Commit Graph
7 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
d30c8f42b8 feat(ui): keep writes durable through temporary disconnects (#17960)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start -->
https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/123/changes/paperclip/123
<!-- entire-trail-link-end -->

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - People save tasks, write documents, make decisions and send board
messages.
> - A disconnect can hide a response after the server accepts a write.
> - Recovery must keep the original account, task and request key.
> - The merged connection foundation in #15754 handles reads and shared
outage state.
> - This change adds bounded write recovery and explicit actions when
recovery stops.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

Temporary failures could lose edits, report accepted writes as failures,
or require people to copy and send input again. A retry could target a
newly selected task or account. Restoring attachments could create a
second task.

**Expected behavior**

Keep the draft, its owner and its target. Retry only operations with a
server contract that prevents duplicate writes. Verify uncertain
results. Show conflicts and permanent failures, with an explicit resend
or cancel action.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Save a task title during an outage, then open another task before
recovery.
2. Restore a task creation that needs files, selecting those files in
another order.
3. Lose a document or decision response, then interrupt the verification
read.
4. Switch accounts while a create, upload or connected-channel
publication is pending.
5. Type and erase a new-task draft before the first account lookup
completes, then reopen it.

This PR carries the write layer from #15769 and its review fixes. It
targets master after #15754 merged. Related test cleanup #16952 already
covers the unchanged copy-link toast test; this PR does not duplicate
that work.

## What Changed

- Add bounded autosave and submit jobs for supported writes, with
pending, conflict and manual retry states. Retain admitted autosaves
after navigation and preserve newer task revisions.
- Keep each job with its original account, task and operation. First
account resolution adopts admitted startup work; a later account change
cancels old work. Remount inline and document editors when their owner
or document subject changes.
- Preserve task-creation keys and immutable request snapshots through
file reattachment. Restore generated document keys before comparing
reselected files. Reject changed requests instead of creating a second
task.
- Check the original account scope before creates and each upload. Save
successful upload receipts before stopping on an account change.
Identify attachments by content digest and metadata.
- Verify uncertain document and decision results. Replay only plain,
keyed comments automatically; combined reassignment, reopen and
run-setting changes require receipt reconciliation or cancel. Settle
each request once when a receipt races its retry.
- Scope drafts and connected-channel publication reads to their owner.
Keep unowned older records unread and unreplayed, with an explicit
confirmed discard action after Activity inspection. Preserve typing
through the first session lookup, keep erased text erased, and report
browser persistence only when storage succeeds.
- Wait for the first account lookup before sending startup status
changes or decisions. Retry failed required lookups with a fixed limit
and surface exhaustion to the original action. Preserve uncertain
comment keys on account cancellation. Check the account generation
before a comment retry calls its sender and again immediately before
POST after asynchronous preparation. Retire only that request’s
optimistic echo on completion.
- Return an ordinary comment’s accepted same-company, same-task,
same-user receipt before workspace reopening, task status changes or
wakeups. Reused keys with changed text still conflict. Complete
reference and activity records through the same finalizer for initial
sends and accepted retries. It locks the task before its comment,
matching task and company deletion, comment removal and tombstoning,
rejects removed or tombstoned comments, repairs references and inserts a
missing activity record in one transaction, and publishes after commit.
- Remove reader-only record and comment-body size caps so accepted
browser writes remain readable, including JSON-escaped comment requests
in local and session storage. Update four existing Storybook fixtures to
use owned draft keys.
- Document the write contracts and add regression and real browser
recovery coverage.

- Add the exact reviewed-save recovery regression for both composer
implementations and reloads. Align receipt completion, both comment
deletion methods and company deletion with task deletion by locking
tasks first. Cover real task and company deletion races.

## Verification

- The exact reviewed-unknown-save regression fails in all four cases on
original commit `1ed0af4186`. It passes with this PR for both composers,
before and after reload. Cancel keeps the text and uploaded receipt. The
retained draft sends, and the next message also sends. Run `pnpm exec
vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/composer-recovery.test.tsx`.
- The new real PostgreSQL task-deletion race fails with SQLSTATE `40P01`
on parent commit `f3253a00c4`. The company-deletion race also fails with
`40P01` on `e8cf0e02dd`. All six receipt tests pass after the final
lock-order fixes. They cover company deletion, task deletion, comment
removal, tombstoning, concurrent cross-task references and interrupted
reference repair. Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project
@paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-receipt-postgres.test.ts`.
- The full UI run passed 9,656 of 9,659 tests across 816 files. Three
cases failed under that run: two large-tree timeouts and one
plugin-panel assertion. All 67 tests in those two files passed in an
isolated rerun. These failures remain recorded; this does not claim a
clean full UI run.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, token gates and map checks pass on
the final change. The local full repository test command was started,
then stopped when the delivery moved to this existing PR. Fresh PR CI
must provide the full-suite gate.
- A local Storybook walkthrough used the real rich editor. Cancel kept
the restored text, Send cleared it after the simulated save, and a new
draft enabled Send again. Storybook simulates submission; it is not
staging acceptance.
- Earlier verification on `f3253a00c4` recorded five browser journeys
for title saves, cached-task offline recovery, startup recovery,
accepted comment replay and session lookup failure. Those results remain
prior-head evidence. No new staging deployment is claimed.

