mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-22 16:51:28 +02:00
ad5d8826ad18f72d672fcafbdd9fec24ef8c9fef
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
8ee8f1fd6e |
ci: retire recurring public cloud image builds (#13827)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Core publishes standard images and source verification for downstream services. > - Managed services can now compose private images from the signed standard image. > - Core still builds a second public cloud image on every master push and release. > - That duplicate producer consumes build capacity and retains an obsolete readiness contract. > - This pull request retires recurring cloud publication while preserving the standard producer and rollback artifacts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13797 and #13789. Related: #12856 changes image dependency packaging; it does not retire this producer. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Core's recurring Docker publication and Cloud readiness workflow. **Current behavior** Master pushes call the legacy cloud publisher from Cloud readiness. Release tags and manual Docker runs call it too. Canary promotion also requires the legacy image. **Proposed behavior** Publish standard Core images and retain `Cloud source verified v1`. Let downstream services build their managed image. Keep explicit commit previews and existing images available. ## What Changed - Remove `docker-cloud.yml`, its master and release callers, and its unused cache selector. - Remove the legacy image/migrator wait and `Cloud deployable v1` job. Keep the full source verification workflow and exact source-proof name. - Make canary promotion inspect and promote the standard image only. - Preserve signed standard-image publication, direct migrator publication, and explicit `release.yml` previews. The preview path still uses the Dockerfile `cloud` target. - Update workflow, preview, build-stamp, and packaging tests. Exercise the promotion shell with mocked registry commands, including missing-image and missing-tag cases. - Document frozen legacy aliases, consumer requirements, preview compatibility, and rollback retention. ## Verification - All 377 workflow tests pass: `node --test .github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs`. - All 129 release-registry tests pass: `pnpm test:release-registry`. - Focused source-proof, standard-image, preview, and workflow tests pass: 256 tests. - Focused image packaging/build-stamp tests pass: 16 tests. - Actionlint passes on all three changed workflow files. `git diff --check` passes. - Full local `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck` pass. - The policy follow-up updates an old assertion that required the removed readiness job. All 37 source-proof/release-workflow tests pass locally. - Full local `pnpm test:run` did not complete successfully while the Mac ran out of disk space. No full-suite pass is claimed. Removed 1.2 GiB of generated Cargo output from this isolated worktree with `cargo clean`. GitHub CI passed on the final head: 52 successful checks and 2 optional skips. - Fresh Greptile review for `4f5fe1951f0bd7f7739cf6655d395ff78f1ed944`: **5/5**, successful current-head check, zero review threads. - September 23 refresh: the unchanged PR head merges cleanly with current master `db8f8fe5b73a2697684a30261b0d306a9c631aba`. In an isolated temporary worktree, all 377 workflow tests and 29 release/preview tests pass on the combined tree. `git diff --cached --check` passes. - Refreshed Actionlint workflow validation passes with ShellCheck disabled. Full Actionlint reports the same 10 existing ShellCheck diagnostics as master, with no added diagnostics. No source changes or new PR commits were needed. - The full local build/typecheck and current-head Linux CI results above remain the verification for the unchanged PR head. They were not rerun for this metadata-only refresh. No image publication or tenant deployment was initiated for this refresh. ## Risks **Deployment prerequisite satisfied (September 23):** The combined cleanup release is deployed to staging and production, and production Support is verified. Active managed-fleet automation uses standard-image composition. Explicit immutable previews remain supported by the retained preview publisher. This PR is ready for maintainer review; keep auto-merge disabled and wait for explicit merge authorization. - A consumer still selecting `Cloud deployable v1` will stop advancing at the last legacy-ready commit. Confirm active automatic consumers use the standard-image composition contract before merge. - Legacy cloud release-channel aliases stop advancing. Standard self-hosted aliases continue. - This PR deletes no registry images, cache tags, migrators, credentials, or runner infrastructure. Existing immutable releases remain usable for rollback. - Explicit legacy previews remain for commit-specific operator deployments. Retiring that compatibility path requires a separate consumer migration. - These changes affect CI publication, not database schema or application behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime does not expose a more specific model identifier or context-window size. Used repository inspection, reasoning, code editing, shell tools, 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5c660a32f3 |
