mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-13 23:39:21 +02:00
bca7c850d54cb20b288ebbe36483df41cf437dc0
4991
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
bca7c850d5 |
fix: honor canonical workspace selection and parent inheritance
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0c96230d02 |
test: capture required final task workspace evidence
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5acd0bd05a |
fix: exclude in-progress repository clones from Git staging
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6195c98f5a |
test: distinguish agent summaries from bounded recovery notices
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b1d3d53edc |
fix: stage repository clones outside published workspace files
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d4bb28e0f4 |
test: isolate browser navigation during controller restart
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6ef1b6bda5 |
test: publish complete callback bridge request fixtures
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c1c623aee5 |
fix: isolate repository publication locks by checkout
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
638dbd0790 |
test: provide identities for retained workspace admissions
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
59953d3101 |
fix: lock repository parent before publishing new checkout
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
215219a5cb |
fix: enforce explicit workspace choices across update paths
Fail closed for an unavailable configured source, invalidate superseded workspace intent atomically on ordinary task updates, and reuse canonical workspace eligibility in channel settings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
58bcb04bfd |
fix: preserve workspace ownership through project changes and recovery
Keep project edits organizational, validate immutable native task roots before materialization, align authorization fixtures, and correct live E2E evidence collection. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0f4818c623 |
docs: align task workspace migration reference after rebase
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d909c79198 |
fix: retain scoped source authorization across workspace operations
Authorize every retained task and source project independently from organizational assignment, including native child creation, selection, reopening, and repository preparation. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4244cdb238 |
test: align workspace fixtures with retained source authorization
Seed active memberships for reused task workspaces, respect retained-source deletion order, and remove a provider-speed race from the E2E oracle while preserving deferred-preparation checks. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
449d66daa3 |
fix: preserve task workspace source and resume semantics
Keep organizational projects separate from source ownership, align workspace discovery with selection, normalize persisted defaults for session reuse, and preserve typed setup diagnostics. Add privacy provenance regressions and synchronize API/tool contracts. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
65528340b8 |
test: qualify task workspace persistence across runner backends
Add three full-stack workspace and repository resume journeys, synchronize operation documentation, and enforce non-enumerating task route authorization. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ec2210e4f8 |
feat: give tasks durable project-optional workspaces
Separate task organization from filesystem ownership. Add channel defaults, workspace and repository tools, safe admission transitions, and sparse native workspace persistence. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
3389bea708 |
fix(recovery): surface exhausted review-path repair (#15764)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - An issue in review needs a saved path to its next action. > - A consumed review path starts one automatic repair run. > - The repair run can finish with only a promise to check later. > - The old code skips another wake but records no recovery action. > - This change records a board decision when that repair also leaves no saved path. > - The issue lock protects a new monitor, a changed owner, or newer work from stale finalization. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent waiting for an external build said it would check again soon. Its one-shot monitor had already fired. The automatic review-path repair also finished without saving another monitor. The task stayed in review with no future wake or recovery card. **Expected behavior** The repair must save a monitor or another review path. If it cannot do so, Paperclip must show an explicit recovery action and stop automatic retries. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Leave an agent-owned issue in review after consuming its last monitor or interaction. 2. Let the source run finish without saving another review path. 3. Let the single automatic repair run also finish without saving a path. 4. Before this change, the task stays in review without a scheduled follow-up. After this change, it is blocked with a board-owned recovery action and an inline notice that links the repair run. Related work: Refs #14757 (preserve active review during stale recovery), Refs #11925 (review-path liveness). This PR handles exhausted repair wakes; it does not change path aging. ## What Changed - Return an explicit exhausted result after the single review-path repair attempt. - Record the recovery action, blocked state, notice, and activity in one transaction. Preserve the original assignee. Keep implicit service reads on the transaction connection. - Recheck the company, owner, saved review paths, and latest issue run before escalation. Publish activity after commit. - Tell the repair agent to save a one-shot monitor and report its check time when an external check remains pending. - Retry missed escalation from the saved terminal repair run during the stranded-issue sweep. Cover restart recovery and rollback with a one-connection pool. - Preserve valid due and claimed monitors for dispatch while the owner permits on-demand wakes. Surface overdue monitors after those wakes are disabled. Keep the future-only liveness classifier unchanged. - Cover monitor repair, stale finalization, company boundaries, duplicate finalization, and failed repair. Document the behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/recovery/review-path-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts` — 62 tests passed, including PostgreSQL integration tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 18,144 passed, with three unrelated local fixture failures. Two Git fixtures pass when run with their expected initial branch (`master`); this machine defaults to `main`. The native same-task replacement fixture also fails on an unchanged checkout of master. No unrelated production behavior was changed to accommodate those fixtures. - Apex review — 5/5 on commit `3aca7059848`, with no unresolved review comments. - Latest-head CI — all required checks passed, including test shards, typecheck, build, browser checks, and canary dry run. No merge conflicts. - Repeat the steps above. Confirm that the issue has one recovery notice, one board-owned action, and no second automatic repair wake. Save a monitor during repair and confirm that the issue stays in review. ## Risks - A review repair that exhausts its one attempt now moves the task to blocked and asks the board to act. This is an intentional behavior change. - The check uses the current review-path classifier. A path that the classifier treats as healthy still suppresses escalation. - No schema, API, or UI contract changes are required. Existing recovery controls render the action and notice. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window. ## 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 (62 tests for this change; full-suite fixture limitations are listed above) - [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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
8f13ec4d51 |
fix(slack): link created tasks in default reply guidance (#15579)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their tasks. > - Slack agents use shared guidance to write their replies. > - A reply can show a task ID without a link. > - The person must then search for the task. > - This change tells the agent to link each task it creates. > - People can open the task directly from the reply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Default communication guidance for Slack agents. **Current behavior** The guidance does not require a link when an agent creates a task. **Proposed behavior** Require a clickable link to each created task. Use its identifier or title as the link text. Use a public URL supplied by Paperclip. Report when no public URL is available. **Reason and benefit** People can open the task without a separate search. Related work: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13760 introduced the guidance. https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15576 adds account connection instructions and does not cover task links. ## What Changed - Add task link instructions to the shared Slack communication guidance. - Document the default and the existing conversation snapshot behavior. - Add regression coverage for the guidance in channels and DMs. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/chat-communication-guidance.test.ts` (10 tests). - Passed: `git diff --check`. - Local full typecheck and build could not finish: the container killed compiler processes (exit 137; cgroup reports OOM kills). The full test run was stopped after this resource limit. CI results are pending. - Added checks for task links, public URL sources, and missing URLs in Slack channels and DMs. ## Risks - Low risk. This changes prompt text only. - Existing conversations keep their original guidance snapshot. New conversations receive the new default after deployment. - This is agent guidance. It does not force a link into provider output. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime did not expose an exact model revision or context window size. Used reasoning, code inspection, file editing, and command 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
43212cb2b7 |
fix(slack): require result and review updates in conversation prompts (#15611)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - People can ask an agent to do work from a Slack thread. > - The agent must return results and review requests to that conversation. > - The current prompts explain reply format but do not require these updates. > - This change adds one set of instructions to initial prompts and later turns. > - Users can see the result and the action needed for review in Slack. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An agent can save results or a plan in Paperclip without telling the user in Slack that the result is ready or that review is required. **Expected behavior** The agent reports results in the originating conversation. If review is needed, it saves the required interaction and tells the user what to review and how to act. **Steps to reproduce** Start work in a Slack thread. Have the agent prepare a plan that needs approval or produce a deliverable. The prompt does not explicitly require a result or review update in that thread. Related: #15579 adds task links to Slack replies. This change covers results and review requests, including later turns. ## What Changed - Add shared instructions for result and review updates. - Include the instructions in initial Slack guidance and per-turn guidance. - Keep the normal approval gates, delivery checks, and duplicate-message rules. - Add tests for channel and direct conversations, and for fresh and resumed native and CLI turns. - Update the Slack skill documentation. ## Verification - Passed: guidance and heartbeat context tests (65 tests in two files). - Passed: `git diff --check`. - Workspace typecheck and build could not complete because this sandbox has no `cargo` binary. - The full local test run was stopped due to the sandbox memory limit. GitHub CI runs the full checks. - GitHub CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - Low risk. This change updates prompt text and tests. It does not change transport or permissions. - Prompt instructions guide agent behavior. They do not guarantee that Slack delivery succeeds. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Used reasoning, code editing, and command tools. The runtime does not expose a more specific 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 - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
baa94bbea5 |
Fix idle sleep checks for finished login and wake history (#15761)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages AI agent work and keeps a durable record of each
run.
> - Automatic idle sleep must wait for accepted work and provider
cleanup.
> - The current sleep check treats every saved login session as active
work.
> - It also treats every coalesced wake request as pending work.
> - These records can remain after their work and cleanup finish.
> - This pull request checks the cleanup and linked-run evidence before
it treats these records as history.
> - The change lets otherwise idle instances sleep and keeps uncertain
work awake.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A finished login session blocks idle sleep after its provider resource
has been removed. A consumed coalesced wake also blocks sleep after its
linked run finishes.
**Expected behavior**
Finished history should permit sleep when cleanup or run completion is
confirmed. Active work, missing evidence, retry debt, and pending
accounting must still block sleep.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Create a finished login session with a retained provider reference.
2. Record a successful release for the same resource, company, and
environment.
3. Check idle sleep safety under an owned, quiet admission hold.
4. The current check reports background work. The new check treats the
session as history.