- On `e8cf0e02dd`, all CI checks passed after one browser-shard rerun.
Its first failure copied page text instead of YAML in an unrelated
agent-configuration test. On final commit `35131d4380`, Greptile is 5/5
with no unresolved review threads. The first CI attempt has two failures
outside this diff: runner close-attachment suspension and
scheduled-retry teardown. The scheduled-retry file passes all 14 tests
in isolation; the isolated runner test still fails locally. The single
standard CI rerun passed both jobs, and the aggregate verification gate
passed. All CI checks are green on `35131d4380`; Apex is 5/5 on that
same commit with no unresolved findings.

## Risks

- Automatic replay requires server duplicate prevention or result
verification. Uncertain combined mutations require receipt observation
or cancel and a fresh intentional send.
- Old unowned form drafts remain stored but are not assigned to an
account. Unowned channel records can be retired after Activity
inspection; this never cancels an accepted remote update.
- Browser storage and hashing can be unavailable. Storage failure is
reported honestly. Without a digest, replay can duplicate an upload
rather than silently drop a selected file.
- Detached autosaves remain bounded and check account ownership on each
attempt. Conflicts or exhaustion retain the draft for explicit recovery.
- No schema, credential or agent permission change is included. This PR
does not claim staging deployment or original-task acceptance.

## Model Used

Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) produced the original
implementation with tool use. OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, assisted with
restoration, integration, verification and review fixes. This Codex
session does not expose its exact serving model 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
- [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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Amy (Opus) <claude@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>
2026-10-28 10:52:06 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip 2f585ef26a fix(ui): preserve newer drafts after repeated receipt cleanup (#14332)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task composer keeps unsent text across page reloads.
> - A server receipt confirms a submitted message after a reload.
> - Replayed cleanup can apply the old text offset to a newer draft
twice.
> - This pull request reconciles each confirmed attempt once and
preserves both tabs’ unsent intent.
> - The full newer draft stays available for the next send.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

Reloading the classic composer while a save was pending could truncate a
newer draft. Replayed receipt cleanup changed `A newer draft written
while delivery was pending.` into `nding.`. The storage helper rejected
the duplicate settlement, but the effect still changed the editor and
its body reference.

**Expected behavior**

A receipt settles its retained submission once. Later cleanup must
preserve the newer draft in both the editor and browser storage.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Send a comment and hold its HTTP response after the server accepts
it.
2. Type a newer draft, then reload the page.
3. Restore the matching receipt under React StrictMode.
4. Inspect the newer draft after effect replay and unmount.

The deterministic regression reproduces this on current master. The
existing browser test exposed the issue during #14329 verification.
Related draft persistence code came from #13338. A search found no
separate fix for this duplicate settlement.

## What Changed

- Reconcile each confirmed attempt once in memory so duplicate effects
cannot trim its newer draft again.
- Unlock confirmed drafts when storage writes fail. Never acquire
another tab’s pending receipt or assume its text is newer. Keep a
conflicting local draft and its attachments in tab-scoped session
storage while preserving the shared draft unchanged.
- Add component regressions for StrictMode replay, exact editor and
stored bytes, foreign receipts, attachment-only differences, reload
recovery, unavailable storage, and task navigation before autosave. A
brief notice explains when this tab has a separate draft.

## Verification

- RED: the new test received `nding.` instead of the full newer draft
before the fix.
- Review RED: three cases reproduced a locked composer after failed
storage writes or another tab's settlement. A further negative case
preserves a newer retained attempt and its attachments.
- Cross-tab review RED: four deterministic cases reproduced lost local
text, foreign receipt takeover, attachment loss when text matched, and
overwriting newer stored text.
- GREEN: 118 tests across `IssueChatThread`, `composer-draft`, and
`comment-submit-draft`, including same-mounted A → B → A navigation and
a full recovery-storage failure. Two further lifecycle RED tests verify
finishing a recovery returns to the shared draft on a later visit while
continued typing and attachments retain recovery.
- Both existing browser reload cases passed against a fresh server and
database on exact head `ceb80aca77fc8cc0f813c328ba87025b3e1a2222` (42.5
seconds), with classic mode enabled and disabled. The browser flow
verifies one original comment, a preserved draft, and a successful
second send.
- UI typecheck, token gates, and the shipped static UI build passed. The
initial typecheck required the fresh worktree's plugin SDK build; the
retry passed after that dependency built.
- The session-only failure mock also preserves localStorage on platforms
where both share the Storage prototype; this fixes the Linux workspace
test failure.
- All 56 checks passed on `4c30dcccc4fe5b90dcd08dd1d90475ea89e4a376`;
Greptile is 5/5 with zero open review threads. An unrelated runner
baseline scan hit its existing 100 ms deadline once; its isolated test
and the single failed CI job passed on retry without source changes.
This four-file UI fix does not change server or database code.


