4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	76ee5d0886	fix(evals): preserve singleton reports and pin reviewed chat repairs (#18749) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The chat eval lane runs selected cases from one immutable candidate. > - The finalizer must authenticate every original projection and publication. > - The pinned artifact action places one matched artifact at the download root. > - The finalizer expects named child directories, so a valid one-case run fails before final coverage verification. > - This PR supports both valid layouts and binds one reviewed repair candidate. > - The lane keeps exact selection, source, digest and publication checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #18740, #18736, #18742, #18734, #18717. This PR is a proposed replacement for the source pin in #18740. That PR remains open. The evaluated candidate contains all five repairs from that prior cut and five further reviewed repair conditions. The product PRs remain unmerged. Merge authority for this replacement is pending; this PR does not dispatch a run. A completed one-case run has a verified original PASS and a verified publication. Its final aggregate fails because the pinned artifact action flattens a single matched artifact. The same path assumption also affects the later publication verifier. The final checks must still run; the repair must preserve their identity and digest checks. ## What Changed - Bind the finite candidate `ab2019e976076ec0eb60b026844f3d9211cb0208` through the manifest and exact descriptor snapshot. - Retain the original 244 case identities and the explicit cumulative definition overrides. Keep the historical definition source separate from the current candidate. - Add the reviewed source dependencies for real hire-review readiness and the strict later-human-intent review overlay from unmerged #18742. Preserve all original clocks, queries and model settings. Keep the earlier Studio144 accounting change explicit. - Document one current target and identify the prior Source5 cut as unmeasured. - Preserve named singleton download destinations for both bundles and publications. Authenticate every bundle before gathering its safe projection. Reject mixed, foreign, missing and symbolic-link layouts. Accept only the producer's exact closed once-marker schema. Do not export or upload results again. ## Verification - Candidate controls: 217 pure checks in 13 files; 242 real factory declarations with zero fixture callbacks; 42 admission controls; unchanged 506-input SDK registry; focused actual database-row type check. - Combined trusted pin and layout controls: 124 Node checks in seven real files, plus source-byte closure for all 244 singleton evidence policies. The unchanged parent reproduces both layout failures. Actual producer-marker, multi-case and malformed-layout controls pass. - The two actual PostgreSQL route regressions on core #18742 head `61996a96dd09e90a5788e8711a94fc5ae631f425` ran and passed. That core PR remains unmerged. This is not chat-case acceptance. - The independent layout logic peer and the whole final eight-path PR source peer passed. Current-head CI completed with 48 successful jobs and one skip. Both required checks passed. All 60 exact-head checks completed: 55 success, two neutral and three skipped. The separate Windows Rust check passed. Greptile and Paperclip Review both scored 5/5, with no unresolved threads. - The optional raw-order note is [disposed with source evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18749#issuecomment-6598680442). The admitted selector writes canonical order before hashing. A changed raw order fails closed before copying. The checked code remains unchanged. - Full local candidate typecheck and build are not claimed. Installed workspace dependency gaps prevent that full local check. The existing remote source and build preflight must pass before a native query. - No new model run or TestOps upload was used to prepare this PR. Prior attempts and grades stay unchanged. ## Risks A permissive layout repair could hide missing or foreign publications. Exact selected names, singleton counts, source identities, hashes and final readback checks must remain enforced. The layout helper must reject symbolic links and mixed shapes. The active default-branch ruleset requires CODEOWNERS review for the workflow. Normal merge is currently blocked on that review. This PR does not enable auto-merge, change branch rules or dispatch an eval. The candidate contains explicit unmerged product overlays. It is not a core release or a full-catalog qualification. The other five SDK cases remain held. SDK115 completion remains unknown. Provider quota failures are not fixed by the skill observer change. No credentials, caps, runner permissions or workflow admission references are added. