #16133. Related issues: #9663, #10310, #10312. This removal supersedes the feature; it does not implement those pending enhancements or delete their saved data. ## What Changed - Remove Pipeline UI pages, navigation, gates, clients, query keys, helpers, and unused design tokens. - Remove Pipeline REST routes, services, automation dispatch, task-detail queries, and OpenAPI discovery. - Remove the CLI commands, shared contracts, experimental flag, catalog entry, and permission defaults. - Remove feature-specific tests, tutorials, smoke scripts, maps, and Storybook examples. - Preserve database schema, migration history, and the reserved document key used by old records. - Keep Cases routes independent and cover obsolete stored and managed settings. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: targeted settings, managed configuration, sidebar, settings UI, routing, and feature-catalog tests. A first sidebar run caught a shared Workspaces icon import; the import was restored and the sidebar rerun passed. - Passed: 40 tests covering Cases routes, OpenAPI discovery, retained Pipeline table constraints, and schema snapshot drift. - Passed: token gates, map validation, generated API metadata check, Storybook catalog validation, and 28 map/catalog tests. - Passed: isolated local browser verification of navigation and Experimental settings with Pipelines absent; Cases and Routines still open normally. Live GET/POST requests to retired Pipeline endpoints return 404, and the retired setting is absent. CLI help has no Pipeline commands. - Passed: 22 access-service and agent-default-grant tests after restoring unrelated permission assertions flagged in review. - Local full run: `pnpm test:run` reported one failure in the unchanged workspace-runtime port-allocation test. That test passed in an isolated rerun. The long local run was stopped after full CI passed; it is not reported as a complete local pass. - Passed: all 56 checks on `def9181f3a4491d95fca1d38e9739f5b821aae3e` (2 conditional checks skipped), including build, typecheck, test shards, and browser suites. Eleven interrupted CI jobs reported “The operation was canceled”; their one-time retry passed. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39255211006). - Greptile: 5/5 on the final commit, with the only review finding fixed and resolved. - Sandbox socket restrictions affected the first build/API test attempts. The same commands ran with local sockets available. ## Risks - Existing Pipeline clients must stop using the removed endpoints and commands. - Existing data remains in the database and backups, but the removed UI no longer displays it. - Historical boolean `enablePipelines` values are ignored. They cannot restore the feature. - Cases and Routines must retain their separate behavior. Targeted route tests cover this boundary. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, editing, shell execution, and browser verification. The exact deployed 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
473c80d13f |
Automatically import and update project repository skills (#16066)
Automatically import skills from new GitHub project repositories and update enabled sources in the background. Preserve project-derived access, saved selections, immutable execution versions and explicit pins; add legacy adoption, refresh and connection repair in Sources. Include durable scheduling and bounded work credits, production Storybook journeys, real GitHub-to-routine acceptance receipts and final-head CI/security/Greptile qualification. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
de335b42d4 |
Expose signed routine wake deadlines during idle sleep checks
Expose signed routine wake deadlines during idle sleep checks Report the earliest eligible routine deadline to an authenticated host scheduler, while preserving local execution, owned sleep leases and conservative blocking for unsupported work. Verified with focused tests, typecheck, build, all required CI checks and Apex 5/5. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
433d94ee0b |
refactor(maps): generate indexes from local story and feature metadata (#16214)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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 on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7d9b93aee2 |
docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression 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 - [ ] 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> |