- Final alternate-staging acceptance passed on deployed source
`d884e1ab046cc76004e35e6091e9e6e2c918c9eb`, with exact health checked
before and after. Three real browser cases used shipped static UI and
real API saves: reload during an accepted-but-unacknowledged save in
both composer variants, plus two classic tabs with different drafts. The
test deliberately held only its own accepted POST acknowledgement and
temporarily withheld its own GET receipt from one tab to reproduce
settlement ordering. Both drafts survived independent reloads, the
shared draft remained intact after the other tab sent, and finishing
recovery returned to the shared draft on a later visit. Exact request
IDs/counts and server comment bytes passed; no provider was invoked.
Screenshots preserve the live drafts before fixture cleanup.
- An ordinary authenticated Chrome/CUA visit independently showed the
exact original and newer comments; an additional unsent draft survived
reload and was then cleared. All three isolated fixtures are complete,
browser contexts are closed, and original user tasks were untouched.

## Risks

- Reconciliation uses the exact request ID and draft key. Conflicting
drafts stay separate; the tab recovery survives same-tab reload through
session storage and does not outlive the browser tab. If recovery
storage is unavailable, the editor keeps its in-memory text and
explicitly warns the user to copy it before leaving.
- Attachment selections remain bounded to 20 per draft; if combining
equal-text snapshots would exceed that limit, each original selection
stays in its respective draft.
- No API, schema, or migration changes. The status notice uses existing
design tokens.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The runtime does
not expose the exact deployment 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
- [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>
2026-09-28 14:03:36 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 422287eecd fix: preserve runner recovery, warm sessions, and task outcomes (#13338)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The native runner connects task messages, provider execution, and
task outcomes.
> - First-time user tests exposed gaps in recovery, completion
permissions, message delivery, and Stop behavior.
> - These gaps left usable output hidden, completed work waiting for
bookkeeping, or safe work unable to continue.
> - This pull request fixes the shared lifecycle and receipt paths while
preserving process ownership and action checks.
> - Users can continue work with accurate task state and durable
messages.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A stopped local Codex execution could remain blocked even after its
processes had stopped and its complete transcript proved that no
external action needed replay. Claude under Conservative permissions
could fail to call task completion tools. Recovery could reuse an
assistant item ID and overwrite prior output. A delivered comment could
remain marked uncertain after navigation. Stop could look like Pause or
a new recovery incident. Workspace contention could look like
cancellation. A direct reply reopening Done could enter a clarification
loop.

**Expected behavior**

Recover automatically only with verified termination and complete action
receipts. Preserve answers and messages. Keep task completion available
under Conservative permissions without broad tool access. Show crashes
as Blocked, actual human decisions as In Review, and ordinary workspace
contention as waiting. Stop the current response and allow a new
direction.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Create ordinary response tasks with local Codex and Claude Code, then
send follow-up messages through the task composer.
2. Interrupt a disposable local Codex runner during text-only work.
Verify automatic continuation and retained output.
3. Stop a response, send a new request, answer a clarification, and
reopen completed work with another message.
4. Navigate or reload while a comment submission is pending. Confirm the
exact persisted request receipt settles it without removing newer draft
text.
5. Run two tasks in a shared Daytona workspace. Confirm waiting does not
appear as failure.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Initial acceptance baseline: `c9021c6721f91e2c74bd9fee9d3fd41c999d17b7`.
Current integration base: `6cef9743c`. Both operator-interruption and
workspace-waiting guards are preserved; native restart and legacy
permission rules remain documented.

**Deployment mode**

An isolated source-built test-drive instance, with real local Codex and
Claude Code providers and disposable Daytona environments.

Related work: #13314, #13316, #13327, #13344, #13239, #13254, #13163.
This PR addresses additional failures from ordinary task journeys,
including controller restart handoff and repeated warm sandbox setup.
Historical task status reconciliation is excluded.

## What Changed

- Persist runner ownership immediately at spawn and resume an explicitly
adopted runner even when the controller crashed before the first driver
checkpoint. Detach the controller safely across graceful restarts,
including session startup. Prevent an old finalizer from suspending or
signaling an adopted runner. Checkpoint idle warm sessions before
shutdown. Preserve the same run and queued follow-up messages.
- Scope saved legacy queue successor checks to the queue owner while
preserving ordinary task locks, operator identity, assignment gates, and
exactly-once delivery.
- Preserve managed Codex credential files when an old session is
detached for restart; normal owned cleanup still copies refreshed auth
back and removes the scoped copy.
- Reuse the bound warm shared sandbox and fully verify an existing
staged provider pack before using it. This avoids repeated uploads when
the pack is already valid.
- Add a narrow local Codex replacement path with stopped-process proof,
a closed transcript inventory, exact completion receipts, and
fresh-session lineage. Preserve no-replay holds when evidence is
incomplete. Recovery may clear only the same run's recorded Blocked
status version; manual re-blocking and dependency changes invalidate
that receipt, while queued comments do not. Later blocks stop scheduled,
queued, and final dispatch; queued/final checks re-read dependencies
even when the task status stays In Progress.
- Permit only task delivery and human-input tools through the isolated
Claude runner's exact task bridge.
- Scope assistant item identity to the provider turn and ignore only
authority-free Codex skill-change notifications during startup.
- Reconcile composer submissions by client request ID across response
loss, navigation, and reload. Retain text typed during delivery.
- Keep acknowledged run-only Stop neutral and show workspace contention
as waiting. Project exhausted native failures as Blocked.
- Restore the guarded task-page retry action for failed legacy runs,
including the server-supported explicit new-attempt path for stopped
conversation adapters. Preserve native/process recovery holds and avoid
promising Retry while a decision or execution gate hides it.
- Refresh delivered artifacts and handle direct user replies that reopen
completed work without a clarification loop.
- Check the embedded PostgreSQL PID, data directory, and actual port
before connecting or migrating.
- Document accepted behavior and add focused regressions at lifecycle,
route, transcript, and UI boundaries.