5. Repeat with a finished coalesced wake linked to a finished run in the
same company and agent.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
e9dae72c0c |
ci: use a Docker Hub mirror for image builds (#15756)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Image workflows build the exact source selected for a release. > - BuildKit fetches the Dockerfile frontend and base images from Docker Hub. > - Docker Hub token failures can stop these builds before application code runs. > - BuildKit supports a public image cache with canonical Docker Hub fallback. > - This pull request configures that cache in the two affected image builders. > - The build inputs and publication gates stay the same. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** [Docker run 37995539183](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37995539183) failed before application builds started. The AMD64 job received HTTP 504 from the Docker Hub token endpoint while it fetched `docker/dockerfile:1.20`. The ARM64 job fetched the frontend, then received the same error while it resolved `node:24-trixie-slim`. [Release preview run 37992058052](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37992058052) also failed while it fetched the frontend. **Expected behavior** Use the supported public cache when it has the requested Docker Hub image. Retain canonical Docker Hub fallback when the cache has no usable copy. Preserve build and publish failures. **Steps to reproduce** Run either affected image builder during a Docker Hub token failure. The unconfigured BuildKit container contacts Docker Hub for the frontend and base image. It cannot use a host Docker daemon mirror for those build requests. **Paperclip version or commit** The observed Docker run used `00d944f96c8c4aba8332ce224df2be73a601228a`. The preview used `b6b3cb3761dabd1bd668054e7a99a245d53707c4`. **Deployment mode** GitHub Actions image builds. No application runtime change. The public PR and issue search found no matching open registry-mirror change. #15743 addresses a separate npm canary dependency publication failure. ## What Changed - Add the official `docker.io` to `mirror.gcr.io` BuildKit configuration to the public Docker build matrix and the release preview image builder. - Keep all existing action references, image sources, targets, build arguments, platforms, credentials, cache settings, outputs, permissions, triggers, and publication gates. - Extend the existing dependency-free workflow tests to check mirror placement, verified HTTPS, both native platforms, preview isolation, and publication access. - Document cache eviction, tag freshness, canonical fallback, and builder bootstrap limits. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs scripts/cloud-source-verification.test.mjs scripts/standard-image-contract.test.mjs`: 43 passed on the final source. No dependency install required. - Six offline controls removed each builder's mirror, changed the registry or cache host, enabled insecure transport, or added preview registry login. Each control failed the new check as expected. - `actionlint -shellcheck='' .github/workflows/docker.yml .github/workflows/release.yml`: workflow validation passed. With optional ShellCheck enabled, the ten diagnostics match the unchanged base exactly. This PR changes no shell scripts. - A real TOML parser accepted the inline configuration. Removing the new block from each workflow produced byte-identical base files. - Read-only registry metadata checks confirmed matching raw bytes and SHA256 values for the current Node24 index and both native manifests. The Dockerfile frontend index and both native manifests also match Docker Hub and Google. No image config blobs or layers were fetched. - Full application tests, typecheck, and build were not repeated locally because application source is unchanged. [Hosted CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37998739440) passed the full required checks on `25fd57f`, including all test shards, build, typecheck, policy, E2E, and canary dry run. - The supply-chain advisory returned neutral because it cannot verify these infrastructure edits. It reported zero annotations. Independent review confirmed all action references, Dockerfiles, package files, and lockfiles are unchanged. The other 53 checks passed; two Storybook checks skipped as expected. - Independent review approved all four changed files and the workflow graph. Greptile scored the same source 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - No Docker build, workflow rerun, image publish, or deployment was started for verification. A normal image workflow after merge must prove full image acquisition. ## Risks Google is a cache, not an outage guarantee. It can evict images. Mutable tags can lag upstream changes or deletions. Matching manifests now does not prove future tag freshness or blob availability. A cache miss can still fail when Docker Hub is unavailable. The initial `moby/buildkit:buildx-stable-1` bootstrap uses the host Docker daemon before this configuration takes effect and remains dependent on Docker Hub. The registry mirror applies to image pull and resolution only. GHCR publication and cache writes keep their existing routes. See [Docker's supported configuration](https://docs.docker.com/build/ci/github-actions/configure-builder/#registry-mirror) and [Google's cache limits](https://docs.cloud.google.com/artifact-registry/docs/pull-cached-dockerhub-images). ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning and code execution tools. The exact service variant and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `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
|
935fb63ed5 |
fix(release): retry incomplete canary dependency publications (#15743)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Release checks must test the exact package that a new user installs. > - The canary onboarding smoke uses a fresh npm dependency graph. > - An upstream package can reference a dependency before that version is available. > - The smoke then exits before Paperclip onboarding starts. > - This pull request retries only that npm acquisition failure within the existing startup limit. > - Onboarding still runs once, and all other errors remain visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** [Release run 37986221440](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37986221440) published `2026.1009.0-canary.13`, then failed the onboarding smoke. The retained server log contains npm `ETARGET` for `@aws-sdk/credential-provider-env@^3.972.73`. The upstream parent package was published before this dependency. The missing version became available during the smoke startup. Paperclip onboarding never ran. **Expected behavior** Retry a short dependency publication window before onboarding starts. Stop on a permanent install failure. Never repeat onboarding to hide a startup failure. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start the exact-version canary smoke with an empty npm cache. 2. Make the first npm install return `ETARGET` because a dependency version is not available. 3. Make the next install succeed after registry metadata changes. 4. Confirm that onboarding starts once. Repeat with permanent `ETARGET` and an unrelated failure; onboarding must not start. **Paperclip version or commit** The observed release source was `cb291bf1298ab484a2792c05eb977f3440f1f351`. **Deployment mode** Linux release CI. The change affects the canary smoke harness. Related: #15712 fixes a separate lockfile mismatch in the smoke's repository dependency install. This change covers the fresh published-package npm install. ## What Changed - Separate npm package acquisition from the onboarding command. - Retry only the final npm `ETARGET` error, up to three attempts with online metadata and clean temporary prefixes. - Share a two-minute acquisition budget across attempts and backoff. Keep the existing five-minute Playwright startup limit. - Run the installed exact-version CLI once. Preserve authentication, network, lifecycle, and onboarding failures. - Stop owned process groups on cancellation and remove owned install prefixes. Keep server logs and instance data for diagnostics. - Keep dependency-free helper subprocess tests in the required policy lane. Run real Playwright lifecycle tests in the required release-registry lane after its dependencies are installed. - Document the bounded behavior in the release runbook. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: 24 passed in a clean source snapshot with no `node_modules`. These cover transient and permanent missing versions, other npm errors, nested error codes, onboarding failure, deadline expiry, and cancellation. - `pnpm test:release-registry`: 153 passed, including real Playwright teardown with a descendant that ignores SIGTERM and startup-timeout cleanup of a detached npm installer. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm test:run`: deliberately stopped after complete hosted CI passed; this is not a local full-suite pass. The run's 15 warm-runtime real-DB cases failed before assertions because the local macOS PostgreSQL package lacked library symlinks after installation with `--ignore-scripts`. After running the package's local hydration step, all 15 affected cases passed in a targeted rerun. The remaining aggregate was stopped with exact owned-process cleanup. - [Hosted CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37994486323) is complete and green at `1c80e6f`: all tests, build, typecheck, policy, release registry, E2E, and canary dry run passed. Greptile scored the same head 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - Independent review covered all seven changed files and the exact policy and release-registry commands. It also used real npm 11.9 against a loopback registry: a required version was absent, then became available. The retry refreshed metadata and started the installed exact-version CLI once. The one-attempt negative control failed. - The new subprocess tests use local npm and CLI fixtures. They do not contact a registry or start a real Paperclip instance. - The patch preserves the exact-version clean-install check. It adds no dependency pins, credentials, or workflow reruns. ## Risks The install phase now has a two-minute budget inside the existing five-minute startup limit. An unusually slow valid install can still fail the smoke. Permanent missing versions remain failures after the bounded retry. The lifecycle tests cover the Linux release runner behavior; Playwright does not support graceful SIGTERM on Windows. No application, database, or deployment behavior changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning and code execution tools. The exact service variant and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
23b9aaa8e6 |
fix(release): reuse publisher lockfile for canary smoke (#15712)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Every master push publishes an exact canary and tests its onboarding flow. > - The publisher resolves dependencies before building, while the smoke job checks out the committed lockfile again. > - Patch or manifest changes can land before the separate lockfile refresh, so the smoke fails before testing the published app. > - This pull request passes the publisher's resolved lockfile to the same-source smoke job. > - The smoke keeps frozen dependency validation and tests the exact published canary version. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #10393, #13689. Related work: #13690 documents lockfile drift; #12115 addresses refresh-PR check triggering. This change addresses the canary smoke handoff. #15678 only refreshed the opencode importer. #15164 incidentally corrected the earlier patch hash on master. **What happened?** Canary publication succeeded, but the fresh onboarding smoke install failed with `ERR_PNPM_LOCKFILE_CONFIG_MISMATCH` on sources `0b80ea17ef` and `ab8dcab809`. The committed `acpx@0.13.1` hash no longer matched its patch. A later run on `6080daf262` failed with `ERR_PNPM_OUTDATED_LOCKFILE` after an `opencode-ai` manifest addition. The current master lockfile has since caught up; the workflow still permits this race on future changes. **Expected behavior** The exact published canary reaches the onboarding smoke with test dependencies resolved for its source. A mismatched or missing lockfile must fail validation. **Steps to reproduce** Check out either affected source and run `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` with pnpm 9.15.4. The smoke fails before a browser starts, although the publisher already installed that source with a resolved lockfile. ## What Changed - Pin both canary publisher and onboarding smoke checkouts to the triggering SHA. - Save the publisher's resolved lockfile before restoring tracked files or rewriting release versions. - Restore that same-run, source-named artifact before the unchanged frozen smoke install. - Add offline real-pnpm regressions for patch-hash and manifest drift, plus wrong-source rejection and workflow binding checks. - Document artifact retention and job reruns. No manifest or committed lockfile changes. ## Verification - Focused release workflow, exact-source verification and image-contract tests: 45 passed. - Negative control: both new real-pnpm fixture cases fail against the original workflow with their respective original lockfile errors; both pass with the handoff. - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed on the current source. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed after reclaiming disposable build-cache space. - The browser onboarding smoke passed against exact published `2026.1009.0-canary.7`: 1 test passed using a fresh temporary instance. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted twice. The first hit disk exhaustion; the second reported one chat integration failure and then a Vitest worker `ENOTCONN` crash before completing. This is not a full-suite pass. The named chat case passed in isolation without changes. All full sharded PR CI checks passed on the final head. - Independent source review and a clean-checkout run also passed all 45 focused tests, with separate real-pnpm negative controls. - The supply-chain scan is neutral because managed intelligence could not scan the pinned official `download-artifact` action. It reported no defect; independent review inspected the action source, same-run scope and v4/v4 compatibility. - Reviewed the diff for secrets, personal data and generated artifacts; none found. ## Risks - The smoke now depends on a same-run GitHub artifact retained for 14 days. A missing artifact intentionally fails instead of resolving a different dependency set. - A publisher rerun replaces its source-named artifact; a smoke-only rerun reuses the retained artifact. - Frozen validation and the exact published version remain required. The source app and publication logic do not change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution and parallel independent review. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ce024457f3 |
perf(server): wake email work from commits and deadlines (#15750)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Email connects agent tasks to durable incoming and outgoing messages. > - The email worker scans the database every second, even with no inboxes. > - These queries prevent idle database connections from closing. > - This pull request wakes email work from committed writes and known deadlines. > - Empty email installations stop polling. Existing delivery and catch-up guarantees remain. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15625. Related standby work: #15314. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The AgentMail background worker and its database traffic when idle. **Current behavior** Every instance queries active email endpoints each second. Active inboxes also scan delivery queues each second even when no work is due. **Proposed behavior** Scan once at startup. Wake after endpoint and queue transactions settle. Restore the next retry or catch-up deadline from existing rows. An instance with no active inboxes has no recurring email queries or timer. **Reason and benefit** Thousands of empty instances should not keep their databases awake to discover that email is still unconfigured. ## What Changed - Use the shared transaction-aware coordinator for email work, including changes made by separate service objects on the same database owner. - Signal endpoint activation and control changes, incoming events, and outgoing sends inside their transactions. - Add an optional deadline to the coordinator. Email uses persisted retry times, mailbox catch-up times, and socket reconnect times. Only the first pending send in each conversation determines its send deadline. - Preserve startup recovery, lease fences, idempotency, standby suppression, idle drain, and shutdown. - Update the sleep inventory and add quiet-idle, commit, activation, retry, and lifecycle tests. ## Verification - Focused coordinator, email idle, and warm standby tests: 20 passed locally. - Database-backed email integration suite: 41 passed locally with real PostgreSQL and a simulated AgentMail provider. - After review, the updated delayed-reply regression passed separately: 1 selected test passed, 40 intentionally filtered out. It verifies no scans before the first reply deadline and delivery of both replies in order. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. - The local `pnpm test:run` was interrupted after its checkout was removed externally. Completed local checks above are preserved. The [final-commit hosted CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37997072212) passed: 54 successful checks, 2 expected Storybook skips, no failures. It includes the full general and serialized test matrix, runner checks, browser tests, build, typecheck, and canary packaging. - Greptile: 5/5 on `ec98f3b86ee476d75e0edf3366b357377ea09d69`, with no actionable findings. ## Risks - New email producers must register work inside their write transaction. No new tables or migrations are required. - Signals are local to one database owner and its dedicated pools. Independent processes and direct SQL do not emit them. Startup recovers existing work; configured inboxes also retain their recovery deadline. - Active inboxes still catch up each minute. WebSocket mode still renews its lease every 20 seconds. This change does not provide external waking or make active sockets sleep. - Provider calls were simulated in tests. No live email was sent. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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>canary/v2026.1009.0-canary.17 nightly/v2026.1010.0-nightly.0 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