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with code execution, tool use and independent agent source review. The host does not expose the exact context window. No model eval was run to prepare this PR. ## 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 links) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [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>	2026-11-03 06:03:25 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip	3f8ebfff8a	fix(evals): pass named environment secrets to case workflows (#18680) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - The chat catalog sends each original Product E2E result to TestOps. > - Each case uses a reusable workflow with separate protected job environments. > - The caller passed literal empty strings for three secret names. > - A live worker received an empty model key although its environment had that secret. > - GitHub requires matching named secret references at the caller boundary. > - This PR uses those references and keeps the closed credential boundaries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18647, #18666, #18676. **What happened?** The first two workers in a live streaming check failed before a qualified native case. Their model-key environment values were empty. Name-only metadata confirmed that the key exists in the intended protected environment. Both closed diagnostics recorded zero runs, zero checks and no original result carrier. The remaining case was cancelled before its original execution. These records are setup failures, not feature or model grades. **Expected behavior** Each caller passes only the three declared secret names through matching expressions. Each called job uses its own protected environment and only its existing credential consumers. GitHub documents this requirement even when the secret exists only in that environment: [Reuse workflows](https://docs.github.com/en/actions/how-tos/reuse-automations/reuse-workflows). **Steps to reproduce** Run the new `paidWorker` consumer control against the parent helper. It rejects the supported named-reference caller. The deployed literal-empty caller also has the retained live empty-key witness. ## What Changed - Replace six literal empty values in the two case callers with exact matching secret references. - Keep the host-contract resolver closed to those three names and expressions. - Reject blank, extra, mismatched and inherited credentials in focused consumer and workflow controls. Keep the existing lane and authorization controls. - Keep the called workflow, protected environments and credential-consuming steps unchanged. No secret was read, copied, rotated or added during this repair. ## Verification - Parent consumer control: RED with `Workflow caller boundary mismatch` for the named-reference contract. - `node --test tests/runner-e2e/chat-completion-testops-contract.test.mjs tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-testops-streaming.test.mjs`: 36 controls pass. - Review found an existing streaming-test mutation that became a no-op after the caller contract changed. Its actual `Missing expected exception` failure is retained. The mutation now uses a blank value, and its description names the current contract. All production posts are unchanged by this test correction. - The focused `Runner eval workflows pin actions and gate paid live execution` security control passes. - Four JavaScript syntax checks, actionlint for caller and callee, and `git diff --check` pass. - An independent source peer checked the four original frozen posts and unchanged callee. The two-line dependent-test correction has a separate peer review. - Local checks use synthetic values, source files and mocked boundaries. No local app, database, native build or provider ran. - Corrected-head GitHub CI passes with 48 successful jobs and one skipped. Both required aggregates, typecheck, build and browser checks pass. This head needed no CI recovery. - Live nonempty resolution and incremental TestOps publication still need qualification after delivery. ## Risks - The previous assumption that literal empty placeholders would resolve environment secrets was wrong in the observed run. This change follows the current primary contract. Local controls do not prove GitHub runtime resolution. - The three names stay explicit. There is no `secrets: inherit`, new secret, environment change or permission expansion. The model worker, private reader and TestOps uploader keep their existing separate consumers. - The immutable evaluation source, cases, original grades, run limits, deadlines and zero-retry policy do not change. Earlier setup failures remain recorded. The existing large batch is not changed or replayed. - Streaming publication and final backend coverage remain unqualified until a real small run proves them. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose a context-window size. The independent source peer uses the same model family. ## 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>	2026-11-02 16:25:55 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip	5d40e75253	fix(evals): distinguish scheduled TestOps results from uploads (#18676) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - The chat catalog reports each original Product E2E case to TestOps. > - TestOps creates scheduled result rows before a case runs. > - Those rows have identity fields but no status property. > - The publisher currently mistakes any case row for an uploaded outcome. > - This PR distinguishes scheduled membership from an outcome after strict identity checks. > - Each case can upload once and wait for processing without changing its grade. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18647, #18666. **What happened?** A real TestOps launch had all three scheduled result rows before any model case started. Each row had the expected case, project, launch and job-run identity. Its status property was absent. The publisher treated the row as already uploaded, skipped its only POST and then rejected readback. **Expected behavior** A fully bound scheduled row permits the first immutable case upload. It does not count as an outcome. Readback waits within the existing bound until the original status and exact attachments are ready. **Steps to reproduce** Run the new scheduled-row control against the parent API. It rejects before sending the initial result. Fixing only that initial check still rejects the first scheduled readback after one POST. ## What Changed - Share the strict result-detail identity check between initial inspection and readback. - Recognize an absent status property as scheduled only after that check. Present valid statuses, including unknown, stay readback-only. Malformed statuses and foreign identities fail closed. - Keep scheduled full-catalog readback unready within the same poll and deadline bounds. Keep the final status, evidence and attachment checks unchanged. - Calibrate three planned rows, delayed and permanent processing, unknown outcomes, wrong job/source and explicit-null status. Retain the once-only upload and uncertain-response controls. Use the registered legacy full-name alias in the fixtures. ## Verification - The real-shape parent control fails with `result_mismatch` after the first upload is suppressed. - A controlled initial-only fix sends one POST and still fails on scheduled readback. The final two-seam fix passes. - All 77 focused controls pass: `node --test tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-testops-streaming.test.mjs tests/runner-e2e/chat-completion-testops-api.test.mjs tests/runner-e2e/chat-full-catalog-testops-adapter.test.mjs`. - Both changed files pass Node syntax checks. `git diff --check` passes. - All local controls use synthetic data and mocked HTTP. No local app, database, native build or provider runs. - The affected live run was cancelled during build after metadata proved no original case had started. Its build instance is terminated. No original grade was changed or inferred. - Latest-head GitHub CI is green: 48 successful jobs and one skipped. Typecheck, build, browser and required aggregate checks passed. - The first CI attempt failed a heartbeat scheduling test’s five-second idle wait after its 51-admission assertion passed. Its six direct owners were byte-identical to the prior passing CI. One same-head failed-job recovery passed the server shard and required aggregate; all 46 earlier successful jobs were carried unchanged. The original failure is preserved, and its underlying cause remains unresolved. No heartbeat source, fixture or timeout was changed. - Live streaming qualification remains pending. No user command or documentation contract changes. ## Risks - The observed JSON distinction is status-property absence, not a result-stage or UUID field. Those fields are not used. - A scheduled row must match the current project, launch, case, registered full name, job run and GitHub source URL. It never qualifies as passed or complete. - The same 12-poll and time limits remain. A permanent scheduled state fails. A present outcome never causes another POST. An uncertain write still uses GET-only reconciliation. - Backend handling of uploaded scheduled rows still needs live qualification. Duplicate, foreign and final-coverage guards remain; this PR does not assume server deduplication. - Earlier dispatch and cancelled setup records remain separate. The first integration HTTP 500 cause is still unknown. No in-flight legacy workflow is changed or rerun. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose a context-window size. The independent source peer uses the same model family. ## 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>	2026-11-02 15:43:33 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip	0fd82e386e	feat(evals): stream completed chat catalog results to TestOps (#18647) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and inspect their work. > - The chat catalog uses real Product E2E cases and reports their original grades to TestOps. > - The current report matrix waits for every selected worker. > - A large selection can hide completed results for hours. > - Each case can use the existing private reader and safe exporter after its own worker ends. > - This PR gives each case a separate upload and readback job, then verifies final coverage without another upload. > - People can inspect completed cases while the rest of the selection runs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18542, #18625. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The existing chat catalog reports results to TestOps only after all selected workers finish. **Current behavior** One slow case holds back the report and upload jobs for all other cases. **Proposed behavior** Each finished case gets its own protected reader, safe projection, upload and backend verification. The final job checks the whole selection through read-only requests. It does not upload results again. **Reason and benefit** A person can inspect a completed grade and its safe evidence receipts while other cases run. This changes future runs. It does not change an in-flight run. ## What Changed - Add one same-commit reusable workflow with separate worker, private-reader and TestOps-upload jobs. Each job uses only its own protected environment. Callers pass empty named secret placeholders and do not inherit secrets. - Reuse the original exporter and grade checks. Freeze each case's three Allure JSON files once. Allow known sibling results during per-case readback. Keep final exact selection coverage. - Submit each bundle at most once. Reconcile uncertain responses by readback. Retain only closed publication, failure and upload-intent receipts. A rerun attempt still fails the existing attempt-one admission guard. - Preserve failed original grades, failed cleanup and missing evidence. No missing original can become a passing result. - Keep external-input cases in the serial lane. Small native-only selections allow two cases at once. Small mixed selections allow one native and one external case. Larger selections retain eight native cases and one external case. - Add source, privacy and failure controls to the existing unit roster. Document the reporting flow and runner-group admission requirement. - Fix an existing corruption-test fixture that could write the same byte back to a random IV. Read and flip one bit instead. Keep the storage rejection and unpublished-plaintext assertions unchanged. ## Verification - 152 focused Node controls pass across the shared client, API, selection, CLI and streaming tests. The retained parent controls show the missing multipart and partial-readback behavior, plus the small external-selection error before its fix. - The focused workflow security control passes. Actionlint passes for both workflows. Changed JavaScript files pass syntax checks. Git diff checks pass. - Local controls use synthetic data and mocked HTTP. They make no provider call and do not start an app, database or native build. - Previous head `b51406df` passed PR CI (48 jobs pass and one is skipped). The review-driven test-only successor `0c65cc21` then failed one unchanged snapshot-storage corruption test, plus the final CI summary. The latest head includes its narrow fixture repair. Its first CI attempt separately hit runner shutdown/lost-communication failures, two setup/timeouts and a heartbeat-cancel cleanup HTTP 500/lock timeout; those observations are retained without claiming their underlying cause. One same-head failed-and-cancelled-only recovery now passes at `bf9c3e8f`: 48 jobs pass and one is skipped, including required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. All 31 already-passing jobs retained their original execution records; all 15 recovered leaves and both dependent summaries passed. The first attempt remains recorded; the recovery does not establish the underlying causes of those failures. A small AWS run after delivery must prove that one case and both attachments are visible before another original case ends. That live proof is pending; local controls do not prove vendor ingestion or environment-secret resolution. - Retained earlier fixture-calibration failures remain recorded. The final integrated Node control run is green. A deterministic Node crypto/filesystem control also reproduces the no-op corruption mutation with a valid IV byte equal to `X`, then passes after flipping that byte. This control uses no app or database. The failing CI byte was not captured, so the exact historical byte remains unknown. ## Risks - The called workflow needs its exact master ref in the existing selected-workflow runner group. No IAM role change is needed. - Environment-only secrets must resolve in the called jobs. The caller passes no actual model or reporting key. The small live proof must confirm this behavior. - TestOps does not document an idempotency key for this upload route. An uncertain write is never resent automatically. If readback cannot verify it, the workflow fails with retained closed receipts. - The existing job run can already be marked finished by the selection watch. The live proof must record its actual stage and prove subsequent uploads are accepted. This PR does not reopen, stop or close that job run. - Backend ingestion does not prove that an already-open TestOps page refreshes automatically. - The corruption-test repair changes no production storage or cryptography. New-head AWS CI must qualify the existing database-backed owner test. - Each case adds short protected reader and upload jobs. The app source, original case clocks, graders, model, budgets, raw-evidence privacy boundary and zero eval retries stay unchanged. The versioned stream concurrency group serializes new streaming runs; an old immutable batch run can continue in its original group. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with tool use and code execution. The session does not expose a context-window size. Independent source peers used the same model family. ## 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>	2026-11-02 14:18:00 -06:00