## Verification

- Final head `fece606ac2` passes the complete GitHub CI matrix: **34
green checks, two expected Storybook skips, no failures or pending
checks**, including `ci / verify`, `ci / e2e`, full runner verification,
typecheck, build, every server/workspace shard, and all browser shards.
[CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34727183287).
Greptile is **5/5 with no open findings**. The final two commits only
refine test fixtures; both affected suites pass 24/24 locally and in CI,
with server typecheck green.
- Complete local Vitest coverage uses the canonical groups/shards: all
635 general server suites, all 145 serialized suites, and all workspace
packages. The aggregate began on `0a8001c18` while the final queue fix
arrived: 23,903 passed, five failed, 87 skipped. The five
port/socket/timing failures passed unchanged in follow-ups (60 tests in
the exposure/file suites and 412 tests covering the serialized failures
and unrun tails). The final queue/operator-identity suites separately
passed 52/52. This is aggregate coverage plus explicit reruns, not a
pristine single-command final-head run.
- After integration with current master,
queue/operator-identity/continuation suites passed 162/162 and affected
UI suites passed 140/140. ACP Stop/continuation and legacy
task/Inbox/message browser suites passed 9/9, including both task
recovery Retry and thread Try again, automatic saved-message delivery,
exactly one new run, Done, and retained output after reload. The default
process Stop/Pause/Resume browser case passed (the native-provider case
is opt-in and skipped by default). The complete Board attachment/receipt
browser suite passed 11/11 on a disposable instance, covering both
composers, exact receipts after lost responses, no replay, bound
attachments, and newer drafts after reload.
- Blocking-intent regressions cover pre-existing Blocked, a mismatched
run/cause, an explicit manual re-block, changed dependencies, a queued
comment after failure, and a block arriving between scheduling and
provider dispatch. The negative cases reproduced before the fix. All 478
affected executor/recovery/dispatch tests passed; both database suites
ran separately after availability-probe skips in the first combined
command. The final late-dependency check passed all 143 affected
recovery/dispatch tests (zero skips) after two new negative cases
reproduced the bug.
- Focused runtime regressions cover awaited runner ownership
publication, authenticated adoption before the first checkpoint,
old-finalizer detachment, idle and busy warm-session shutdown, rejected
checkpoint propagation, provider-pack verification, and managed-Codex
credential preservation. Four managed credential detachment cases
reproduced the bug before the fix; normal owned cleanup still succeeds
exactly once.
- Live local Claude: SIGKILL 2.6 seconds into startup recovered the same
run automatically in 53 seconds, then a normal follow-up completed in 24
seconds. SIGTERM 2.5 seconds into startup preserved the same run (54
seconds) and its queued follow-up (21 seconds). Answers remained visible
and the task reached Done.
- Live Claude Daytona: a warm follow-up retained its sandbox and fell
from 121 seconds to 44 seconds. A separate cold turn took 127 seconds;
after controller shutdown and checkpointing, its follow-up completed in
33 seconds with the same sandbox, workspace, native session, and runner.
Both answers remained visible and the task was Done.
- Other live journeys covered task completion and follow-up with local
and Daytona Codex, local Codex crash recovery, Stop then new direction,
clarification response, live artifact refresh, and shared-workspace
waiting.
- Validation limits: the opt-in native composer Stop/Pause→subtree
Resume fixture exposes terminal/result ordering and subtree-cancellation
attribution bugs that can leave a child task blocked; that new finding
is assigned to a separate follow-up and is not claimed fixed here.
Default CI skips this optional native-provider fixture. Managed-Codex
credential handoff and the queue-agent integration use automated
regression evidence. Cold custom provider-pack uploads still add startup
latency.

## Risks

- Automatic replacement remains deliberately narrow: local Codex,
verified stopped identities, unchanged retained state, and a complete
text/completion-only turn. Unknown actions, partial history, or changed
ownership remain blocked.
- Claude completion permission handling changes an upstream package
patch. The exact isolated task bridge must remain pinned; unrelated
tools keep their existing permissions.
- New task failure projection changes user-visible status. No historical
status backfill or database migration is included.
- This is a broad lifecycle fix across server and UI. Live proof covers
graceful local Claude restart during startup and idle Claude Daytona
session recovery across controller shutdown. Live abrupt SIGKILL during
local Claude startup also recovered the same run. Unknown ownership or
missing action evidence still blocks reuse. Cold custom provider-pack
uploads still add startup latency; this change avoids unnecessary repeat
uploads.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, code execution, browser
automation, and tool use. The exact hosted model ID and context window
are not exposed in this task.