417db14e7d |
fix: show credential access errors in task chat (#15741)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use AI connections to run tasks for a responsible user. > - A connection can deny access when its owner has not shared it with that user. > - The task conversation hides this cause behind a collapsed failure marker. > - People need to see which connection blocked the agent and how to fix it. > - This pull request shows an expanded access error in the task conversation. > - The error names the agent and connection, and links to the agent's AI settings. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task could fail because its responsible user could not use the agent's AI connection. The user saw a temporary error toast and a collapsed task failure. The task did not clearly explain the access problem. **Expected behavior** The task should show a visible error that names the agent, the connection, and the person who lacks access. For example: "Codie is configured to use Dotta's API Key, but you don't have access to that credential." It should offer a link to change the AI connection. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure an agent with a personal AI connection. 2. Start a task for a user who cannot use that connection. 3. Open the task after the run fails. 4. Check that the access error stays visible and links to AI settings. Refs #15714. That change classifies expected connection-sharing denials. This change makes the same failure clear in task chat. ## What Changed - Keep the connection display name in private error metadata when a sharing check denies access. - Store a private grant reference for the name visibility check. Use one rule for task summaries and full run responses. Show the name to the affected user and the connection sharing audience. Other task readers see a generic label. Strip grant IDs from public run responses. - Show an expanded error card for native and legacy task runs. Use "you" only when the viewer is the responsible user. - Link to AI settings and the failed run. Preserve names on resumed native runs. Hide the old error after a newer successful attempt. - Add full task-page Storybook examples, focused tests, and design guidance. ## Verification - Passed 249 focused tests for task chat, error text, private error metadata, and the real database run summary. These include resumed native runs and viewer access rules. - Passed all UI token gates on the rebased branch. - Checked the production task page in Storybook. Verified the viewer's error, another user's error, mobile layout, and a newer successful attempt. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` in a clean checkout with Node 24 and the pinned pnpm version. Passed the final server typecheck after the response filter changes. - Passed the real database route regression for the connection owner, affected user, and another task reader. Passed the registered secret redaction tests. - The local route checks needed `--testTimeout 60000` for cold imports. A broader local route run hit cold-import timeouts and an old fixture assertion that is now fixed. The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` aggregate was stopped to free resources. The full suite passed in CI with the normal timeouts. - Passed the full [final-commit CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37996148342), including all server, UI, runner, browser, typecheck, build, and canary packaging gates. All 54 executed checks passed; two Storybook jobs were skipped. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no remaining findings, and every review thread is resolved. - Review the Storybook group `Task / Credential access` for the notice and full task-page examples. ## Risks - Only the allowed connection display name enters the compact run summary. Credential secrets, grant IDs, and arbitrary error details do not enter it. - Existing runs can lack the connection name. They show a clear fallback message. - The notice uses the existing task-run relevance rules. A newer attempt or a completed task hides the old failure. - No schema migration or API permission change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution and browser verification. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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>canary/v2026.1009.0-canary.16 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
26d71d8def |
Fix human author identity and viewer-relative alignment in task chat (#15494)
Preserve human author identity in task chat and align only the current viewer on the right. Show other humans and agents on the left with their own identity. Include mixed-author Storybook journeys and regression coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ed2c22ea8c |
feat(connections): simplify dedicated GitHub App setup (#15416)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and the tools each agent can use. > - GitHub bots need their own App identity and restricted repository access. > - Manual App configuration and repeated setup gates make that connection hard to finish. > - GitHub can create an App from a manifest, but people must approve creation and repository access. > - Each Paperclip stack should own configuration, credentials, signature verification, and task admission. > - This change uses Cloud as an encrypted callback and event gateway, then completes setup in the stack. > - GitHub review bots have their own experimental setting. Chat connector opt-in does not control them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Dedicated GitHub App setup, bot settings, and task-scoped GitHub replies. **Current behavior** Users must configure an App, copy credentials, repeat repository selection, and complete manual verification gates. Review settings are hard to scan. Mentions in descriptions can be missed, and automatic completion text can produce an extra GitHub comment. **Proposed behavior** Choose an agent and connect GitHub under a personal account or organization. GitHub asks for creation and installation consent. Paperclip resumes the same draft, stores secrets locally, imports access, verifies delivery, and opens Settings. Each accepted request has one editable App-owned comment for progress and results. Review assessments produce deterministic checks for the reviewed commit. **Breaking changes** GitHub bots require their own default-off experimental opt-in. The setup-method and delegated-agent screens are removed. Per-person automatic-run flags remain readable but are replaced by author filters. Existing connections, direct webhooks, saved restrictions, and manual existing-App recovery remain supported. Companion gateway: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/pull/688 (merged). The roadmap and related PRs were checked; no duplicate dedicated-App wizard was found. ## What Changed - Add an independent **GitHub review bots** setting across the catalog, routes, identity admission, and task controls. Existing bots continue running when the UI setting is off. - Replace setup with Choose agent and Connect GitHub. Support personal and organization owners, inline low-trust conversion, saved drafts, known organization suggestions, automatic completion, and same-App recovery. - Keep manifests, OAuth PKCE, credential exchange, vault storage, installation verification, and original webhook-signature validation in the stack. Use the Cloud sealed gateway for public callbacks and outbound local delivery. - Add resumable owner metadata in migration 0323. Retry a failed registration renewal through the same durable replacement rather than creating another App route. - Support authorized mentions in issue and PR bodies, comments, inline comments, and review summaries. Preserve attachments, edited-source identity, duplicate protection, and lifecycle invalidation. Filter requests explicitly addressed to another connected bot. - Give agents task-scoped review, comment, and update tools. Update one working comment through progress and final output. Close coalesced requests and recover delayed acknowledgements, including deleted earlier working comments. Preserve automatic replies for legacy connections without saved review configuration. Preserve partial publication evidence and quarantine uncertain automatic fallbacks without blocking Board messages or questions. - Reorganize Settings and Access with rich slash-skill instructions, numeric passing scores, clear automation controls, formal-review tooltips, member and contributor sections, and verified App branding links. Preserve invalid score drafts and automation choices across tabs. - Paginate repositories in 20-row batches with search and a true connection-wide toggle. Batch verification at GitHub's 500-ID token limit. Keep saved repository overrides while hiding their editor. - Give each review a detail URL that remains usable beyond the newest 100 records. Synchronize the manager OpenAPI contracts and add recovery, authorization, UI, and browser regressions. - Reconcile the current master branch and retain its agent avatar, feature catalog, and extracted heartbeat preparation code. Preserve a saved test-drive port and recover from an occupied high port. ## Verification - Focused UI, independent experimental-setting, and CLI tests: 199 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. The broad local Vitest attempt was interrupted after resource timeouts and stale expectations; the affected regressions passed focused reruns. The latest-head full CI matrix passed, including all browser shards, server/chat suites, builds, typechecking, canary packaging, and Docker context integrity. A Docker Hub 429 required a CI retry; it passed without changing the code. - Final review repairs: 127 attachment/event tests and server typecheck passed. All 13 final integration regressions passed under the normal CI timeout, covering legacy reply compatibility, deleted coalesced comments, inline-only review completion, progress edits, and native final recovery. Restart-safe description/review attachments passed the attachment suite. - Final regressions: four reply/lifecycle tests, both native GitHub wait tests, 171 feature-gate/reply-contract tests, the routed review preview, and five scheduler/reply regressions passed. The final fixture repair also passed all six setup-continuation cases and all three complete chat-test shards in CI, covering terminal receipts and retries under the normal CI timeout. One loaded-host receipt run exceeded its local timeout; the exact case passed in an isolated rerun and the complete CI shard. - GitHub integration tests cover personal and organization setup, retry recovery, edited mentions, attachment provenance, coalesced requests, delayed acknowledgements, partial review writes, old review URLs, and company boundaries. - Browser qualification: both GitHub journeys, all five provider setup/management journeys, and the GitHub uncertain-send recovery journey passed. GitHub setup, reconnect, and task replies run with chat disabled; chat enabled alone cannot expose GitHub bots. The disposable qualification database was removed after testing. - Earlier live qualification verified App-owned issue replies, native slash-skill invocation, progress comment edits, and a 5/5 PR review with a passing current-head check in the dedicated permissions-smoke repository. These live checks did not use personal credentials as bot execution authority. ## Risks - Deploy the merged Cloud gateway protocol before the stack update. Each callback and encrypted event must retain the original instance and tenant binding. - Migration 0323 uses idempotent column additions for test installations that already applied the earlier draft migration number. - A verified connection does not prove runtime isolation or a completed review. Runtime checks remain separate. - Required merge checks must be configured in GitHub. A passing numeric score does not formally approve a PR; approval and request-changes tools remain opt-in. - Existing-App credentials cannot silently renew an uncertain manifest exchange. Recovery preserves the existing App, draft, connection, and agent. - Repository changes save immediately. Global toggles affect all currently available repositories, including unloaded rows, without granting new installation access. - A failed or uncertain tool write suppresses automatic fallback text; the governed outbox retains its evidence. Deleted or replaced response comments are not recreated through a personal credential fallback. - GitHub logo upload remains an optional human action in GitHub App settings. Runtime provisioning, delegated setup, screenshot publication, and production push delivery remain deferred. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact runtime model identifier and context size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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 references) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused suites; complete test matrix is checked in CI) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
00d944f96c |
fix(chat-channels): resume follow-ups after Slack Stop (#15737)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels let verified users stop an agent and send another message from Slack. > - Native execution needs the stopping user's identity to recognize a deliberate Stop. > - Slack omitted that identity, so a stopped run could create a recovery hold. > - A pending AI login request for another user could then block the new message. > - This pull request records the verified stop actor and scopes AI login waits to the current user. > - Users can start a fresh turn after a verified Stop while access and approval gates remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A user stops a native run from its bound Slack thread. Slack confirms the Stop. The user sends a follow-up and receives a queued acknowledgement, but execution does not start. The run can acquire a recovery hold. A pending AI login request addressed to another user then blocks explicit continuation. **Expected behavior** An acknowledged operator Stop ends the current response. A new authorized user message starts through normal admission after the previous execution has stopped. An AI login request for another user stays pending but does not gate this user's turn. Tool access, approvals, unknown identities, and unconfirmed cleanup still block execution. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a native agent run in a Slack thread with a pending AI login request addressed to a different user. 2. Stop the run with the signed Slack Stop action. 3. Send a new message from a verified linked user. 4. Observe the recovery hold and the pending-decision message on the saved follow-up. Refs: #15421 for the related verified linked-user authority path. That change separates guest and trusted tasks; this change handles cancellation and login wait scope. ## What Changed - Pass the verified Slack user's identity to canonical run cancellation. - Scope AI login waits by the current run's responsible user, with a company-scoped lookup. - Use the same wait predicate for explicit continuation, native execution, and recovery decisions. - Admit already-saved native follow-ups posted after Stop through the existing continuation checks. Keep pre-stop and delivered messages held. - Keep pending cards and their authorization state intact. - Add regression tests for signed Slack Stop, fresh-turn admission, and same-user, unknown-user, tool-access, and company-boundary gates. - Give the two affected database setup hooks the standard 90-second budget. - Document Slack Stop and user-scoped AI login waits. ## Verification - Red: signed Slack Stop omitted the cancelling user; direct continuation and already-saved post-Stop continuation both returned `null`. - Green: 57 continuation/audience checks passed, including legacy operator Stops, pre-stop input, delivered input, same-user login, unknown identity, company boundaries, cleanup, ownership, pauses, and approvals. - The combined signed Slack Stop and original gate check passed: 39 tests. - Existing native question/completion suite: 33 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - Rebased regression check: 18 tests passed on current master. The reviewed database-support setup change passed all 7 audience checks. - Full latest-head CI passed, including all server, chat, package, serialized-server, Runner, browser, build, and canary gates. - The duplicate local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the full CI matrix passed. It was slow on the contended host; no failure had been reported. The focused reproduction command is: ```sh pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/issue-question-context.test.ts server/src/services/explicit-native-continuation.test.ts server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts --fsModuleCache --testTimeout 60000 -t 'AI connection wait audience|scopes connection waits|resumes an already-saved follow-up|durably retries a signed Slack session stop' ``` - Manual evidence: inspected the bound thread's cancelled run, queued messages, recovery hold, and login card. The staging deployment has not been changed. ## Risks - AI login wait behavior changes only when both the addressee and current responsible user are known and differ. Missing identity retains the gate. - Starting a new turn does not grant access or answer the old card. Credential selection still uses the new run's authority. - Process, remote cleanup, recovery, task ownership, pause, budget, and approval checks remain in place. - No schema migration or public API change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, browser inspection, and code execution. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5cf90417d6 |
