4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	97c4dc969e	test(evals): retire duplicate chat TestOps plans (#18625) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and preserves their work history. > - Product E2E cases use TestOps plans to select real AWS evaluations. > - The full chat catalog now includes the former smoke and completion-pilot cases. > - The two old bootstrap workflows can recreate their smaller plans after deletion. > - This pull request removes those workflows and stops their plan-creation functions before API access. > - The full-catalog workflow keeps its shared clients, evidence rules, case identities, and measured results. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18542, #18516. The user requested removal of the duplicate smoke and completion-pilot plans and investigation of their recreation paths. Both old workflows accepted manual dispatch only. Their bootstrap operations created plans by name when the plans were absent. They had no schedules in their workflow definitions. The old workflow records were disabled before plan removal. An existing pilot execution was allowed to finish successfully. This change does not cancel executions or delete cases, results, launches, or private evidence. ## What Changed - Remove `chat-feature-testops.yml` and `chat-completion-testops.yml`. - Make the former singleton plan creator reject every call before API reads or mutation markers. - Reject pilot bootstrap before API access. Keep the full-catalog branch and its integration validation. - Remove tests that require the retired workflow files. Keep shared helper and full-catalog controls. Run the trusted-checkout boundary test against the active catalog workflow. - Replace old setup instructions with retirement guidance and the active full-catalog route. The master sync preserves the incoming typed launch-search fix from #18620, including both regression tests. The only conflict was the retired pilot documentation. Its search-format note remains as a retained-helper contract. ## Verification - Two new retirement controls fail against the parent code because it reaches an API or mutation marker. Both pass after the change. - Six owning Node suites after the master sync: 146 passed (144 before the sync). Shared contract: 22 passed. Catalog and retained export controls: 12 passed. Focused workflow and release controls: 7 passed. - Two modified API modules pass Node syntax checks. `git diff --check` passes. - The pure workflow-security file has the same four failures and 13 passes on both the untouched parent and this branch. Two assertions expect eight trusted bootstrap steps where master now has nine. Two lists omit the already-shipped catalog workflow. This change does not repair or relax those unrelated assertions. - A broader release-test invocation had 73 passes and 20 sandbox failures from blocked mock HTTP listeners or npm permissions. Its focused affected workflow control passes. A standard Vitest setup attempt stopped on a missing `acpx/runtime` bundle dependency before tests. No local app, database, provider, or native runtime was qualified. - Current-head PR CI passes: 48 successful jobs and one skipped job, including both required checks. Greptile is 5/5. Independent source review passes. No new model run is needed for this retirement. ## Risks - Existing integrations that point at either retired workflow will stop dispatching. This is the requested behavior; use the full catalog instead. - Historical evidence readers still use shared helpers. Those helpers remain, including the transport and official-context parser used by the active catalog. - Workflow removal is a repository change. TestOps plan deletion and disabling obsolete executors are separate service actions. Neither action should delete shared cases or measurements. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex, with source editing, shell tools, and independent source review. The context-window size is not asserted. ## 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 11:07:32 -06:00
Dotta	a6afe3e230	Fix TestOps launch preflight search encoding (#18620) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents that do real work. > - Product evals verify the saved outcome of that work. > - TestOps plans select and dispatch these evals. > - Operator launchers check a unique launch name before they request work. > - TestOps expects an encoded filter, but the launchers send plain name text. > - This change uses the vendor filter format in the shared TestOps API owner. > - The existing checks can then prevent duplicate launch requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18516, #18608, and #18542. The completion pilot registered successfully after #18608. Its optional API launcher then stopped with HTTP 400 in [run 41477551241](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41477551241). It stopped before the launch mutation marker. No evaluation was dispatched by that request. The launch search API uses Base64 of UTF-8 JSON filters. The launchers sent plain name text. I confirmed the format in the deployed public [vendor filter codec](https://paperclip.testops.cloud/es-testops-CICoDnkU.js) and its launch UI. The encoded name filter displayed the existing pilot launch. The TestOps UI separately dispatched [the genuine three-case pilot](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41478906153); this PR does not create another run or claim that pilot passed. ## What Changed - Add the typed name-filter encoder to the existing TestOps API module. - Use it in the backlog and completion launch preflight requests. The full-catalog route uses the same completion adapter. - Preserve the exact launch name, nonce, selection, authorization, once-only markers, and no-resend behavior. - Add protocol controls through both real launch functions. Document the wire