## 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>
2026-09-12 19:41:15 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip ab15aff390 feat: add experimental persistent agent chat (#13284)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Conversations must use the same tasks, controls, and execution
history.
> - Users need an ongoing chat with an agent without managing task
properties.
> - Agents should clarify and plan work, then hand execution to assigned
project tasks.
> - This pull request combines the reviewed Agent Chat stack for one
squash merge.
> - The benefit is persistent conversation with normal task governance
and shared UI.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

Task lifecycle, agent runtime tools, shared task UI, and browser/paid
runner tests.

**Problem or motivation**

Users need one persistent conversation with each agent. A separate chat
store or renderer would duplicate task behavior and bypass existing
controls.

**Proposed solution**

Use a task-backed chat per company, user, and agent. Reuse the task
composer and transcript. Clarify and plan in chat, then create assigned
project tasks with the relevant plan. Keep Agent Chat behind its own
disabled-by-default experimental setting.

**Roadmap alignment**

This implements the task-backed direction in [CEO
Chat](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/master/ROADMAP.md#-ceo-chat).
Related proposals: #2504 and #9693. Related request: #7981. The
maintainer requested one squash merge of the complete stack.

Consolidates the reviewed runtime
[#13281](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13281), backend
[#13282](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13282), and UI
[#13283](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13283) layers
with this PR's E2E coverage. All four layers passed CI and received
Greptile 5/5 before consolidation. This PR targets master and includes
the complete feature.

## What Changed

- Add personal canonical chat tasks with ordinary company visibility,
immutable identity, idempotent first sends, and an idle waiting state.
- Process `/new` in queue order. Preserve history, release a chat pause,
and fence old provider context and delayed writes.
- Keep chat lifecycle rules across recovery, finalization, assignment,
task lists, and rollups.
- Support research and plan revision in chat. Hand plans to ordinary
assigned project tasks before execution starts. Reject new chat
subtasks.
- Add repository-aware project creation and discovery tools, including
multiple repository IDs and GitHub URLs, authorization, idempotency, and
durable project-created cards.
- Reuse task UI components for chat, with starred/recent agent
navigation and a separate `enableAgentChat` experimental flag.
- Add deterministic browser tests and 24 paid chat cells across four
Codex/Claude profiles, with validated reports and screenshots.
- Integrate current master recovery, controller lease, queued-message,
and task UI changes. Gate chat interruption and deferred promotion on
ownership/feature policy. Guarantee lease renewal and active controls
are stopped even if teardown fails.
- Preserve master's migration 0273 and generate chat migration 0274 with
idempotent replay for development databases.

## Verification

- Prior exact heads of all four PRs passed Linux CI, including build,
typecheck, general/serialized tests, and browser E2E. Each had Greptile
5/5 and no unresolved findings.
- Integrated local verification passed: full repository typecheck and
production build, Storybook build, token gates, 340 focused UI tests,
all 20 deterministic chat browser tests, two migration replay tests, 88
focused chat/queue/native/controller tests, and provider/session
regressions including real lease expiry. These include the three
lifecycle regressions for the final admission/teardown fixes; server
typecheck also passes. Current head
`1268eda16cc2af892055917e7292f068820be135` has Greptile 5/5 with no
unresolved findings and passing security scans. All final-head CI gates
passed: build, full Runner verification, typecheck/release registry,
canary, all general/serialized test shards, and all browser E2E shards
([CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34696739927)).
Local PostgreSQL startup contention required serialized retries; skipped
fixtures do not count as passing coverage.
- The earlier paid campaign passed all 24 chat cells and retained 32
screenshots:
[report](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-34648511170-1/index.html?report=agent-chat#suite-agent-chat).
It tested `abacbdfd2f660709ec37312cdb758284c8399d04`; it is prior
evidence, not a paid run of this integrated head.
- Manual check: enable Agent Chat in Experimental settings, open an
agent, clarify and revise a plan, then hand off to an assigned project
task. Stop a reply, send `/new`, and verify fresh context with retained
history. Disable the setting and verify agent shortcuts/new chat turns
are blocked.

## Risks

- Queue/session integration can affect retries and delayed writes. Tests
cover ownership, cancellation, reset boundaries, idle recovery, and
ordinary task behavior.
- Migration 0274 adds conversation fields and constraints. Replay is
idempotent and preserves existing development chat history.
- This combines the previously reviewed stack at the maintainer's
request. Agent Chat remains off by default and is separate from
Conference Room.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, code
execution, browser tools, and parallel review. The exact context-window
size is not exposed in this session. Codex and Claude also ran as test
subjects in the linked paid campaign.

## 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>
2026-09-12 08:56:04 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 889947c238 feat: add experimental native chat connectors (#13038)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - People also ask agents for work in their existing chat tools.
> - Each external conversation needs one task and a current authorized
source.
> - Retries, Stop, and provider failures must not duplicate work or
expose private data.
> - The first chat PR establishes the opt-in provider and data
contracts.
> - This PR adds experimental channel integration and its durable
control plane.
> - Users can request work from connected channels and inspect delivery
in Paperclip.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #13100 and #13092. This is the second of exactly two chat PRs.
Foundation #13100 is merged and changed 143 files. Runner prerequisite
#13092 is also merged. This PR changes 400 files against master, below
the 500-file review limit. It contains no wireframe images or HTML
galleries.