fix(ui): confirm cancellation from monitor cards (#15735)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their tasks. > - A task monitor schedules a later agent check. > - The monitor card shows when that check will run. > - The card has no direct control to cancel the monitor. > - This change adds an X button and a confirmation dialog. > - The operator can stop the scheduled check from the card. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The monitor card on the task page. **Current behavior** The operator must open task properties to clear a monitor. **Proposed behavior** Select the X in the top right of the card. Select Keep monitor to leave the schedule in place. Select Cancel monitor to remove the scheduled check. **Reason and benefit** The operator can cancel the monitor where its schedule is shown. Confirmation helps prevent an accidental cancellation. **Breaking changes** None. The change uses the existing task update API. ## What Changed - Add an accessible X button at the top right of the monitor card. - Confirm cancellation before the task update. - Keep the dialog open with an error if the update fails. - Preserve the other execution policy settings and refresh the task after success. - Reject stale policy writes under the task row lock with an optional expectedExecutionPolicy snapshot. - Document the snapshot field and add a database test for stale cancellation. - Restrict snapshot requests to policy-only edits before execution-control actions. - Add seven route tests for rejected mixed requests and absent policy updates. - Keep automatic retry waits separate from monitor cancellation. - Add component and task page tests. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Monitor banner and task page tests passed: 199 tests. A targeted database test and seven route tests also passed. - UI typecheck and production build passed. - Open a task with a scheduled monitor. Select X, then Keep monitor. The schedule must remain. - Select X, then Cancel monitor. The card must disappear after the update. - Local full build reached the Rust runner build but could not complete because Cargo is absent. CI must verify the full build. - Full repository typecheck, build, test suites, and E2E checks passed in CI for the final commit. Local full checks were limited by missing Cargo and workspace memory. ## Risks - Low risk. Cancellation uses the existing company access checks and activity log. - A cancelled monitor no longer wakes the agent. The dialog explains this effect. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. Used code editing, shell commands, and tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c27ee928b0 |
refactor(server): extract heartbeat run completion (#15732)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Heartbeat execution connects provider runs to task state, accounting, and recovery. > - Earlier refactors moved scheduling and lifecycle services into the heartbeat folder. > - The remaining executor still contains result persistence and two large failure handlers. > - These handlers must preserve the outcome chosen by Stop or native recovery. > - This pull request moves them into a typed run-completion module at the same call and catch boundaries. > - Reviewers can now inspect completion separately from provider dispatch and resource cleanup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15717. Related behavior work: #13857 (agent status convergence). **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintainability of heartbeat execution and terminal result handling. **Subsystem affected** server/ — orchestration services. **Current behavior** The main heartbeat service has 9,335 lines. Result persistence, accounting, presentation, session updates, and execution/setup failure handling are embedded in `executeRun`. **Proposed behavior** Move those steps into `server/src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.ts`. Keep the existing decisions and ordering. The main service becomes 8,125 lines, a reduction of 1,210 lines. **Reason and benefit** This creates a substantial boundary for the next execution refactor. It also gives terminal handling direct tests without starting a provider. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public heartbeat exports and method signatures remain compatible. ## What Changed - Add `createHeartbeatRunCompletion` with `completeRun`, `failRun`, and `failRunSetup` handlers. - Move terminal-result persistence, accounting, response presentation, retry decisions, and session updates with their failure helpers. - Keep Stop barriers and native ownership/recovery exceptions in the executor. Keep the outer cleanup in its original location. - Pass live output getters and an immediate trace-finalization callback so cleanup sees state even if a later completion step throws. - Add 19 boundary tests, update the existing publication-order source guard to read the extracted module, and document the module in the developer guide. ## Verification - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. - Structural AST comparison confirms all 74 top-level statements in the three extracted blocks, the moved helper bodies, and all remaining service statements are unchanged after normalizing the explicit boundary parameters. All 140 public exports are preserved. - Passed 304 existing tests across seven adjacent lifecycle, accounting, session, Stop, and presentation suites. After rebase, all 19 new boundary tests and all 12 publication tests pass together. Total focused coverage: 335 passing tests. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after more than 28 minutes without completing. Additional route-suite diagnosis hit local database startup timeouts. The complete CI run passed on the final head, including all test shards, build, typecheck, browser tests, and canary install checks. - Rebased onto the workspace-repair fix in #15726. Preserve its `defaultBranch` metadata in the moved helper and add a regression test. All 31 completion and publication tests and the server typecheck pass on the rebased head. - Greptile reviewed current head `65e3f8d8ac165dfec4508c467b1b2af8f2510f1a`: 5/5 with no actionable findings. - Final-head [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37991844034) passed. All 53 completed check runs succeeded; two optional Storybook checks were skipped. The legacy security status also passed. No unresolved review comments or merge conflicts remain. ## Risks Terminal handling is sensitive to Stop races, late native results, and failures during persistence. The tests exercise these paths with real database status writes, accounting, and task sessions. Native recovery exceptions and resource release stay at their existing boundaries. There are no schema or API changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code editing, and command execution. The session does not expose the exact model 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
9befc66a44 |
Retain bounded Daytona acquisition failure observations (#15736)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI-agent work and reports failed runs. > - Some runs acquire a Daytona sandbox before model execution. > - Acquisition has one budget for creation, setup, and inline cleanup. > - A timeout currently carries cleanup ownership but loses the step that failed. > - This pull request carries a bounded observation through the existing error envelope. > - Operators can identify the first failed step without exposing provider responses or changing recovery. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An acquisition timeout reports pending allocation cleanup without the first failed step. The provider already knows its current step, but that evidence is discarded at the worker boundary. A setup failure followed by slow cleanup is also indistinguishable from slow creation. **Expected behavior** The immediate setup-failure report should contain a fixed phase and bounded elapsed/budget values. Cleanup ownership, original messages, deadlines, retry policy, and task behavior should remain unchanged. **Steps to reproduce** Use the provider regression fixtures to stall creation, workspace setup, shell detection, expiry configuration, or sentinel upload. Also fail setup early and let cleanup consume the remaining budget. The previous source emits no phase diagnostic. **Paperclip version or commit** Base commit: `98e3cec78e8461774022a5ba0a777b09d4d16b96`. **Deployment mode** Hosted and self-hosted installations that use the Daytona sandbox provider and enable Sentry. Related public changes: #13979 established failed-allocation cleanup ownership; #14097 preserves the provider acquisition budget; #15637 carries bounded workspace-transfer evidence. Duplicate searches found no existing acquisition-phase diagnostic patch. ## What Changed - Capture the first acquisition failure before inline cleanup. Keep the observation if cleanup later reaches the deadline. - Add an optional, validated observation to the existing creation-cleanup envelope for acquire calls. Old ownership envelopes remain valid. Malformed observations do not alter cleanup. - Bind immediate reporting to an actual RPC error with matching company, environment, and run ownership. Project only three bounded fields from private host evidence. - Add provider, SDK, actual worker/client, PostgreSQL cleanup, collector, and real-Sentry regressions. Document the evidence limits. ## Verification - Passed 404 focused tests across the SDK cleanup envelope, complete Daytona provider suite, diagnostic collector, actual built worker/client subprocess, and mandatory real-Sentry SDK suite. - Passed 10 focused PostgreSQL cleanup-boundary cases. The filter excluded 152 unrelated cases. - Passed `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` on the committed source. - Full `pnpm test:run` is running. Final outcomes will be recorded before merge. - Independent source review passed. Replacing the provider with the original source fails all 8 new phase/timing assertions. Replacing the host boundary with the original source fails all 3 owned diagnostic cases while 7 negative cases remain clean. - CI passed: 54 successful checks and 2 expected Storybook skips. This includes all server, workspace, serialized-server, Runner, browser, build, canary, and real-Sentry SDK lanes. - Greptile scored the committed source 5/5 with no review threads. - No live provider operation, task replay, runtime configuration change, or deployment was performed. ## Risks Low risk: this only adds optional diagnostic evidence. The first observed failing phase does not prove an upstream cause. Elapsed time ends at that observation, not at completion of later cleanup. Evidence is process-local and accompanies immediate failure reporting; post-restart reports cannot reconstruct it. No historical run or lease is backfilled. The wire schema remains v1 and cleanup ownership parsing is unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, code editing, local execution, and independent agent review. The exact model snapshot and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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>canary/v2026.1009.0-canary.15 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c5f7713dd4 |
fix: clarify native tool use for external agents (#15734)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External agents keep their own tools and app connections. > - The Paperclip assignment catalog controls the Paperclip bridge. > - Dot treated a qualification test restriction as a rule for later work. > - Existing prompts did not clearly separate these two tool sources. > - This pull request tells agents to use their own capabilities and return results to Paperclip. > - The benefit is that a missing Paperclip app does not block an available native capability. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: #15722 and #15691. I searched open PRs for Dot tool guidance and found no duplicate. **What happened?** After a qualification test, Dot refused a Slack request because the test Paperclip agent had no assigned Slack app. Dot already had a working Slack connection in ChatGPT. It carried the test's plugin restriction into a later task message. **Expected behavior** An external agent uses its own available tools, apps, plugins, skills, and capabilities to complete the current request. It then returns the result through Paperclip's task reporting and completion tools. The assignment catalog limits Paperclip calls. It does not disable the agent's native tools. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Connect a Dot that has a native Slack connection. 2. Complete a Paperclip qualification task with a restriction scoped to that test. 3. Send a later task message that requires Slack. 4. Observe that Dot can mistake the Paperclip catalog for its full tool inventory. **Deployment mode** Observed on Cloud staging with the Dot Runner. ## What Changed - Add shared tool-use guidance for external-agent onboarding and Dot setup. - Include it in the server onboarding document, pairing response, event instructions, and capability response. - Clarify the tool descriptions on both Dot bridge paths. - Include the same guidance in each Dot Runner assignment without adding a shared-package dependency to the standalone Runner. - Document native tool use and the scope of test restrictions. ## Verification - The 49 relevant onboarding, Dot invitation, and Runner context tests passed. The final UI run passed 29 tests. The updated plain-text renderer run passed all 4 tests. - Full workspace typecheck, full workspace build, and design token gates passed. All current-head CI gates passed, including full tests, Runner verification, and browser E2E. Greptile is 5/5 on the exact final commit, and the one review finding is resolved. - The real Dot received the standing correction and confirmed that it will use its relevant tools and connections, return results through Paperclip, and stop carrying the test restriction forward. - Extended the existing plain-text renderer test to check native Slack access, qualification-test scope, and the Paperclip denial boundary. This covers agents that receive only the onboarding.txt URL. - The full Vitest suite passed in CI. The earlier local Cloud qualification run encountered failures in unchanged suites; this follow-up uses focused local tests for the instruction changes. ## Risks This changes instructions, not access checks. Native tools retain their own permissions and approval requirements. Paperclip operations remain scoped to the authorized company, agent, and task. Agents must not use another connection or identity to bypass a denial. There is no database migration or new permission grant. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used reasoning, repository tools, and browser control. The runtime does not expose a more specific 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b6b3cb3761 |
Fix unavailable workspace branches with an inline repair and retry (#15726)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Isolated workspaces must resolve a starting Git ref before an agent starts. > - A task can explicitly select a branch that the repository does not have. > - The current recovery notice calls this a missing secret and offers no branch repair. > - This pull request explains the branch failure and adds a task-scoped repair action. > - Operators can correct the branch and request a guarded retry from the task thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: Refs #11892 added unresolved-ref recovery. Refs #15719 added bounded failure diagnostics. This change uses that recovery path and adds its operator repair UI. **What happened?** A task that selects `main` in a repository with only `master` stops before the adapter starts. The task shows a missing-secret message and a generic retry. Repeating the run cannot fix the stored branch setting. **Expected behavior** Explain that the starting ref could not be resolved. Offer a verified repository default, or let the operator enter a branch. Save only the task's starting branch and retry its recorded owner through the existing admission gates. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an isolated-workspace task in a repository with `master` and no `main`. 2. Set the task's base ref to `main` and assign an agent. 3. Wait for the configuration failure. 4. Use the inline branch repair and confirm the agent completes in a worktree based on `master`. ## What Changed - Replace the missing-secret diagnosis for unresolved workspace refs. Keep uncertain fetch/access failures described as uncertain. - Read the remote's advertised default branch with the existing Git credentials and a bounded timeout. Do not guess or silently change the branch. - Add an atomic branch repair to the existing recovery resolution endpoint. Check company access, board runtime permission, incident identity, current owner, task/project state, dependencies, interactions, approvals, budget, and active execution before requesting a retry. - Preserve the effective inherited workspace setup when saving the task branch override, and attach one repair notice per failed run even when the incident is reused. - Bind the shared repair card to the exact recovery notice and failed run in both task-thread renderers. Validate branch syntax and prevent duplicate submissions. - Add Storybook examples, regression tests, and a documented local acceptance fixture with a real Git repository and process adapter. ## Verification - Red/green regressions cover the repair endpoint and preservation of inherited agent setup. The regression failed before each fix and passed afterward. - Focused integration suite: 162 tests passed; task-thread/card suite: 230 passed. After review refinements, all 13 repair-route tests, 10 card tests, 77 recovery-action tests, and the repeated-failure heartbeat regression passed locally. - Real browser acceptance passed for suggested-branch and custom-entry repairs. Invalid syntax left the task blocked. Both valid repairs ran the authenticated worker in a real isolated worktree and reached Done; reload preserved the result. - Repeated failures reused the recovery incident and retained an actionable notice on the latest run. The inherited-setup journey verified the provisioned file, agent branch template, worktree parent directory, and actual Git commit before completing. [Before/after screenshots](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15726#issuecomment-6088734666). - Full local typecheck and build passed; server typecheck passed again after review fixes. Token gates passed. - The monolithic local Vitest run was stopped after resource-contention timeouts and stale assertions. Targeted regressions were rerun; the full CI matrix passed on final revision `26c543ff490bec29ddc77a49ee532c7f84fb96dc`. One signoff E2E worker-cancellation failure passed on a rerun without code changes. The two opt-in Storybook workflow jobs were skipped; the Storybook journey was checked manually. - Repeat the live journey with `tests/e2e/workspace-base-ref/README.md`. Storybook examples use simulated callbacks and are not the live acceptance proof. ## Risks - Default-branch discovery can add up to 10 seconds to an unresolved-ref failure. Lookup failure leaves manual entry available. - A valid branch name can still be absent or inaccessible. The retried workspace preparation remains authoritative and can block again with new evidence. - Retry remains subject to normal admission gates. The repair changes only the task override; it does not alter project or agent defaults. - No database migration or new dependency. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution, repository analysis, and browser testing. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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