format. ## Verification - Red: both new consumer controls reproduce the HTTP 400 boundary with plain name text. The other 109 API controls pass. - Green: all 111 API controls pass after the fix. All 166 related API, pilot contract, and full-catalog controls pass with Node 24.22.2. - The first broad local invocation lacked the `yaml` dependency in the new worktree. Its failure log is retained. Reusing the existing installed dependencies allowed all 166 controls to run and pass without further source changes. - The vendor-format query displayed the existing uniquely named pilot launch in the authenticated TestOps UI. No launch POST or model call was used for this read-only verification. - Diff check passes. All required CI checks pass on exact head `b55bdc6753fa042e4c2465e7b9b366b8126b4730` ([run 41480643021](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41480643021)). Both current-head reviews are 5/5, with zero unresolved findings. No TypeScript, compiled product, workflow, grader, model, clock, retry, or evidence-boundary changes. ## Risks The vendor can change its search format. The format is kept in the existing provider-specific API module, and both launch consumers have protocol controls. Existing duplicate detection and uncertain-response refusal remain in place. The already-running UI pilot is independent of this fix. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and native accessibility tool use. The host does not expose the exact model revision 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip 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 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	2026-11-02 10:40:23 -06:00
Dotta	9203ab52f0	fix(evals): bind complete unassigned TestOps plan buckets (#18608) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents that do real work. > - Product evals check the saved outcome of that work. > - TestOps plans select the exact automated cases to run. > - A new plan can report its unassigned cases as a job-statistics bucket. > - The pilot registration guard rejects that bucket as a foreign job. > - This change binds only a complete, known unassigned bucket and records assignment diagnostics before writes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18516 and #18542. The metadata-only bootstrap in [41464514278](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41464514278) created the dedicated plan and verified its GitHub job definition, then stopped at `plan_job_mismatch` before job or case-assignment mutations. No model work ran. The retained receipt did not include the assignment rows. The live failure's exact shape remains unconfirmed. The API's job-statistics carrier permits an absent job. The old guard rejects a complete unassigned bucket. This PR covers that case and records the actual rows in the next closed inspection. ## What Changed - Accept one closed unassigned bucket with the exact selected-case count. Support an explicit null job or an omitted optional job field. - Assign the exact selected cases once. Keep the existing owned assignment without assigning it twice. - Reject foreign jobs, mixed buckets, wrong counts and unknown unassigned fields before mutations. - Retain only bounded assignment kinds, numeric job IDs and counts in the existing observation receipt. - Merge current master, including the full-catalog adapter from #18542. Retain its context-aware plan and job checks alongside the new pre-write assignment inspection. The helper consumes that context’s expected case count. - Document the inspection and binding rules. The helper takes the expected count from its owner. This does not import or run the full-catalog route from #18542. ## Verification - Red: both complete unassigned carriers fail on the old guard; the other 70 dispatch/API controls pass. - Green: all 72 dispatch/API controls passed before the master sync. After the sync, all 104 related pilot and full-catalog Node controls pass. They include ordinary registration, no duplicate assignment, foreign-job rejection, incomplete and unknown bucket rejection, launch fences, uncertain-response protection and result readback. - Diff check passes. No TypeScript or compiled product code changes. Full repository checks were not run locally. All required CI checks pass on current head `a8bec6418065a7faae28c8daab3efdfc9b184797` ([run 41473510972](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41473510972)). Both current-head reviews are 5/5 with no unresolved threads. Before the master sync, one unchanged server timing test failed on attempt one and passed on the only targeted rerun; that original failure remains in CI attempt one. No rerun was needed on the current head. - Live acceptance still requires another metadata-only inspection, followed by a genuine three-case TestOps launch. This PR does not claim a new passing measurement. ## Risks An overly broad unassigned rule could replace an existing job. The new rule permits only one known bucket with the exact selected-case count and no foreign job. All final binding checks still apply. Unknown assignment shapes stop before writes. Original case queries, model, clocks, graders, evidence rules and retries are unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with repository inspection, code execution and tool use. The host does not expose the exact model revision 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run the relevant local controls 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 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	2026-11-02 09:56:36 -06:00