## What Changed

- Add native Slack, GitHub, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, and Discord chat
connections. Keep chat disabled unless the operator enables experimental
chat connectors. Preserve the production GitHub tool connection and its
normal setup path.
- Bind each provider bot identity to one immutable Paperclip agent. Bind
each admitted external conversation to one task. Paperclip owns tasks,
runs, permissions, and audit records.
- Add durable admission, per-conversation queues, questions, task
controls, progress, final replies, images, files, and delivery receipts.
Board comments remain internal unless explicitly sent to the channel.
- Check current identity, provider reach, resource access, credentials,
runtime generation, and exact source before provider effects. Keep
private responses private. Never send raw reasoning, private logs,
credentials, or tool arguments.
- Hold uncertain sends for explicit audited resolution. Make Board
Send-to-channel atomic and idempotent. Keep reconnect and setup
credentials in Paperclip secret storage.
- Preserve current native-runner authority across retries, lost
acknowledgements, and recovery. Keep immutable input and completion
contracts separate from newer user input. Receipt reconciliation cannot
launch a provider.
- Reconcile chat close/new ordering and provider-effect lock order.
Audit resource access changes in the same transaction. Submit only the
selected resource from each UI toggle so stale pages cannot undo
unrelated access changes.
- Drain Codex stdout before certifying process exit. Bound the drain
with the existing shutdown grace. Preserve observed terminal authority
without treating an undrained process as successful or reusable.
- Incorporate master `018ca5da` with its ACP Stop, mobile task layout,
runner packaging, and official lock changes. Preserve dedicated
chat-answer continuations in both directions when ordinary queued
comments are adopted after Stop.
- Fence late adapter readiness behind an earlier Stop for the same run.
Preserve verified cleanup for registered adapters. Handle single Stop,
agent pause, duplicate Stops, and failure release without creating a
false cancellation receipt.
- Incorporate master's `6dd48cad4` wake-queue extraction. Preserve exact
failed-chat retry authorization and lineage, retired question-source
suppression, and the block on generic recovery that would discard the
admitted source. Fresh deferred input retains its separate promotion
path.
- Incorporate master `2a05b5ed3` and its queue-admission extraction,
simplified transaction ports, and separate runner CI job. Preserve exact
durable receipts, actor separation, and dedicated-answer isolation
through the new module. A failed receipt insert rolls back the
accompanying deferred-wake merge.

## Verification

Current head: `afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a`, incorporating
master `2a05b5ed3457ea33efd6895520447d1d97fe98d8`. The conflicts are
resolved. This successor fixes two test-harness boundaries exposed by
CI: per-case route-module preparation and actual durable-save completion
before intentional runner termination. Production code and all existing
test/turn deadlines are unchanged. [Exact-head Greptile
review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13038#issuecomment-5587250594)
is **5/5**, completed September 10 at 13:20:55 UTC, with no actionable
findings or open review threads. [Fresh exact-head
CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34481724341)
passes **all 24 jobs**, including Build and both required aggregates.
Normal exact-head guarded merge was attempted and rejected by the
remaining branch approval policy: CODEOWNER review is required and no
human approval is present. Normal **squash auto-merge is enabled** as of
September 10 at 13:36:26 UTC. Requested CODEOWNERS have been notified;
no approval bypass or self-approval was used. Earlier-head results below
remain historical evidence, not qualification of this successor.

- Final exact-head Linux evidence: 995/995 chat integration cases; 36/36
agent-skills routes; 35/35 runner live-session cases, including real
process kill/resume; 1948 runner Vitest cases with three existing
benchmark/platform guards; 870/870 API-authority cases; and 104 browser
cases with four existing optional skips. Rust, conformance/replay, full
repository build, typecheck, canary, all server/workspace shards, and
both required aggregates pass with normal CI concurrency. Earlier failed
attempts remain recorded below.

- Latest test-only qualification: 141/141
route/permissions/authentication cases pass in separate cold forks, with
plain server types and independent review clear. The real-runner suite
passes 35/35, with plain runner types and independent review clear. A
controlled premature-save acknowledgement fails as expected; matching
ownership/effect/process evidence, rejected saves, real turn outcome,
test abort, and pre-kill liveness are covered. No local reproduction of
the original CI scheduling failure is claimed. The preceding [CI
run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34479680858)
passes 21/24 jobs, including all 995 Linux chat cases and browser
aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional skips); only Build, the
skills serialized shard, and the required verification aggregate fail.
Its exact-head Greptile review was 5/5. Both failed job logs are
retained.

- Final fixture qualification: all eight focused Discord cases and all
995 chat integration cases pass. The exact modal statement/PID is
observed before taking the real connection lock; the test then proves
its actual blocking relationship before mutation. Original SQL
execution, provider behavior, negative assertions, and 1s/15s timeouts
remain unchanged. Independent review is clear and test/production hashes
remain frozen. The preceding [CI
attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34477184777)
passed 22 jobs, including Build/runner, typecheck, canary, all other
test shards, and browser aggregate (104 passed, four existing optional
skips); the two fixture failures and failed verification aggregate
remain recorded, not relabeled as a pass.