|
98e3cec78e |
feat(costs): report monthly subscriptions beside API spend (#15634)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its Costs page reports API charges and subscription token usage. > - Subscription runs do not show the recurring fee paid for the account. > - Several agents can share one paid seat, so a fee per agent would overstate cost. > - This pull request identifies connected subscription accounts and reports each monthly fee once. > - Users can compare API spend and subscription costs, see uncertainty, and enter their actual price. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #498 and #3406 for related subscription reporting needs. This change does not add subscription budget enforcement or automatic optimization. Related prior approaches: #10544 and #11104 proposed API-equivalent token costs for subscription work. This PR reports recurring account fees separately from usage charges and budgets. A search found no open PR for monthly account fee reporting. **Subsystem affected** Costs, managed AI connections, shared contracts, database schema, and board UI. **Problem or motivation** An organization can pay for subscriptions even when included runs record no additional dollar charge. The Costs page cannot show that monthly commitment or distinguish a shared paid seat from several separate seats. **Proposed solution** Discover account identity from the managed connection selected for a run. Use exact known plans for labeled monthly list-price estimates. Keep ambiguous plans and unconfirmed identities unpriced until the user supplies a price. Sum current monthly fees separately from date-filtered API charges and token usage. **Alternatives considered** A fee per agent double-counts shared accounts. Token-based API price estimates do not measure the recurring subscription fee. Provider invoices would be more exact but are not available through these account credentials. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the shipped Better Budgeting and Personal & Shared AI Accounts capabilities. The feature and UI were reviewed with the maintainer before this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped subscription accounts, connection bindings, and immutable price revisions in replay-safe migration 0322. - Identify OpenAI workspace/seat and Claude organization/account pairs only after provider authentication. Keep provisional records grant-scoped; unchecked ID-token claims cannot combine accounts or grant billing editors. Keep credentials and raw provider identities out of reports. - Attach the selected subscription to new run receipts. Resolve duplicate aliases without rewriting old monetary receipts. - Add cached background discovery with four provider checks and twenty discovery requests at a time. Accepted requests wait for capacity; excess requests receive HTTP 429 and a UI retry action. Preserve saved prices and observations when a provider check fails. Dashboard polls load current prices only; audit revisions stay in the database. - Support owner-controlled monthly or annual prices, fractional-cent precision, separate currency totals, tracking status, and duplicate linking. Preserve both personal owners and shared-account managers when discovery finds the same paid seat. - Show API spend beside monthly subscription commitment, with separate token totals and clear estimate labels. Account details and fee totals follow billing-owner/shared-audience visibility; company-wide token totals remain available to cost readers. - Use consistent amount and estimate badge formatting for agent, user, project, and model rows. - Add real PostgreSQL tests, route authorization tests, UI tests, interactive Storybook fixtures, and operator documentation. ## Verification - Current head `d7b5c78dadf5033a3c447d83434676ac94687e77` passed all 53 checks, with two checks skipped. This includes the full test matrix, browser tests, build, typecheck, migration policy, canary packaging, and security checks. - Greptile Apex reviewed that exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `pnpm check:token-gates`, migration safety checks, and `git diff --check` passed. - All 238 focused tests passed across accounting, subscription persistence, authorization, UI, migration replay, and snapshot drift. - The expanded local chat suite passed 1,149 tests. Two cases failed because this workspace found an unrelated ancestor skill directory; both passed unchanged in an isolated checkout. The full local Vitest command was not repeated after the rebase because of this environment issue. CI covered the complete test matrix on the final head. - Migration `0322_reflective_kree.sql` follows master's `0321_acoustic_human_fly.sql`. Its snapshot and journal were regenerated. Master's migration and snapshot are unchanged. The subscription SQL retains its original content and hash. - Disposable PostgreSQL upgrade fixtures applied master's added lifecycle and Slack migrations without changing saved subscription prices or cost receipts. The renamed subscription migration was recognized by hash, retained one history row, and a second migration run was a no-op. - Regression tests cover provider capacity, fractional-cent edits, billing visibility after grant revocation, and fixed-price/credit/unknown usage. The new UI billing-label tests fail against the old wording and pass with the fix. - Browser checks passed for desktop and mobile layouts, shared-account totals, annual price edits, unknown prices, and stale provider data. - A live OpenAI account probe returned HTTP 200 and a verified Pro account identity. The generic Pro plan correctly remains unpriced. - Live Claude discovery identified Max 20x and a $200/month estimate. Two real Claude agent runs were attributed to that same account, with two usage receipts, two agents, one monthly fee, and zero additional usage charges. Two OpenAI connections also deduplicated to one account. - Live Codex execution is not verified: both Paperclip's managed hello test and a direct host `codex exec` fail with a workspace-routing authentication error. The current credential passes the usage API probe. This is separate from the successful account-discovery check. - A local performance fixture with 50,000 usage events and 5,001 saved price revisions produced a 1,589-byte report in 11.5 ms median / 12.2 ms maximum over ten warmed runs. PostgreSQL used the subscription/revision index to read one current price row. These are local measurements, not a production latency guarantee. - [Desktop, account details, and mobile screenshots](https://pages.paperclip.ing/pr-15634-subscription-costs-d5d285e2/) show the production Costs page with synthetic Storybook fixtures. - To inspect the UI, run `pnpm storybook` and open **Costs / Subscriptions**. Edits there change fixture data only. ## Risks - Provider plan identifiers can change. Unknown plans remain unpriced. Automatic prices are estimates before tax; discounts and negotiated prices require a user-supplied amount. - Subscription fees describe the current monthly commitment. They do not follow the selected usage date range and do not consume agent budgets or create finance events. - Monthly fees cover only accounts visible to the viewer; company-wide token totals retain their existing scope. - Legacy or unmanaged usage can remain unattributed. Unconfirmed identities require manual prices and may need explicit duplicate linking after credential changes. - Disconnecting a connection does not prove provider billing stopped. Users must end or exclude tracking explicitly. - Migration 0322 adds tables, a nullable cost-event column, and an index. It is replay-safe, but normal migration locks still apply. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. This session did not expose a more specific backend model ID or context-window size. Capabilities used: code editing, shell execution, database tests, and browser verification. ## 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>canary/v2026.1009.0-canary.14 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cb291bf129 |
Fix Dot Cloud invitation and anonymous consent setup (#15722)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Dot joins through a public MCP connection and the Runner task system. > - A new hire must connect before its lifecycle can become ready. > - The invite UI treated the hire's temporary paused status as a manual pause. > - Anonymous Cloud consent also reloaded after protected background probes returned 401. > - This pull request fixes both gates without changing server access checks. > - The benefit is that a new Dot can complete Cloud setup and the UI waits for actual readiness. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related merged work: #15691 and #15581. I searched open Dot PR and issue titles. I found no duplicate. **What happened?** A new Dot invite displayed “Resume this agent before connecting Dot.” The hire was preparing or verifying. The anonymous Cloud consent page remained on “Loading connection request…” because background tenant-session failures caused repeated document reloads. **Expected behavior** The invite must issue a setup prompt when the server permits connection setup. Public Dot consent must load without a board session. The Done button must wait for both the binding and agent lifecycle to become ready. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Dot, Assistant connections (MCP), and the native Runner on a Cloud test tenant. 2. Choose New Agent, Invite an external agent, then Dot. 3. Observe the false resume gate on the new hire. 4. Open the plugin's public Dot consent page in a browser without a tenant board session. 5. Observe the loading loop after a protected background probe returns `tenant_session_required`. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `556daf9a99e8674f9c4a1c38ac20ae9adafdd417`. **Deployment mode** Cloud staging with a managed Daytona Runner. No production tenant changes. ## What Changed - Return lifecycle state and connection setup authority in the operator Dot binding response. - Use that authority to prepare prompts during hire preparation and verification. - Continue polling after event readiness until the agent lifecycle is ready. - Keep expected tenant-session failures from reloading an exact public Dot consent route. - Classify Dot consent as a global route. Retain board session and archived-stack recovery. - Add regression tests and update the Dot deployment documentation. ## Verification - Before the fix, regression tests reproduced the false pairing gate and anonymous consent reload. - After the fix, 34 Dot invitation tests and 51 public consent/API/route tests passed before rebasing. - Full workspace typecheck, full build, final UI typecheck, and design token gates passed locally. All current-head CI gates are green, including full tests and browser E2E. - The final UI regression run passed 80 tests. The broad local test run has reported failures in unchanged chat, OAuth-tool-access, and native-resume suites while running alongside other development instances; the equivalent isolated CI lanes passed. The broad local run was stopped after these failures to release local resources; it is not claimed as passing. - Live Cloud qualification passed OAuth discovery, the approved agent grant, ChatGPT account handoff, a signed event subscription, and the inbox readiness challenge. The agent became ready and normal scheduling launched the managed Runner. A real Dot accepted the task, read its context, wrote and verified a document, posted a comment, and completed through paperclip_finish and paperclip_dot_finish. The task persisted as Done after reload, and the successful turn's sandbox was destroyed with a successful cleanup receipt. - Restarting the existing Dot refreshed its newly installed plugin actions. The first Daytona allocation remained creating and hit the acquisition deadline; a bounded normal retry acquired a sandbox and launched through authenticated provider ingress. The earlier allocation still rejects deletion while creating (HTTP 409), so its failed-run cleanup remains pending. - After deployment, use a real Dot to open the consent page without board credentials, pair, confirm task events, and finish an assigned task through the managed Runner. ## Risks The operator binding response has two new required fields. Server and UI must deploy together. The recovery exception only applies to a valid Dot consent pathname and tenant-session 401 responses. It does not expose protected APIs or suppress archived-stack recovery. No schema migration or agent permission change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used reasoning, repository tools, test execution, and browser control. The runtime does not expose a more specific 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1009.0-canary.13 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
65965f0d3a |
refactor(heartbeat): extract scheduling and monitor recovery (#15717)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat service schedules and runs agent work. > - Previous refactors moved queue admission, recovery, and run control into separate modules. > - Timer ticks, issue monitors, and session-goal recovery still occupy more than 1,100 lines in the main service. > - This pull request moves that scheduling code into one module with explicit dependencies. > - This makes scheduling easier to review and test before we split the execution pipeline. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15685, the merged run-control extraction. A search found no duplicate open scheduling extraction. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintenance and testing of heartbeat scheduling. **Current behavior** The main heartbeat service contains 10,473 lines. Scheduling shares a file with the execution pipeline. **Proposed behavior** Move scheduling into `server/src/services/heartbeat/scheduling.ts`. Keep the same public methods, admission rules, database claims, and execution behavior. The main file falls to 9,330 lines. **Reason and benefit** Give timer ticks, issue-monitor recovery, and session-goal recovery one clear module boundary. **Breaking changes** None intended. Existing heartbeat exports and method signatures remain available. ## What Changed - Add `createHeartbeatScheduling` with 11 explicit dependencies. Construction does not query the database or start timers. - Move timer ticks, issue-monitor dispatch and recovery, and session-goal recovery into the new module. - Keep queue admission, heartbeat policy parsing, and atomic timer claims in `queue.ts`. - Share the unchanged goal-control parser and issue-link formatter with their existing callers. - Add 20 focused tests. Document the module boundary in `doc/DEVELOPING.md`. ## Verification - 122 tests pass across 11 files: 20 new scheduler tests, 52 existing scheduling integration tests, and 50 adjacent queue, goal, native-selection, and task-drain tests. - New database tests cover cross-instance monitor claims, replacement schedules, deferred and failed admission, native ownership, archived companies, timer claim loss, worktree cutoffs, agent eligibility, goal recovery keys, pending-action deduplication, and invalid-action persistence. - AST comparison confirms 20 unchanged function bodies, unchanged remaining service statements, unchanged `executeRun`, and all 140 public exports preserved. - Workspace typecheck (`pnpm -r typecheck`) and build (`pnpm build`) pass. Greptile is 5/5 on commit `89a1a3b3aa428949eba349af5c1618391f97a19c`. All CI checks pass on that commit. The full test suite runs in CI; local verification was targeted. - The first CI attempt hit a 15-second timeout in the first test of unchanged `plugin-scoped-api-routes.test.ts`. All nine tests pass locally in 6.6 seconds. That shard passed on its one retry without code changes. - Run the new tests with `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/heartbeat/scheduling.test.ts --maxWorkers=1`. ## Risks - Incorrect wiring could bypass suppression, duplicate a monitor wake, or lose a replacement schedule. Database tests cover these boundaries and existing integration tests still call the public heartbeat service. - This PR moves the current behavior without changing scheduling policy, schema, provider execution, or cancellation ownership. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code editing, and command execution. The session does not expose the exact model 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
7333e4eba8 |