Dotta	e122478368	test(evals): run and record the chat completion pilot through TestOps (#18516) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip evals must verify real user outcomes. > - A passing manual pilot does not make its cases runnable from TestOps. > - The existing TestOps adapter owns one separate backlog case. > - The three-case completion pilot needs its own exact selection and reporting path. > - This workflow binds a real TestOps job run to reviewed catalog source and AWS execution. > - Results retain their original verdict, checks, source and private evidence. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18364, #18377, #18515 and #18509. This is the main-side companion to merged #18515. The immutable evaluated source is its actual integration-branch squash merge, `de0941835cc8f0d01c982574ee258e110babdbeb`; its tree matches the reviewed catalog head. The host admission remains inert until this main-only workflow exists. The broader catalog stays off master. The existing TestOps connection can run only the separate backlog cell. The project-work, project-defaults and instance-restart cases currently require manual campaign dispatch and private retrieval. This change creates a dedicated reusable TestOps plan and records fresh execution outcomes there. Source checks and registration do not establish a new live pass. ## What Changed - Add a default-branch-only workflow with exact TestOps selection, immutable source/build outputs, serial AWS execution and zero eval retries. No source/model/budget selector is accepted. - Register the three exact reusable cases and a separate plan with the existing reviewed GitHub integration. Preserve opaque job definitions. Validate the observed single Branch/defaultValue carrier, PATCH only enable/integration, and use the job’s default branch without rewriting its definition or adding plan overrides. Fence the initial operator launch by actual GitHub run number and nonce; normal TestOps Run remains repeatable. - Reuse the existing private-evidence authority, scanners, bounds and exact-key S3 policies. Authenticated selection supplies only this original attempt's exact source and case identity. The three trusted protocol files are unchanged. - Skip report retrieval after an unsuccessful build or skipped execution; retain evidence and failed grades when evaluation actually ran. - Check out trusted main after the target in both build and execution jobs, and reject any target tree containing the reserved trusted-helper path. A real temporary-Git-tree regression exercises the actual YAML guard. - Keep reporting credentials in separate protected jobs. Export only closed verdict/check/accounting metadata and private-evidence receipts to TestOps. Verify final PNGs privately and record their checksums; keep all screenshot bytes in protected AWS storage and out of public GitHub artifacts. Preserve failed grades and failed cleanup. - Verify actual same-run case results and complete result-owned attachment metadata within a fixed processing window. Missing or inherited attachments never qualify. Keep source/result links and stable case identities. ## Verification - 68 dispatch, selection, registration and readback controls pass. A checkout-boundary regression fails on the old ordering, accepts an ordinary target and rejects a candidate-owned helper tree before trusted checkout. They cover real workflow environment wiring, actual GitHub metadata guards, exact subset selection, wrong sources/cases/jobs, replays and attachment readiness. - 38 exporter controls pass, including the existing backlog exporter and the unchanged private-evidence authority consumer. Red/green controls prove project work accepts the catalog’s 1–3 run range in both export gates, while 0/4 runs are rejected; the actual pinned-source control verifies all three cases’ run bounds. Cancelled, failed and scheduled TestOps job stages are rejected even with complete results. The three new cases retain all 35 independent checks; private diagnostics and all image bytes are excluded from the public artifact. Extra media files and directories are rejected. - The actual checked-in workflow environment is exercised against the actual pinned source matrix and host function for all three cases before provider access. Local fixture controls make zero provider calls and do not claim live AWS qualification. - All 71 workflow-policy controls pass. Actionlint and owning typecheck pass. Relevant TypeScript build dependencies pass. - Full support suite: 5,827 passed, 13 failed, four skipped. A clean unchanged-master baseline reproduces all 13 failures in the same five files. They include fixture expectation drift, operating-receipt fixtures, a profile pin, pnpm bootstrap counts and local database startup. This change updates the exact TestOps workflow registries; the two affected boundary controls now pass. Baseline failures remain retained and are not presented as a green full support suite. - The catalog dependency passed CI and current-head 5/5 review, has no unresolved threads, and is merged. All current-head CI checks pass; both Greptile and Paperclip reviews are 5/5, with no unresolved threads. No new TestOps mutation, provider call or passing launch is claimed yet. A fresh three-case TestOps launch and verified server-side results remain the delivery gate. ## Risks This is a paid execution and reporting boundary. The new workflow accepts only trusted default-branch actor identities and a verified project/plan/job/case selection. Its evaluated source is immutable and separate from main reporting code. The full catalog is not promoted. Screenshots, raw evidence and hidden provider data stay in protected storage. Public GitHub artifacts carry only the closed metadata projection. TestOps receives checks and private-evidence availability/checksum receipts. Unknown setup or AWS accounting stays unknown. One passing launch will not establish full-catalog reliability. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution and tool use. Exact hosted revision and context-window size are not exposed. ## 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	2026-11-01 06:09:47 -06:00