- Current queue-module composition: 308/308 recovery/batching/queue/Stop
tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 89/89 module tests, including real
PostgreSQL receipt-insert rollback; 24/24 workflow/module-boundary
tests; plain server and UI types. All four actual local process/ACP
browser paths pass in 1.4 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries,
stable reviewed source hashes. The initial boundary failure is retained;
its no-op service wrapper was removed without changing recovery context
or weakening the check. An exploratory standalone test-directory
typecheck fails because its new upstream transformation config is not a
standalone typechecking project; standard CI/build does not invoke it,
and no configuration was weakened to suppress those diagnostics.

- The preceding head `e02a63d462ce5d47433b0aeb632bb6fd20aab1ba` passed
[all 24 CI
jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34436462958)
and exact-head Greptile review at 5/5. Required CODEOWNER review
prevented its normal merge before master advanced again.

- Final extracted-module composition: 307/307 recovery, batching, queue
and Stop-control tests; 995/995 full chat integration; 49/49 module
tests including eight PostgreSQL adapter cases; and 19/19 issue-update
tests. Plain server types pass. All four actual local process/ACP
browser paths pass in 1.3 minutes. Fresh databases, no skips or retries
in these cohorts, frozen source hashes, and independent review clear.

- The preceding head `3e4e1c1c` passes [all PR CI
jobs](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34415826820),
including Build and required `ci / verify` and `ci / e2e`. Both the
original Rust failure and the previously load-sensitive lineage fixture
pass with unchanged Linux concurrency. Master advanced afterward and
required this reconciliation.
- Final master composition: 448/448 focused UI tests, 186/186 adapter
tests, 24/24 queue/control tests, and 11/11 packaging tests. Plain UI,
server, shared, and adapter types pass. Token gates and diff checks
pass. Independent server and UI reviews are clear.
- Stop-registration regression: both real-service cases fail against
exact `a95` source and pass with the fix. The full corrected
recovery/control suite passes 265/265. Duplicate-owner and failed-Stop
controls also pass. Plain server types pass. The readiness barrier
prevents provider startup without adding an acknowledgment to an already
terminal run.
- Final qualification strengthens terminal-field equality and repeats
both affected cases successfully on a fresh database. All four actual
local process/ACP browser paths pass again in 1.3 minutes, without skips
or retries. The final screenshot shows Cancelled, a paused subtree,
retained input, and no error toast.
- Two new actual-service regressions fail before the merge fix. They
prove that queued-comment adoption could consume a dedicated chat answer
or add unrelated input to that answer. The fixed four-case cohort
passes, including ordinary upstream continuation and adapter Stop
controls. Full recovery passes 257/257. All four actual local
process/ACP Stop browser flows pass in 1.4 minutes, without skips or
retries, on a fresh database.
- The unchanged runner artifact was qualified with 171/171 transport
tests, 870/870 API-authority tests, conformance 1/1, and replay 11/11.
Six controlled reader tests prove the exit/drain repair. Its local
serial Rust workspace passed 546 top-level cases plus two invoked
helpers; the later passing Linux CI supplies default-concurrency
evidence.
- Prior exact-source full chat integration passes 995/995. Settings
regressions cover concurrent stale pages, 501 destinations, pending
state, rejected updates, and explicit retry. These deterministic tests
do not prove live provider behavior.
- Retained failed attempts and their causes are in the [qualification
log](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-chat-queue-and-webhook-repair.md).
The first merge adapter run timed out while macOS slept for 290 seconds.
Its unchanged repeat passed with a temporary sleep guard. No assertion,
deadline, or CI gate was weakened.

Review commands include `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest
run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-queued-comments-routes.test.ts` and `pnpm exec
playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/acp-stop-continuation.spec.ts`. Database suites require fresh
disposable databases. See the [browser
runbook](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-04-chat-adapters-browser-e2e-runbook.md)
for provider setup and separate live acceptance steps.

## Risks

- This remains experimental. Deterministic tests and bounded live
evidence do not establish every provider feature, tenant, permission
layout, or media shape. Teams work-tenant qualification is still open.
- Failed and uncertain provider effects remain visible and can require
operator action. A transport receipt does not prove recipient
visibility.
- Native controller and runner artifacts must remain compatible.
Preserve lease ownership, terminal authority, source binding, and
quarantine during future changes.
- Access and audit rows commit together, but activity notifications
remain best-effort. This is not a new durable event outbox.
- The PR operation does not deploy a live server, replace its runner, or
change provider permissions. Remaining live qualification is documented
in the [temporary
handoff](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/afe19299d06253cb628eb398e91d1200ea9f412a/doc/plans/chat-adapters/2026-09-08-open-qualification-followups.md).

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, tool execution, testing, and
review. The work records `gpt-6-astra` assistance. The environment does
not report a context-window size. No private reasoning traces are
included.