Capture bounded workspace base-ref failure diagnostics (#15719)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - A run can prepare a Git worktree before an adapter starts. > - That preparation must resolve the configured base ref. > - The same unresolved-ref error can follow a missing ref, failed fetch, or failed credential lookup. > - Current failure reports do not distinguish these paths. > - This PR records bounded outcomes from the operations that already run. > - Maintainers can use this evidence without changing task recovery or hiding failures. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #11892 established remote-only base-ref resolution and pre-adapter recovery. I found no open PR for these diagnostics. **What happened?** A fresh worktree can fail with `UnresolvedWorkspaceBaseRefError`. Its failure report has no closed fields that distinguish remote lookup, credential lookup, fetch, and local ref-probe outcomes. An empty warning list does not prove that a fetch ran or that a remote ref is absent. **Expected behavior** Keep the task-visible failure and owner recovery action. Report bounded observations from the existing operations. Keep unknown causes reportable. **Steps to reproduce** Use a local Git repository with a configured base branch that is absent. Repeat with no origin, an inaccessible local origin, or a rejected credential resolver. Start fresh workspace preparation. Before this change, each path lacks the new typed observations in the failure report. Tests use local repositories and intercepted fetch commands; they require no external Git service. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against source commit `1602512820`, built from source. This affects core workspace preparation before adapter dispatch. ## What Changed - Record closed remote lookup, credential lookup, fetch, and local ref-probe outcomes. Limit new output parsing to 8 KiB. - Attach evidence privately to the resolver's own error. Reject copied, forged, inherited, accessor, and malformed evidence. - Persist allowed values in the existing setup result and export them through run-failure diagnostics. - Preserve Git commands, credential fallback, warning text, recovery actions, and Sentry reporting. - Add real Git, heartbeat, reporter, and real Sentry envelope tests. Document the fields and their limits. ## Verification - Current head: `015b2737df004e971eeeb134ebc9a1024e244494`, based on `be1bc5d494d`. The only rebase conflict was in heartbeat test imports. All three imports were retained; `git range-diff` confirms no other patch change. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the current head. - Fresh focused tests passed: 13 real-Git producer cases, 279 complete collector/reporter cases, two actual heartbeat recovery cases, and all nine real Sentry SDK cases. The required-SDK gate used version 10.71.0. Actual envelopes contain only allowed fields, with no private fixture text or cross-event leakage. - Independent review passed all 16 combined heartbeat cases from both integrated changes and five real-Git probes with identical baseline command sequences and outcomes. The original producer negative control failed on the absent receipt; the candidate passed. No review findings remain. - Current-head CI is complete: 54 successful checks and two intentional Storybook skips. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact head, with no unresolved threads or merge conflicts. - Local aggregate limitation: the earlier full run reported one failure in an unchanged tool-access case and was stopped with SIGINT (exit 130) to isolate it. Vitest did not print the deferred assertion summary. The unchanged complete file passed 420/420 alone. That aggregate is not claimed as a pass. Before the mechanical rebase, the complete workspace-runtime file also passed 172/172. The fresh full CI result covers the integrated head. - An initial independent combined reporter run hit its database setup timeout; the unchanged complete reporter file then passed 186/186 alone. Earlier-head CI lost four runners and recovered on one verification retry; current-head CI passed separately. ## Risks - These observations do not prove that a remote ref is absent. All affected failures remain reportable, including resumed and provider-started runs. - The new fields include no repository URL, ref text, customer path, raw command output, or credential. Existing task-visible details are unchanged. - No migration, dependency, authorization, retry, or deployment change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution and parallel independent review. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
be1bc5d494 |
fix(runner): select bundled Linux assets for remote OpenCode (#15721)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native Runner can execute OpenCode in a remote sandbox. > - Installed releases contain a Linux daemon and the identity of their provider pack. > - OpenCode did not select those assets by default. Cursor did. > - The upload fallback also compared the verified Linux daemon with the controller platform. > - This pull request uses the packaged remote assets for OpenCode and corrects that platform check. > - Users of a matching Paperclip package and Daytona image can start OpenCode without artifact path overrides. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15702. Refs #15422. **What happened?** Remote native OpenCode asked for `PAPERCLIP_RUNNER_REMOTE_PROVIDER_PACK_PATH` even when the installed release contained the expected pack identity. The daemon upload fallback could then reject a verified Linux daemon when the controller ran on macOS. **Expected behavior** OpenCode should select the release's Linux daemon and provider-pack identity. The controller must still verify the image assets before launch. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a complete installed Paperclip release on macOS. 2. Assign native OpenCode to a Daytona environment with the matching Paperclip image. 3. Start a task without remote artifact path overrides. ## What Changed - Select the bundled Linux daemon and provider-pack identity for remote OpenCode. - Skip the controller-platform comparison when the Linux daemon came from the verified bundled selector. - Add regression coverage for OpenCode and Cursor. Make the missing-identity fixture independent of local build outputs. - Document the matching package and image requirement, plus source-development setup. ## Verification - Red: both new regression cases failed before the fix. - Green: the affected runtime suites passed all 686 tests on the rebased head. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed before the rebase. - Full local tests were attempted, then stopped after failures outside this change. That run overlapped a rebase. The clean rerun of the AI connection fixture passed all 111 tests. The affected runtime suites also passed after rebase. All latest-head CI and security checks passed: 54 successful checks and two expected skips. - A real OpenCode/OpenRouter DeepSeek task completed in an isolated Daytona workspace on macOS. Durable bash receipts confirm `df -h` and `uname -s; uname -m`. The result was posted, the task completed, and sandbox cleanup succeeded. - The live test used verified remote development assets from the official image `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip-daytona-runner@sha256:506f22db7edd78f37c0c40bec1cc084af1850455026dbf467194bfbb8fcef141`. No remote artifact path overrides were set. This was not a new complete release assembly. - The low-trust test policy kept output quarantine. The operator permitted only this disposable test agent's OpenRouter credential binding. ## Risks - A second real external-origin retry executed successfully and saved its answer, but its completion report used unsupported evidence references. Its task stayed in progress. This PR fixes startup; completion-evidence guidance requires a separate fix. External voice playback was not verified. - A plain Daytona sandbox image lacks the provider pack. It still needs a verified full-pack override. - Source-development launchers must provide the remote build assets. This PR does not publish a new image or create a complete release assembly. - Explicit artifact overrides retain precedence. Manifest, executable, package, bridge, and provider-asset checks remain in place. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Capabilities used: reasoning, code editing, shell commands, and browser testing. ## 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 merging Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1009.0-canary.12 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
7a58591721 |
fix(recovery): preserve accepted workspace finalization during reaping (#15718)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A native run saves its accepted result before it copies workspace changes back. > - A restart can leave that copyback under an unverified physical owner. > - The generic orphan reaper can mistake the exited provider for lost work and release the source lease. > - Recovery must preserve the accepted result and let the existing finalizer settle its remaining work. > - This pull request checks that authority at the conditional process-loss write and preserves the matching recovery hold. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #15475 added bounded process-loss evidence. The earlier #9687 addresses dead-run finalize barriers with synthetic receipts. This change preserves an existing accepted native result and requires real workspace settlement. **What happened?** After a server restart, the native finalizer required operator verification of unfinished copyback. The generic orphan reaper then marked the run `process_lost` and released its source lease. A new execution path also made the recovery reconciler clear the copyback hold before physical ownership was verified. **Expected behavior** An accepted result bound to the same company, issue, and run keeps its unfinished workspace suffix under native finalization. The generic reaper must not discard its source. The existing finalizer must still complete the work, apply its bounded failure policy, or require operator verification. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept a native result and leave its coordinator in `workspace_finalizing`. 2. Stop the controller before copyback completes, leaving its physical owner receipt. 3. Start recovery, then run the generic orphan and lease cleanup sweeps. 4. Before this change, the run can fail with `process_lost` despite its accepted result and explicit copyback hold. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against `011e5669`; the same recovery code remains at base `1602512820`. **Deployment mode** A hosted server with PostgreSQL and native runner execution. The tests use only isolated local PostgreSQL and synthetic fixtures. ## What Changed - Check the exact accepted result and `workspace_finalizing` coordinator before generic process-loss cleanup. - Repeat the check in the conditional status write. Compare the heartbeat tuple version to reject a result publisher that commits while the update waits on its row lock. - Preserve nonterminal copyback holds when another execution path appears. Resolve only the matching run's hold after verified finalization commits. - Add fourteen real PostgreSQL service regressions and document the recovery boundary. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t 'native finalization'`: 14 passed. The test filter excluded 383 existing tests. - Tests cover startup, repeated reaper and cleanup sweeps, malformed and foreign owners, an expired old controller, exact database bindings, legacy and unsupported states, verified settlement, and unchanged terminal-task dispositions. - The concurrent publisher test uses the real accepted-result transaction and proves the reaper update is blocked by its row lock before the publisher commits. - The local `pnpm test:run` aggregate was stopped after setup timeouts in the chat and tool-access files and a damaged-epoch Runner test failure. It is not a full local pass. - The chat file passed all 1,145 tests when run alone. The tool-access file then passed 419 of 420; one case returned `socket hang up`. That single case passed on its isolated rerun. The cause of the socket failure is not established here. - The damaged-epoch Runner case still fails locally at its existing completion assertion. The same assertion failed on untouched baseline `556daf9a` before this patch; its test and Runner sources are unchanged. Exact-head CI passes this coverage. No workaround for that local fixture is included. - `pnpm build` passed. - Independent review approved this exact commit. All 14 new PostgreSQL regressions and 181 existing recovery/finalizer cases passed. One existing suite needed an isolated rerun after a setup timeout. - Independent negative controls reproduced the original bug. Removing only the tuple-version guard reproduced the blocked-row race. Removing only the hold exclusion cleared the safety hold too early. Restoring this patch passed all three checks. - GitHub CI passed all 53 applicable checks. The two Storybook jobs were skipped as expected. Greptile scored this commit 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. - Local runtime: Node 25.6.1. GitHub CI supplies the repository's Node 24 checks. - `git diff --check`, Gitleaks, and a local diff scan for secrets and private data passed. ## Risks - PostgreSQL tuple versions are used only as an optimistic fence for `process_lost`. Both accepted-result publishers lock and update that heartbeat in their result transaction. - The guard requires the bound accepted result and the durable coordinator state. A heartbeat phase or arbitrary owner JSON alone cannot suppress ordinary process loss. - Existing finalizer retries, ownership verification, explicit cancellation, and terminal-task dispositions remain unchanged. A physical owner can still require operator verification. - This change does not replay provider work or restore a source already destroyed by an older controller. No migration or runtime operation is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and independent agent review. The exact service model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this worker session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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
|
712671068e |
test(runner): use the production close budget for settled callbacks (#15720)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages autonomous AI agents and their work. > - Paperclip Runner preserves the authority of each provider session. > - A reusable close requires durable semantic results, provider drain, and suspension. > - The real-process tests gave successful close cases a shorter budget than production. > - Under load, the test can miss its drain deadline and then expect an unsafe success. > - This change tests successful close with the unchanged production budget. > - Deliberately stalled and failed-persistence cases keep their short deadline and rejection checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Release verification failed in `fences reusable suspension against late semantic completion` for both successful modes. The runner suspended, but the provider drain proof missed the test's preparation deadline. Production correctly rejected reuse. The test expected success. **Expected behavior** Successful real-process cases should use the production close budget. Failure cases should still reject without exact settlement proof. **Steps to reproduce** Run the affected tests with the real runner and fake provider. Add 250 ms after each actual control-store save during close. With the old five-second override, both successful modes reject with the same missing-drain-proof settlement. With the production default, both pass. The controlled delay reproduces the deadline mechanism. It does not measure the actual CI disk latency. **Paperclip version or commit** Base commit: `1602512820832b43afef6786bedeee4e5294db8e`. **Deployment mode** Release verification and local real-process tests. No application or deployment behavior changes. Duplicate search: #14382 and #14395 modify nearby runner tests, but do not change this parameterized close test. They are separate work. ## What Changed - Use the production close budget for the two successful modes. - Keep the explicit five-second budget for stalled callbacks and persistence failures. - Keep all semantic-result, exact drain, suspension, and checkpoint assertions. - Change one test file. Production code and deadlines stay unchanged. ## Verification - Unchanged baseline: all four affected cases passed. Ten additional successful-mode repeats passed. - Controlled durable-write delay: the old budget failed both successful modes. The production budget passed both. - Candidate: all four affected real-process cases passed. - Parallel baseline runner sweep: 3,491 passed, 5 unrelated local fixture failures, and 12 skipped. The affected cases passed. This is not an aggregate pass. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - Independent review passed all four affected cases and repeated the real-write latency contrast with the same result. No findings. - `pnpm test:run` was interrupted after 15 unrelated local warm-ownership fixture failure markers (exit 130). The full local aggregate did not complete or pass. The changed Runner test is outside the root test project list. The completed independent and focused checks above cover the change. - All GitHub CI is green on the exact head: 52 successful check runs, one successful commit status, and two expected Storybook skips. The affected Runner lane passed. - Greptile scored the exact head 5/5, with no open comments. ## Risks Low risk. This changes a test option only. The two successful cases can now wait up to the existing production deadline. The two failure cases keep their short bound. Missing receipts still reject reusable close. The source does not relax a permission, ownership fence, or durability check. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, terminal tools, and an independent agent review. The exact deployed model suffix and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass; aggregate limitations are recorded above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3fc64c5156 |