ci: build cloud images independently for each merge (#13189)
Build cloud images independently for each master commit through a reusable workflow. Preserve production release dependencies and image runtime checks, and write cloud registry caches per commit with bounded ancestor imports to prevent overlapping builds from replacing each other's cache. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
ca92f727c5 |
ci: publish the cloud image in its own parallel job (#10408)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The CI workflow is responsible for producing and publishing the Docker images that power Paperclip deployments > - The cloud image publish was previously coupled to the stock publish job, so a failure or delay in one path could gate the other > - That coupling makes the release pipeline less resilient than it needs to be > - This pull request gives the cloud publish its own top-level job so both publishes can run in parallel without a `needs:` dependency > - The benefit is better failure isolation and less wasted time when one publish path is slow or broken ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this change. Problem statement: - The cloud image publish was implemented as trailing work inside the stock publish job. - That setup meant the cloud publish could be delayed or skipped if the stock job failed early. - The desired behavior is for the cloud publish to run independently so a failure in one publish path does not gate the other. Proposed solution: - Split the cloud publish into its own top-level workflow job. - Keep the same cloud-specific build settings and cache behavior. - Preserve the existing top-level concurrency behavior. Alternatives considered: - Keeping both publishes in one job with conditionals or later steps. Rejected because it still couples success and runtime between the two publish paths. ## What Changed - Split the cloud image publish into a separate top-level Docker workflow job. - Removed the dependency coupling so the cloud job does not need the stock job. - Expanded the drift-guard test to assert the two-job structure and the absence of `needs:` on the cloud job. ## Verification - The workflow YAML was parsed successfully and confirmed to contain two jobs: `build-and-push` and `build-and-push-cloud`. - The cloud job was confirmed to have no `needs:` entry. - The drift-guard assertions were reproduced in a dependency-free harness and passed. - PR #10408 completed GitHub Actions with all required checks green, including the e2e shards. - Greptile review completed at 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - No documentation files changed because this is a workflow/test-only change. ## Risks - The workflow now duplicates the prep steps across two runners, so any shared setup change must be kept in sync between both jobs. - The new job increases workflow surface area slightly, which can make future maintenance more verbose. - Overall risk is low because the change is limited to CI orchestration and test coverage. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-5, tool-using code assistant) ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
db02ca7402 |
ci: keep in-flight docker builds from being cancelled (#10403)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The repository uses GitHub Actions workflows to build and publish
Docker images
> - A workflow-level concurrency policy controls whether newer pushes
cancel in-flight builds
> - The current job-level setting can cancel a running image build
before it finishes publishing
> - That leaves the Docker image pipeline brittle when a new push
arrives during an active publish
> - This pull request moves concurrency to the workflow level and
disables cancel-in-progress so running builds finish
> - The benefit is that only pending work is superseded, while a build
already publishing is allowed to complete
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this change. This PR addresses the
Docker workflow concurrency behavior directly: it ensures in-flight
image builds are not cancelled by newer pushes, while still serializing
builds per ref.
## What Changed
- Moved the Docker workflow concurrency block from the job level to the
workflow level.
- Set `cancel-in-progress: false` so an active build can finish
publishing.
- Added a drift-guard test that parses `.github/workflows/docker.yml`
and asserts the workflow-level concurrency policy remains `false`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cloud-image-bundled-plugins.test.ts`
- `python3 -c "import yaml;
yaml.safe_load(open('.github/workflows/docker.yml'))"`
- Verified the fetched remote branch contains a single commit on top of
`origin/master`.
- Searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and issues; none found.
- Checked `ROADMAP.md` and did not find overlapping planned core work.
## Risks
- Low risk: the change is limited to workflow concurrency behavior and a
targeted test assertion.
- If the workflow concurrency key is changed later, the drift-guard test
will fail and require an update.