## 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>
2026-09-10 10:06:45 -05:00
Dotta 39206c0096 feat(ui): complete the task workspace (#12640)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The task page is the main place where people guide and review agent
work.
> - Native runner events already project into the existing task chat on
the lower stack.
> - The larger task workspace must support those events without breaking
direct adapters.
> - Legacy questions, final replies, empty transcripts, and classic
controls must keep their behavior.
> - This pull request completes the provider-neutral task workspace
experience.
> - The benefit is one coherent task surface for native and direct
execution paths.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #12639.
Refs #12617.
Refs #12352.

**Subsystem affected**

Task chat, task detail, side panels, interaction forms, and transcript
presentation.

**Problem or motivation**

The task page does not provide one complete workspace for live activity,
plans, questions, queued guidance, files, and documents. Earlier native
UI work also exposed compatibility risks in legacy question and reply
paths.

**Proposed solution**

Add the task workspace components and provider-neutral protocol
presentation. Keep runner-only controls behind runtime facts. Preserve
all direct-adapter composer, transcript, interaction, and finalization
behavior.

**Alternatives considered**

A separate runner page would duplicate task behavior. Replacing legacy
transcript logic would create unnecessary adapter regressions.

**Roadmap alignment**

This work supports the unified task experience and the Cloud and Sandbox
agents milestone.

## Stack

- Base PR: #12639.
- Lower PR: #12638.
- This PR contains only its 119-file UI delta against
`runner/remote-wss-transport`.
- The next stack PR adds administrator and observability controls.

## What Changed

- Added a reusable task workspace side panel for files and documents.
- Added provider-neutral cards for tools, plans, questions, protocol
activity, and progress.
- Added queued guidance and richer composer state.
- Added compact and expanded interaction presentation.
- Added live activity, thinking, usage, recovery, and final reply
presentation.
- Added document annotations and task deep links.
- Added bounded question validation and response handling.
- Preserved native runner event projection from master.
- Preserved legacy channel-less replies and explicit final reply
precedence.
- Preserved direct-adapter and classic-interface controls.
- Did not change server execution selection, Rust code, migrations,
workflows, or `pnpm-lock.yaml`.

## Verification

- GitHub Actions will run UI tests, repository tests, typecheck, build,
browser tests, security, and policy gates.
- Tests cover active, settled, empty-transcript, interaction,
queued-message, plan, question, file, document, and classic-interface
states.
- Compatibility tests cover direct adapters and native runner projection
together.
- Local tests were not run. The requested verification policy uses
GitHub Actions for this series.
- `git diff --check runner/remote-wss-transport...HEAD` passes.
- The delta contains 119 UI-only files.

## Risks

- This is a large task-page change.
- Most files are new focused components and tests.
- Shared transcript code keeps the lower native projection and legacy
direct-adapter fallbacks.
- Runner-only controls use adapter and runtime facts.
- No execution path or rollout flag changes in this PR.

> 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 with GPT-5.6. The work used high-reasoning agent mode,
repository tools, GitHub tools, and parallel code-audit agents.

## 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 or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id
- [ ] 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
- [ ] 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
2026-09-01 02:44:19 -05:00
scotttongandPaperclip 4e9a78db58 feat(ui): persist task chat composer drafts (#11076)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - People send task instructions through the board task chat.
> - A page refresh or task switch can discard an unfinished message in
the redesigned composer.
> - The existing task chat already supplies a task-specific draft key.
> - The redesigned composer must use that key without changing
attachment or send behavior.
> - This pull request restores, saves, and clears text drafts in the
redesigned composer.
> - The benefit is that users can return to unfinished task messages
without losing their text.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Related prior work: #11070. This pull request extracts only the final
composer draft behavior from that larger draft.

**Subsystem affected**

ui/ — React + Vite board UI.

**Problem or motivation**

The redesigned task chat composer does not use the draft key that the
task thread already provides. A refresh, navigation, or unmount can lose
an unfinished message.

**Proposed solution**

Persist text drafts by task key in local storage. Restore a draft when
the composer mounts. Save changes after a short delay and flush pending
text during unload or unmount. Clear the draft only after a successful
send.

**Alternatives considered**

The composer could save on every keystroke. A short delay avoids
unnecessary synchronous storage writes. The feature could also stay in
the larger predecessor PR, but a focused PR is easier to review and
verify.

**Roadmap alignment**

This is a focused usability improvement for the task conversation
surface. It does not add or duplicate a roadmap capability.

## What Changed

- Added safe draft storage helpers for load, save, and clear operations.
- Connected the task-specific draft key to the redesigned task chat
composer.
- Preserved drafts across debounce windows, unmounts, page unloads,
failed sends, and React Strict Mode probes.
- Cleared drafts after successful sends without changing current
attachment safeguards.
- Added focused composer and thread integration tests.

## Verification

- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx
src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx`

## Risks

- Local storage can be unavailable or full. The helpers catch storage
errors and keep the composer usable.
- Only text is persisted. Attachments, work mode, and assignee
selections remain session state.
- Draft keys remain task-scoped, so text does not cross task boundaries.

> 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 with model `gpt-5`. The context-window size is not exposed
in this environment. The model used agentic reasoning, tool use, code
execution, and test execution.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-08-07 18:32:49 -07:00