mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-27 19:35:13 +01:00
a3675ddcdff1a6ff66dcb28fa7b295d0a491eed8
6
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
6dda8cc2b7 |
fix: preserve Stop authority and qualify complete recovery journeys (#17105)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage agents that do useful work. > - Users need complete tasks, clear questions, retained context, and dependable recovery. > - Separate run tests do not prove that the complete user experience works. > - Successful retries can hide earlier failures and missing evidence. > - This PR extends the existing Product E2E harness with three explicit journeys. > - It adds a qualification checkpoint over the full retained result pool. > - Independent artifacts, state, rendered conversations, and delivery receipts establish each outcome. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17088, #17089, and #17046. This PR repairs two Stop lifecycle defects and combines the qualification changes previously reviewed in #17095, #17090, and #17099. Daily operations remain with #17051. It adds no second scheduler or recovery engine. **What happened?** A completed run can still leave a user without useful output, an understandable question, or a working continuation. Existing isolated tests and best-attempt reports do not establish the combined behavior. **Expected behavior** A necessary question includes its explanation and resumes once after an answer. Stop prevents automatic continuation until the user resumes. Restart during finalization preserves the accepted provider result and delivers it once. Qualification requires independent evidence for six journeys on both agents through Slack and Paperclip. **Steps to reproduce** List the necessary-question, followup-stop-resume, and finalization-recovery suites using the documented selectors. Run one exact cell with the configured model and target. Supply a private qualification manifest to the existing report command to grade all retained attempts. Missing proof and incomplete coverage must fail. ## What Changed - Wake existing accounting in the same committed native Stop closure. A receipt that arrives before closure must still settle once; incomplete receipts remain held. - Require a later user message before native Stop can promote earlier saved input. Preserve those earlier messages for the authorized resumption. - Add explicit necessary-question cells. Verify the actual prompt and context, answer, one bound continuation, and the delivered document link and revision. - Add explicit follow-up, Stop, and later resumption cells. Verify a live owned provider turn, cancellation acknowledgement, at least five seconds without an automatic path, retained direction and workspace context, and an actual browser download. - Add explicit Daytona finalization-recovery cells. Stop the owned controller after public result acceptance and during workspace finalization. Require the original result, restored file hash, resumed operation, one provider turn, and one receipt-bound delivery. - Share the receipt-based delivery observer across both recovery journeys. Keep model prose separate from the authoritative delivered comment identity. - Add a 24-cell qualification checkpoint over every retained attempt. Require three fresh candidate passes per cell and later staging proof with exact source, runtime, model, settings, instructions, and independent evidence. - Reject absent or unsafe manifest evidence. Preserve failed attempts and incomplete observations in the normal reports. - Provide four explicit rotating daily selections. Refuse daily selection until all required live drivers exist. Keep scheduling and spending with the existing operations owner. - Document the exact selectors, evidence contract, limitations, and remaining staging work. ## Verification - Local Product E2E support: 3,554 passed with two existing skips; source prerequisites: 128 passed. E2E typecheck passes. The actual file-chip and Download-control browser regression passes. - Two real-database regressions fail before the production repair. The stopped coordinator leaves accounting asleep after a complete receipt; the saved queue can restart from pre-Stop input. The repaired settlement and cancellation cohort passes 66 checks. The complete 256-case continuation suite passes with stronger two-phase Stop expectations, and 66 native executor accounting/Stop safety cases pass. Server typecheck passes. - All required CI, repository build/typecheck/tests, and fresh Greptile 5/5 pass at the final head |
||
|
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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
d30648dee8 |
Preserve accepted messages for paused recipients (#16679)
Keep accepted deferred requests pending while their recipient is paused and deliver through normal gates after resume. Preserve company, task hold, and cleanup checks. Verification: 247 focused checks, recursive typecheck, the full CI test and build matrix, and Apex 5/5. The local Git fixture initial-branch limitation is documented in the PR. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5c7a025032 |
fix(ui): clear consumed messages from the pending queue (#16317)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations keep follow-up messages pending while an agent works. > - The screen combines optimistic sends, queue snapshots, and run input records. > - A late send response can restore a local queue flag after a run takes the message. > - A stale queue snapshot can then keep the same message in pending. > - This pull request matches the input record to its source queue and clears stale pending flags. > - The benefit is that consumed messages leave pending while unsent messages stay visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A follow-up can remain in the task composer's pending row after a run takes it as input. Local queue state can outlive the send request. The old projection cleared that state for steering, but not for ordinary run-start input. A stale queue read can also retain the consumed entry. **Expected behavior** A message that a started run takes as input appears once in history and leaves pending. Other pending messages remain available. A message assigned to a run that has not started remains pending. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Send a follow-up while a task has a live run. 2. Let a started run record that message as input before or after the send response arrives. 3. Let a queue read still include the consumed message. 4. Observe the message remain pending on the base revision. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master at `33d24e48ad` with controlled request ordering. **Deployment mode** Source checkout. Browser verification used the production task screen with a simulated native runner and delayed API responses. It did not run a live model or change a deployed instance. Related: [PR #15030](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15030) addresses acknowledgement matching in the runner console. This change addresses the task-detail composer and does not modify that console. ## What Changed - Clear local pending flags when a started run records the comment as input. - Use live-run input IDs while the run-history query catches up. - Match stale queue entries by their primary or coalesced source wake ID, even when the snapshot targets the previous run or has no target. - Retain coalesced source queue IDs in run context and include receipt IDs in compact task run reads. - Keep unstarted run inputs and authoritative retries pending. Cover send ordering, same-run and successor delivery, queued snapshots, coalesced inputs, and retry consumption. - Add the delivery-race checks to the steering feature map. ## Verification - Before the fix, the first four request-order regressions failed with the consumed message still in pending. Coverage now includes 16 combinations of receipt source, send-response order, and stale snapshot kind. - Focused UI checks: 5 files and 233 tests passed. These cover task detail, queue projection, optimistic comments, queued-message controls, and the task-chat adapter. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Server receipt checks: 5 files and 139 tests passed with `PAPERCLIP_TEST_POSTGRES_TEMPLATE=0`. These exercise real database reads, coalesced heartbeat input, and polling routes. The default cached-template path timed out during setup on this host; the fresh-cluster path passed without longer timeouts. - Token gates and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Browser: sent a follow-up with a delayed response in the production task screen. The consumed message moved into history. A second unsent follow-up stayed queued. Reload preserved both states. The API and runner were simulated. - `pnpm build` passed. - The full local repository test run was started, then stopped to isolate database setup timeouts. All 55 GitHub CI checks passed on `4ec6820cf1f89880b801fd5f938d72f54591c5e2`, including the full test matrix. One serialized server shard passed on its single rerun after a 15-second route-test timeout; the same 97-test route suite also passed locally. - Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Queue display depends on matching comment IDs, source queue IDs, and a recorded start time. Rows without start evidence stay pending. Newer queues remain visible until their own input receipt arrives. - Run context gains additive receipt metadata. No schema migration is required. Dispatch order, stored queue state, company access, and steering authority stay unchanged. - Browser evidence covers controlled response ordering. It does not establish deployment or live-provider behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fc3b15537b |
fix(runner): match call_api to existing agent REST permissions (#16040)
Route native call_api through existing agent REST permissions. Preserve admitted credentials across restarts, protect sensitive replies and private snapshots, and compare saved completion with provider history through the same redaction projection. Add permission, privacy and recovery regressions and update the access map and run-log guide. 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> |