feat(slack): add Require at-mention setting (#15612)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack messages can create tasks and continue existing tasks. > - A reply in a subscribed thread can start agent work without a new mention. > - Some users want to control each reply with an explicit bot mention. > - This pull request adds a Require at-mention setting to Slack app settings. > - The setting checks new messages and queued messages before they start work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Slack app settings and the rules that admit inbound messages. **Subsystem affected** Server, UI, database, and shared API contracts. **Current behavior** After the bot joins a thread, an ordinary reply can wake the agent. Direct messages do not need a bot mention. **Proposed behavior** Add Require at-mention below Allow direct messages. When enabled, each channel message, thread reply, and direct message must mention the bot. Direct messages must also be allowed. **Reason and benefit** Users can prevent ordinary conversation from starting agent work. **Breaking changes** New Slack connections require a bot mention by default. Existing connections keep their saved setting. Work that has already started is not cancelled. **Additional context** A search for existing at-mention PR titles found no duplicate. ## What Changed - Add the endpoint field, schema validation, API response, and UI toggle. New Slack connections enable the setting. - Add an idempotent database migration and generated metadata. Renumber it to 0321 after current master. - Check the current setting at inbound admission, task mutation, and the first heartbeat queue claim. - Keep Slack tool access and recovery for already-running work when the setting changes. - Cancel queued batches that contain an unmentioned input, including coalesced messages. - Dispatch promoted follow-ups after the scheduler releases its agent start lock. Preserve these checks in the new queue and run-control modules. - Filter unmentioned messages without retaining their content. - Keep provider-message deduplication and existing access checks. - Add thread, DM, duplicate-delivery, queued-message, and new-connection default regression tests. - Document the setting and its scope. ## Verification - Previous head `16791bb7`: typecheck, build, all server shards, Runner checks, and E2E passed. Two chat shards failed in three fixtures that used unmentioned Slack messages. - Update setup follow-ups to mention the Slack bot. Disable the mention rule explicitly in the callback ordering test, which tests ordinary subscribed replies. - Previous local checks passed: six Slack integration cases, all 46 durable chat scheduler tests, all 24 queue/run-control tests, migration safety, and UI token gates. - Greptile reviewed `16791bb7` with 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - Head `53163c20f`: all five focused integration cases passed. These cover all three prior CI failures and both default-on channel/DM cases. Fresh CI and Greptile are running. - Full local recursive typecheck, build, and repository tests were not repeated for this fixture-only change. CI supplies these checks. - Manual check: create a Slack connection. Require at-mention must be on. An ordinary thread reply or DM must not wake the agent. A bot mention must wake it once. Disable the setting and confirm ordinary replies work again. ## Risks - The migration adds a non-null boolean with a false default. Apply it before the new server runs. - The setting also applies to DMs. The UI help text states this. - Enabling it blocks queued unmentioned work but does not cancel a run that has already started. - Full local verification is limited by the environment constraints above; latest-head CI must pass before merge. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex agent), with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version 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 - [ ] 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>canary/v2026.1009.0-canary.11 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
1602512820 |
fix(sentry): classify expected credential sharing denials (#15714)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A run can use only an AI credential shared with its responsible user. > - The selection service correctly rejects a credential outside that user's sharing permissions. > - That known configuration rejection still becomes a Sentry error because it has no owned selection marker. > - This pull request marks only that verified sharing rejection and reuses the existing pre-provider reporting gate. > - The task remains blocked with its recovery action, while unexpected authorization and runtime failures remain reportable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15618, which introduced owned provenance for expected AI account selection blockers. The credential-sharing subtype still used a plain HTTP 403. No duplicate open fix was found. **What happened?** An active responsible user selects an AI credential they cannot use. Selection correctly throws `This credential is not shared with the responsible user`. A fresh task remains blocked, but the broad `ConfigurationIncompleteFailure` wrapper is also sent to Sentry. **Expected behavior** Preserve the denial, HTTP 403, task error and owner recovery action. Keep this proven pre-provider configuration rejection out of Sentry without suppressing unrelated permission failures. **Steps to reproduce** Assign a fresh run an explicit personal credential owned by another user, or a shared credential whose human audience excludes its active responsible user. The existing selection check denies access before adapter dispatch. ## What Changed - Add a dedicated sharing-rejection factory that preserves the existing 403, message and absent details while retaining one private bounded reason. - Use it only after active responsible-user membership and the existing credential checks have passed. Missing identity and other authorization checks remain unmarked. - Keep the existing failed/preparing/setup/bootstrap reporting conditions and provider/resume exclusions unchanged. - Add real selection, heartbeat recovery, reporter-boundary and forged-error regressions. Update monitoring documentation. ## Verification - Producer, private-marker and run-failure reporter suites: 310 tests passed. - Actual heartbeat recovery cases: 6 passed; 377 unrelated cases filtered. These verify failed runs, blocked tasks, active owner recovery actions, failed wakeups and no adapter dispatch. - Coverage includes personal and restricted shared credentials, allowed audience changes, missing identity, inactive credential owners, wrong binding kinds, membership in another company, agent permission checks, forged 403 markers, resumed native input and provider work already started. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. All 53 PR checks passed; two unrelated Storybook jobs were skipped. - The full local aggregate was **not green**: it reported an existing browser-sign-in case and a real-runner damaged-resume case before the broad run was stopped (exit 130). The full affected AI-connections file then passed 111/111 in isolation, including the browser case. The unchanged native-session-resume file reproduced 47 passed / 1 failed on both this commit and an untouched base checkout with the same local dependencies and runner binary: the fixture expected a succeeded terminal result and received a failed one. No broader local-suite pass is claimed; full sharded CI passed. - Independent review passed the same 310 focused tests and six heartbeat cases from a clean checkout. Replacing only the producer with its original implementation fails both new marker assertions while preserving 403; restoring this change passes. - Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5 with no review threads. - Source, tests and documentation were scanned for credentials, personal data, private URLs and generated artifacts; none found. ## Risks - A known sharing rejection no longer emits a Sentry run-failure event only when the existing fresh setup proof is present. It remains visible in the task and recovery UI. - No credential-use permission, HTTP contract, execution or retry behavior changes. - This is not a blanket filter for HTTP 403 or `ConfigurationIncompleteFailure`. Unknown causes and resumed or post-provider failures remain reportable. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool execution and parallel independent review. The exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `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 focused tests locally and they pass; broader local limitations are documented above - [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
|
5badea4798 |
Use the agent lifecycle contract for plugin setup and status (#15391)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Some plugins must prepare resources before an agent can work. > - Those resources must stop or be removed when the agent pauses or terminates. > - The agent lifecycle module now owns these steps and their durable completion. > - Plugins use its required callback contract instead of a separate readiness query. > - This PR documents that contract and shows its progress and retry action on the agent page. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15631 **Subsystem affected** Required plugin lifecycle work and the agent detail page. **Problem or motivation** The lifecycle module exposes `onAgentLifecycle` and `agents.lifecycle.manage`, but the plugin authoring guide does not explain their use. The agent page displays legacy status. Setup therefore looks paused and offers Resume. Termination leaves the page before resource cleanup completes. **Proposed solution** Use the callback, admission guards, persisted state, and retry route supplied by the lifecycle module. Show pending phases and fixed host errors. Keep the detail page open during incomplete termination. Use lifecycle state for pause and resume controls. **Alternatives considered** A separate plugin readiness query would duplicate the module's state and admission rules. The final diff contains no readiness API, database commit hooks, or second admission check. ## What Changed - Document the manifest declaration, callback results, phase ordering, capability scope, retry behavior, and provider revision requirements. - Correct SDK comments for lifecycle, routing, and external object callbacks. - Show preparation, verification, pause, resume, termination, and cleanup progress from the existing agent fields. - Refresh pending steps every two seconds and other states every thirty seconds. Keep these reads separate from the agent record used by editable forms. Use the existing authorized retry route for failed steps. - Offer Pause during setup. Disable pause and resume while stop or cleanup is incomplete. Keep cleanup failures reachable on the detail page. Disable new work after termination starts. - Test required resource work across setup, pause, resume, and confirmed deletion. Test every worker callback phase, missing handlers, retry authorization, and UI behavior. ## Verification - Focused UI tests: 139 passed across lifecycle status, action buttons, API tests, and the configuration form. A regression preserves unsaved edits during an in-flight lifecycle refresh and a failed refresh. - Focused host and shared tests: 113 passed across lifecycle integration, retry authorization, plugin RPC, and manifest validation. The database suite used isolated local PostgreSQL 18 through a temporary loader outside the repository. - Module boundary tests: 11 passed. Module import/write checks and UI token gates passed. - Plugin SDK build, server direct TypeScript check, and UI TypeScript check passed. - `git diff --check` and an added-line secrets/private-reference scan passed. Fixtures use synthetic identities. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed using the existing local Rust toolchain. - Visually checked all six progress phases with the application components and styles. Captured preparation and cleanup failure screenshots from the production UI build with synthetic API data; artifacts are kept outside git. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after a native-runner failure reproduced in isolation: `native-session-resume.test.ts` / `archives a damaged prior epoch before completing guarded same-task replacement with real runnerd` returns a failed Codex fixture result instead of success. The native-runtime and runner trees are unchanged from the base. No full local test pass is claimed. - All latest-head CI checks passed, including test shards, verification, E2E, and the canary packaging check. Greptile reviewed commit `96473e03a` at 5/5 with no unresolved comments. ## Risks - Selected required plugins remain a dependency for lifecycle completion. The lifecycle module retains their requirements when a plugin is disabled or removed. - Plugins must make repeated provider operations safe and fence older revisions. Host revision checks do not cancel external requests. - Polling adds one agent-detail read every two seconds during pending work and every thirty seconds otherwise. - No schema change, private VM provider implementation, resource backfill, or deployment is included. No live provider test was run. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and command execution. The exact model revision and context window were not reported by the runtime. ## 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 - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run focused 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 - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1009.0-canary.10 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
556daf9a99 |
feat(dot): run cloud assignments in managed sandboxes (#15691)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and governs their work. > - The Runner owns execution and task authority. > - Dot executes at OpenAI and uses Paperclip through MCP. > - Dot previously required a self-hosted controller. > - Cloud must admit Dot work in a managed sandbox and keep protocol traffic in the tenant. > - This pull request adds managed Dot execution and dedicated pairing routes. > - The same Runner path can later host sandboxed workspace tools. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Agent or provider** OpenAI Dot, through the existing dedicated MCP adapter. Related changes: #15402, #15414, and #15581. **Why this adapter is useful** Cloud users need to assign work to Dot and let Dot request work while idle. Neither path should execute agent commands on the control-plane host or require an idle sandbox. **How the agent is invoked** The tenant serves OAuth, signed mailbox events, and scoped tools. Normal admission creates a managed sandbox for each assignment. A verified Rust Runner owns that assignment and relays its tools and results. ## What Changed - Enable the external-agent invitation in Cloud behind the standalone Dot flag. - Launch Dot through the existing managed process launcher and authenticated PRP transport. - Verify the artifact digest and Dot capability before dispatch. Read provider checkpoints from the execution target for recovery. - Reject local execution in Cloud and reject managed workspace access for this release. - Add dedicated public Dot pairing aliases. Preserve the personal assistant consent paths. - Keep Dot events in the tenant when a personal Cloud broker is configured. - Use the app-configured heartbeat for Dot-initiated work. Report terminal admission failures and fence stranded offers before new admission. - Offer normal comments through the active assignment's mailbox. Keep their wakes deferred until a successful history receipt contains the exact IDs; preserve unread comments through finish, batching and recovery without replaying consumed input. - Require a sandbox process fingerprint before dispatch and allow a bounded five-minute controller reconnect gap. Preserve remote process birth without inspecting a colliding controller PID. - Recognize authenticated remote shutdown receipts even without an OS exit code. - Document dedicated pairing aliases and teach route coverage to inspect literal path arrays. - Add opt-in private Daytona qualification and focused contract tests. ## Verification - Workspace typecheck, production build, and UI token gates passed. - Focused onboarding, OAuth, managed environment, artifact metadata, and terminal-fence tests passed. One environment-test timeout passed on an isolated repeat. - A private Daytona fixture passed with the real Rust Runner, signed readiness, assigned app tools, document writes, duplicate receipts, authority fences, completion, and sandbox deletion. - A real OpenAI Dot completed both an operator-assigned task and a Dot-initiated task in managed Daytona sandboxes. Both leases were released. - A real accepted Dot assignment survived a controller gap longer than one minute with the same sandbox process, Runner, session, and assignment. Dot consumed the normal task-comment follow-up and completed exactly once; the lease was released. - A real cancellation fenced an accepted assignment, released its lease, and received Dot's acknowledgement without claiming a global provider stop. - Final local checks: 74 Dot execution, OAuth onboarding and API contract tests after integrating the current agent-lifecycle changes, 9 real Rust driver tests, 21 remote-runtime tests plus the 3 detached-process cleanup tests, and 17 lifecycle tests passed. The final live Daytona fixture passed and deleted its sandbox. - A final real Dot follow-up stayed pending until its exact comment appeared in a successful history receipt. Dot completed the original managed assignment once; its lease was released. - The broad local suite crossed a rebase and was stopped; its failures are not a qualification of this final source. Focused repeats passed. The final head passed all CI gates: workspace types, build, general and serialized test suites, Rust and Runner verification, all browser shards, and the canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 with both findings resolved. ## Risks - Deploy the tenant app with its current Linux Runner artifact and the corresponding front-door protocol routes together. - This branch has not been deployed to a Cloud tenant. A deployed tenant still needs an OAuth and assignment smoke test. - Dot provider usage and cost are unmetered. Revocation fences Paperclip tools and does not prove a global OpenAI stop. - Missing or changed recovery identity fails closed. No replacement Dot thread is invented. - No schema migration is added. Managed Dot workspace access remains unavailable. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, code execution, and browser testing. The exact runtime model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `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 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>canary/v2026.1009.0-canary.9 |
||
|
dependabot[bot]
|
436ae2cf6f |
build(deps): bump actions/download-artifact from 4.3.0 to 8.0.1 (#15165)