## Model Used
OpenAI Codex (GPT-5, tool use; context window not surfaced in this
environment)
## 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] 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 Foley
|
965a827ee7 |
feat(docker): publish a cloud image variant with built bundled plugins (#10157)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Managed (cloud-hosted) deployments configure instances through `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`, including a `plugins.autoInstall` key list that the boot-time installer resolves against the bundled plugin catalog > - The installer requires each bundled plugin's `dist/manifest.js` (`server/src/services/bundled-plugins.ts`), but the published image only ships the sandbox providers' *source* — they are intentionally excluded from the pnpm workspace, and the Dockerfile never builds them > - Every managed auto-install therefore logs `bundled plugin bundle not present; skipping auto-install` and no sandbox provider can be provisioned through managed config > - Baking built plugins into the single published image would fix it but makes every self-hosted pull carry the providers' `node_modules` for a managed-only mechanism > - This pull request adds a `cloud` Dockerfile target extending `production` with built bundled plugins — parameterized by build arg and currently just `daytona` — published alongside the default image with a `-cloud` tag suffix > - The benefit is working plugin auto-provisioning for managed deployments while the self-hosted image stays byte-identical and the cloud variant only carries what is actually deployed ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10158 (filed for this problem; no prior issue existed — searched for duplicate/related PRs and issues around bundled plugins, docker image variants, and auto-install). Summary: **What happened:** on a managed instance with `plugins.autoInstall: ["daytona"]` delivered via `PAPERCLIP_MANAGED_CONFIG`, boot logs `bundled plugin bundle not present; skipping auto-install` with `pluginPath: /app/packages/plugins/sandbox-providers/daytona`, and the plugin is never installed. **Expected:** the advertised bundled-catalog keys are installable from the published image. **Why:** the image ships plugin source without `dist/` — nothing in the Dockerfile builds the workspace-excluded sandbox providers. ## What Changed - `Dockerfile`: new `cloud-plugins` stage (based on `build`, so devDependencies are available for `tsc`) that installs and builds each provider named in the `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS` build arg standalone (`pnpm install --ignore-workspace --no-lockfile && pnpm build`, exactly as the providers' READMEs prescribe), asserting `dist/manifest.js` exists per plugin and failing loudly on unknown names; new `cloud` stage = `production` + the built plugin tree. The arg defaults to `daytona` — the only provider managed deployments auto-install today; every entry adds its `node_modules` to the image, so the list grows only with actual need (a one-line workflow change). - `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: the existing build step is pinned to `target: production` (without this, the new trailing stage would silently become the default build target — this pin is what keeps the self-hosted image identical); new metadata + build-push steps publish the `cloud` target (with `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS=daytona`) under the same tag set with a `-cloud` suffix (`sha-<short>-cloud`, `latest-cloud`, `<version>-cloud`), same schema labels, reusing the GHA layer cache ## Verification - All seven sandbox providers build standalone from a clean checkout with the exact commands the new stage runs, each producing `dist/manifest.js` — so the current `daytona` default works and future list additions are known-good - The stage's shell loop was dry-run against the checkout (directory existence + per-plugin assertion logic) - Workflow YAML lints clean - **Not run:** a full multi-arch `docker build` (no local docker daemon). The `cloud` stage is additive and the default target is pinned, so the risk is contained to the new build step; the first master build after merge proves it end-to-end ## Risks - Self-hosted behavior: unchanged. The default image build is pinned to the `production` target, which produces the same layers as before this change; the `cloud` stages run only for the new build step. - The plugin installs in the `cloud-plugins` stage use `--no-lockfile` (the providers are workspace-excluded and lockfile-less by design), so plugin dependency resolution is not pinned at image-build time. This mirrors the existing Plugins-page install path, which resolves from npm at install time. - CI cost: one additional build-push per master push. It reuses the layer cache from the production build, so the marginal work is the single plugin's build layers. - An unknown name in `CLOUD_BUNDLED_PLUGINS`, or a provider that stops producing `dist/manifest.js`, fails the cloud build loudly rather than publishing a broken variant. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5[1m]` via Claude Code CLI — extended thinking and tool use (code edits, standalone plugin build verification, workflow lint). ## Checklist - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] Self-hosted behavior unchanged (default build target pinned to `production`) - [x] One clear change: publish a cloud image variant with built bundled plugins |