Bumps [actions/download-artifact](https://github.com/actions/download-artifact) from 4.3.0 to 8.0.1. <details> <summary>Release notes</summary> <p><em>Sourced from <a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/releases">actions/download-artifact's releases</a>.</em></p> <blockquote> <h2>v8.0.1</h2> <h2>What's Changed</h2> <ul> <li>Support for CJK characters in the artifact name by <a href="https://github.com/danwkennedy"><code>@danwkennedy</code></a> in <a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/471">actions/download-artifact#471</a></li> <li>Add a regression test for artifact name + content-type mismatches by <a href="https://github.com/danwkennedy"><code>@danwkennedy</code></a> in <a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/472">actions/download-artifact#472</a></li> </ul> <p><strong>Full Changelog</strong>: <a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/compare/v8...v8.0.1">https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/compare/v8...v8.0.1</a></p> <h2>v8.0.0</h2> <h2>v8 - What's new</h2> <blockquote> <p>[!IMPORTANT] actions/download-artifact@v8 has been migrated to an ESM module. This should be transparent to the caller but forks might need to make significant changes.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>[!IMPORTANT] Hash mismatches will now error by default. Users can override this behavior with a setting change (see below).</p> </blockquote> <h3>Direct downloads</h3> <p>To support direct uploads in <code>actions/upload-artifact</code>, the action will no longer attempt to unzip all downloaded files. Instead, the action checks the <code>Content-Type</code> header ahead of unzipping and skips non-zipped files. Callers wishing to download a zipped file as-is can also set the new <code>skip-decompress</code> parameter to <code>true</code>.</p> <h3>Enforced checks (breaking)</h3> <p>A previous release introduced digest checks on the download. If a download hash didn't match the expected hash from the server, the action would log a warning. Callers can now configure the behavior on mismatch with the <code>digest-mismatch</code> parameter. To be secure by default, we are now defaulting the behavior to <code>error</code> which will fail the workflow run.</p> <h3>ESM</h3> <p>To support new versions of the @actions/* packages, we've upgraded the package to ESM.</p> <h2>What's Changed</h2> <ul> <li>Don't attempt to un-zip non-zipped downloads by <a href="https://github.com/danwkennedy"><code>@danwkennedy</code></a> in <a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/460">actions/download-artifact#460</a></li> <li>Add a setting to specify what to do on hash mismatch and default it to <code>error</code> by <a href="https://github.com/danwkennedy"><code>@danwkennedy</code></a> in <a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/461">actions/download-artifact#461</a></li> </ul> <p><strong>Full Changelog</strong>: <a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/compare/v7...v8.0.0">https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/compare/v7...v8.0.0</a></p> <h2>v7.0.0</h2> <h2>v7 - What's new</h2> <blockquote> <p>[!IMPORTANT] actions/download-artifact@v7 now runs on Node.js 24 (<code>runs.using: node24</code>) and requires a minimum Actions Runner version of 2.327.1. If you are using self-hosted runners, ensure they are updated before upgrading.</p> </blockquote> <h3>Node.js 24</h3> <p>This release updates the runtime to Node.js 24. v6 had preliminary support for Node 24, however this action was by default still running on Node.js 20. Now this action by default will run on Node.js 24.</p> <h2>What's Changed</h2> <ul> <li>Update GHES guidance to include reference to Node 20 version by <a href="https://github.com/patrikpolyak"><code>@patrikpolyak</code></a> in <a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/440">actions/download-artifact#440</a></li> <li>Download Artifact Node24 support by <a href="https://github.com/salmanmkc"><code>@salmanmkc</code></a> in <a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/415">actions/download-artifact#415</a></li> <li>fix: update <code>@actions/artifact</code> to fix Node.js 24 punycode deprecation by <a href="https://github.com/salmanmkc"><code>@salmanmkc</code></a> in <a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/451">actions/download-artifact#451</a></li> <li>prepare release v7.0.0 for Node.js 24 support by <a href="https://github.com/salmanmkc"><code>@salmanmkc</code></a> in <a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/pull/452">actions/download-artifact#452</a></li> </ul> <!-- raw HTML omitted --> </blockquote> <p>... (truncated)</p> </details> <details> <summary>Commits</summary> <ul> <li><a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/commit/3e5f45b2cfb9172054b4087a40e8e0b5a5461e7c"><code>3e5f45b</code></a> Add regression tests for CJK characters (<a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/issues/471">#471</a>)</li> <li><a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/commit/e6d03f67377d4412c7aa56a8e2e4988e6ec479dd"><code>e6d03f6</code></a> Add a regression test for artifact name + content-type mismatches (<a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/issues/472">#472</a>)</li> <li><a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/commit/70fc10c6e5e1ce46ad2ea6f2b72d43f7d47b13c3"><code>70fc10c</code></a> Merge pull request <a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/issues/461">#461</a> from actions/danwkennedy/digest-mismatch-behavior</li> <li><a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/commit/f258da9a506b755b84a09a531814700b86ccfc62"><code>f258da9</code></a> Add change docs</li> <li><a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/commit/ccc058e5fbb0bb2352213eaec3491e117cbc4a5c"><code>ccc058e</code></a> Fix linting issues</li> <li><a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/commit/bd7976ba57ecea96e6f3df575eb922d11a12a9fd"><code>bd7976b</code></a> Add a setting to specify what to do on hash mismatch and default it to <code>error</code></li> <li><a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/commit/ac21fcf45e0aaee541c0f7030558bdad38d77d6c"><code>ac21fcf</code></a> Merge pull request <a href="https://redirect.github.com/actions/download-artifact/issues/460">#460</a> from actions/danwkennedy/download-no-unzip</li> <li><a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/commit/15999bff51058bc7c19b50ebbba518eaef7c26c0"><code>15999bf</code></a> Add note about package bumps</li> <li><a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/commit/974686ed5098c7f9c9289ec946b9058e496a2561"><code>974686e</code></a> Bump the version to <code>v8</code> and add release notes</li> <li><a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/commit/fbe48b1d2756394be4cd4358ed3bc1343b330e75"><code>fbe48b1</code></a> Update test names to make it clearer what they do</li> <li>Additional commits viewable in <a href="https://github.com/actions/download-artifact/compare/v4.3.0...3e5f45b2cfb9172054b4087a40e8e0b5a5461e7c">compare view</a></li> </ul> </details> <br /> [](https://docs.github.com/en/github/managing-security-vulnerabilities/about-dependabot-security-updates#about-compatibility-scores) Dependabot will resolve any conflicts with this PR as long as you don't alter it yourself. You can also trigger a rebase manually by commenting `@dependabot rebase`. [//]: # (dependabot-automerge-start) [//]: # (dependabot-automerge-end) --- <details> <summary>Dependabot commands and options</summary> <br /> You can trigger Dependabot actions by commenting on this PR: - `@dependabot rebase` will rebase this PR - `@dependabot recreate` will recreate this PR, overwriting any edits that have been made to it - `@dependabot show <dependency name> ignore conditions` will show all of the ignore conditions of the specified dependency - `@dependabot ignore this major version` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this major version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself) - `@dependabot ignore this minor version` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this minor version (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself) - `@dependabot ignore this dependency` will close this PR and stop Dependabot creating any more for this dependency (unless you reopen the PR or upgrade to it yourself) </details> Signed-off-by: dependabot[bot] <support@github.com> Co-authored-by: dependabot[bot] <49699333+dependabot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
Dotta
|
41fec8c892 |
fix: show notification actors and avatars, and hide self-actions (#15695)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - Task notifications tell people who changed a task. > - The authenticated event stream removed the actor ID and type. > - The UI then showed “Someone” and could not hide the viewer's own actions. > - Toasts also had no field or renderer for an actor avatar. > - This pull request keeps authorized actor identity and shows the existing person or agent avatar. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Authenticated task notifications showed “Someone.” A person's own actions could produce notifications. Toasts showed a colored dot instead of the actor's avatar. **Expected behavior** Show the actor's name and avatar. Hide notifications for the viewer's own task actions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign in to an authenticated instance. 2. View a page other than the task being changed. 3. Create or update a task, or add a comment. 4. Observe the generic name and the notification for your own action. ## What Changed - Keep actor IDs and types after the existing task access check. - Read only the actor's name, photo, or agent appearance from company-scoped records. Do not forward task details or comments. - Supply names and avatars even when the browser has no cached directory. - Carry actor data through the toast provider. Use the existing person and agent avatar components. - Identify the local trusted viewer so that self-actions are also hidden there. - Add tests for authenticated event delivery, hidden tasks, private details, self-actions, names, agent appearance, and avatar rendering. ## Verification - Passed: 71 UI tests across LiveUpdatesProvider, ToastContext, and ToastViewport. - Passed: 11 server tests across live-events-toast and live-events-ws. The added tests assert the actual SQL filters and bound company, actor, and active-membership values. - Passed: UI typecheck (`cd ui && ../node_modules/.bin/tsc -b`). - Passed: UI production build (`cd ui && node_modules/.bin/vite build`). - Passed: `pnpm check:token-gates` and `git diff --check`. - The full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` could not complete because this environment has no Rust `cargo` executable. - The full `pnpm test:run` did not complete. Broad validation exceeded the 4 GB sandbox memory limit. The full test run was stopped; the focused tests were then run successfully. - Manual review: use two signed-in people, make task changes from each, and confirm only the other person's toast appears. Repeat with an agent and check its avatar. ### Avatar screenshots Production toast components with sample identities. These isolated browser renders cover the person image and the agent custom avatar in both themes.   ## Risks - Task toast events add a small profile read per authorized viewer. Other task actions retain IDs without a profile read. - Deleted or unavailable identities use an ID-based label. People without a photo use initials. - Access checks and task-detail filtering remain in place. There is no database migration. - All CI checks passed on the first commit, including full typecheck, build, test shards, and browser suites. The updated commit must pass CI again. The PR is ready for review. CI and Greptile must pass on the updated commit. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with code editing and tool execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed to this run. ## 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 and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused suites listed above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (behavior and validation are recorded above; no command or configuration change) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0726a00e80 |
feat(apps): qualify Bitly, Context7, Hugging Face and Resend MCP (#15686)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and govern their tools. > - Apps already supports provider-hosted MCP servers. > - Useful providers still need real setup and read proof before Browse exposure. > - Browser testing found a Bitly token-format failure and an OAuth callback that replaced an explicit empty agent selection. > - This PR qualifies four provider methods and fixes those shared OAuth paths. > - Providers that still need login or approval remain withheld from new Browse listings. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15621, the merged hosted MCP qualification batch. Searches found no duplicate Bitly or Context7 implementation PR. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Apps setup, provider MCP discovery, token exchange, and saved agent access through an OAuth callback. **Subsystem affected** Shared Apps definitions, the server tool-access service, and the UI setup/recovery route. **Current behavior** Bitly's callback can fail with `oauth_access_token_missing` when its token response is not JSON. Curated MCP callbacks can treat an explicitly saved empty install set as access for all agents. Context7 is hidden and Hugging Face lacks a curated anonymous method. Saved drafts for hidden providers cannot finish setup through their catalog wizard. **Proposed behavior** Request JSON token responses. Record explicit remote MCP install choices in the install transaction and preserve them at callback. Keep managed subject/default access when no choice was saved. Expose the qualified Bitly and Context7 methods, add anonymous Hugging Face Hub access, and record Resend qualification. Resume hidden providers only through an exact matching company-visible saved draft. **Reason and benefit** People can connect useful hosted tools through the existing Apps flow. An explicit zero-agent selection survives authorization. Public documentation lookups need no OAuth app, account, or key. **Breaking changes** Explicitly saved empty MCP install choices now remain empty. Existing managed defaults without a saved choice retain their behavior. No schema migration or API shape change. ## What Changed - Qualify Bitly OAuth, Context7 public MCP, Hugging Face public MCP, and Resend OAuth with real browser setup, useful UI reads, and reload checks. - Negotiate JSON OAuth token responses and preserve explicitly saved MCP agent reach with a transactional config marker. - Add durable provider overrides, permission reviews, dated text-only evidence, and official branding provenance. Remove all seven evidence images and their report references. - Restore Finish setup for hidden-provider drafts with company/application/provider checks; keep fresh setup withheld. Preserve success after the exact resumed draft becomes active, and restore valid completed URLs to that exact saved Permissions page; reject initially active, disabled, or archived resume targets. Align the Context7 route assertion with its new qualified availability. - Retain hidden ClickUp, Klaviyo, and monday.com research with exact login/approval gates. monday.com requires provider callback allowlisting. ## Verification - Connector service suite: 420 passed, including default/empty/agent/company reach and managed OAuth lifecycle coverage. - Shared catalog: 36 passed. Override tests: 3 passed. Brand checks: 101 identities passed. - Focused UI setup/recovery, Browse, and OAuth-helper suites: 306 passed. Actual hidden-draft resume/reload passed; a public Context7 draft seeded in the isolated app completed through the active-state refetch and persisted with zero agents after reload. The completed URL refresh and View connection open the exact saved Permissions page. Fresh hidden setup, normal initially active resume, disabled/archived status, and provider mismatch are rejected; a draft at the completion stage stays in setup. - Recursive typecheck and build passed again after rebase. The full local Vitest run began before rebase and was cancelled as superseded while still in the general-server phase; it is not a completed pass. Exact-head CI supplies broad coverage. The focused connector service suite passed against the final code. UI typecheck, build, and token gates passed again after the draft-recovery fix. - Targeted mock MCP Playwright journey: 1 passed (34.9s). It now verifies View connection reaches the exact saved Permissions route, both discovered actions, and reload persistence. This replaces the stale Browse expectation found by CI. - All CI gates passed on final commit `32bb4c6422411eee632486950e45e2735102d1b3`. The inherited-pause test timed out in the cleanup run and passed on one retry without code changes; the entire file also passed locally, 36/36. Its exact timing cause remains unresolved. A signoff timeout on the preceding production-code commit also passed on its single retry. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no open findings. - Actual UI reads: Bitly current-user read; Resend List Domains including a fresh setup after the final callback refinement; Context7 React docs; Hugging Face public docs search. No provider writes or real agent runtimes ran. - [Text-only qualification report](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/32bb4c6422411eee632486950e45e2735102d1b3/doc/connections/easy-mcp-batch-2-2026-10-09.md) include evidence limits and exact blockers. Account/profile/domain results are omitted. ## Risks - Bitly `mcp.all` and Resend `full_access` remain broad provider grants. Qualification kept writes Off and selected no agents. Read proof does not establish write behavior or refresh rotation. - The explicit-choice marker applies to new install saves; older unmarked flows keep their existing defaults. Its JSONB merge avoids overwriting concurrent config fields. - Public provider catalogs and rate limits can change. Unqualified providers remain withheld from new Browse entries; retained connections remain available for recovery. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, plus OpenAI `gpt-6-luna` subagents for provider research, browser testing, and review. The exact primary serving variant and context-window size are not exposed by this runtime. Used reasoning, code execution, and browser tools. ## 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>canary/v2026.1009.0-canary.8 |
||
|
github-actions[bot]andlockfile-bot
|
011e5669ba |
chore(lockfile): refresh pnpm-lock.yaml (#15678)
Auto-generated lockfile refresh after dependencies changed on master. This PR only updates pnpm-lock.yaml. Co-authored-by: lockfile-bot <lockfile-bot@users.noreply.github.com> |
