mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-14 08:53:19 +01:00
bed5f702786097d35c50bf3ea76bd9b77a8a9ce4
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
8818402e7a |
feat(inbox): route requests to people and record personal outcomes (#20959)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - The inbox collects requests that need a human decision. > - Teams need to know who owns each request and who may act on it. > - A shared close operation must differ from hiding a card for one person. > - This pull request adds personal routing and durable outcomes to the existing attention service. > - People can claim or transfer work and inspect what another person did for them. > - Domain permissions still decide who may resolve each request. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Server, shared contracts, and database. This is the routing foundation for a stacked inbox UI change. **Problem or motivation** A company-wide attention feed does not give teams a clear personal queue. Archive, withdrawal, transfer, and decisions by another person need distinct scopes and records. **Proposed solution** Resolve a request audience from its addressee, task participants, and configured owners. Provide personal, unassigned, company, all-assignee, and archived views. Add claim, transfer, personal archive and snooze, shared withdrawal, receipts, and personal history. **Alternatives considered** A single shared inbox leaves ownership and personal hiding ambiguous. The service keeps one canonical request and projects its audience instead of copying requests for each person. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Multiple Human Users and Agent Reviews and Approvals capabilities in ROADMAP.md. **Additional context** Refs #19363 and #19520 for the current inbox navigation and confirmation replacement rules. Refs #20268 for related actionable-request work. That PR filters actionability; this stack adds audience routing and personal outcomes. This is part 1 of a two-PR stack. The inbox UI PR #20961 targets this branch. ## What Changed - Add nullable company and project decision owners and a company budget owner. - Add audience views and personal badge counts to the canonical attention projections. - Add claim, transfer, withdrawal, personal archive, snooze, and restore operations with permission checks and activity records. Lock addressed transfers to the current addressee or routing administrators, and validate the recipient against canonical resolution policies. - Add receipts and scoped history for work handled by another person. - Keep closed-task requests and replaced confirmations out of current cards. - Add an idempotent migration and a concurrent receipt-history index. - Update typed fixtures so the existing UI remains compatible with the new contracts. ## Verification - Server layered typechecking passes, including all three test-tree partitions. - Seven routing and interaction-resolution suites pass all 249 tests against a dedicated external PostgreSQL test database on `4caecc21d8`. Six new regressions failed before the repair; they cover takeover followed by approval, legitimate delegation, excluded creators/review requesters, and unauthorized claims. - Prior focused verification covers private approval history and receipts, transfer visibility, audience escalation, withdrawal governance, hidden-card counts, per-recipient confirmation replacement, and SDK source contracts. - A synthetic three-person company passed 37 routing and lifecycle acceptance checks. The UI stack adds browser acceptance for the shared controls. - The complete [GitHub Actions CI matrix](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43134997331) passes on `4caecc21d891677323a7335f23b1a015cce24c13` (Linux/Node 24: typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Runner support, browser shards, and aggregate gates). Greptile is 5/5 on that exact head with no open findings. The fresh security scan passes after explicitly rechecking the addressee-transfer repair. - `pnpm verify` reports exit 2 because a CI-global script changed; full CI supplies that broader coverage. Embedded PostgreSQL could not start on this Mac because shared-memory slots were exhausted, so local database checks use a separate external test database. Linux CI covers the embedded setup. ## Risks - Personal badge counts change to the viewer's assigned requests. Accessible feed totals and task membership keep their existing scope. - The migration adds nullable owner fields and a dismissal fingerprint. Its index runs outside a transaction. The migration is classified and rerunnable. - Routing changes the addressee used by resolution authorization. The current addressee or a routing administrator must authorize an addressed transfer; the recipient must satisfy writer access, canonical resolver exclusions, and task review policy under row locks. - The shared validator export barrel crosses 1,000 lines because it exports the new attention schemas. Schema implementation stays in the dedicated attention validator module. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used repository tools, code execution, and browser checks. This session does not expose a more specific runtime model ID or its 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 described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip 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 (OpenAPI contracts and docs/api/attention.md) - [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: Scott Tong <scott@scottsmbpm5max.lan> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
46760cc588 |
fix(chat): honor dismissal for all composer requests (#17218)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations show requests in the feed and above the message composer. > - Earlier fixes kept dismissed questions in history, but excluded completion reviews and other request kinds. > - Closing those forms left a pending badge, and the server could still demand a response. > - This pull request saves human dismissal and removes the request from composer reminders and ordinary completion gates. > - People can continue the conversation and reopen the request from history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: #15229 and #15392. **What happened?** Dismissing a completion review closed its form but left it counted as pending. It could return after reload, block a retry, or cause the agent to demand another response. Raw runtime requests could also lose their only usable control when dismissed. **Expected behavior** Dismissal leaves an accessible request in the feed and clears the composer form and pending count. It persists after reload. It does not submit an answer, approve an action, or wake the agent. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task with a pending completion review or another composer request. 2. Dismiss the request, then reload the task. 3. Check that the composer stays clear and the feed entry can reopen the request. ## What Changed - Add nullable dismissal fields and a human-only dismissal endpoint with company, private-task access, resolver, and locked review-policy checks. - Persist saved-request dismissal on the server. Keep browser persistence for raw runtime requests and existing question dismissals. - Keep confirmations, choices, item verdicts, suggested tasks, and runtime requests accessible in the feed. - Exclude dismissed ordinary requests from completion and retry gates. Tell agents not to repeat deferred requests. - Preserve tool, secret, connection, plan, company-policy, and configured review authorization gates. Expire deferred non-question requests when their task completes. - Preserve the selected form when another dismissal finishes saving. Keep reopened reviews visible through delayed comment refreshes. - Add a completion-review Storybook test drive and update design, API, database, and capability documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. The final UI changes also passed the UI typecheck. - `pnpm build`: passed. The final UI changes also passed the UI production build. - Focused UI and transcript tests: 550 passed across nine files after merging the current base branch. - Focused database, completion, and prompt tests: 105 passed across three files, including two review-policy regressions that failed before the fix. The tests reject a review requester excluded by current policy, preserve the pending gate on denial, and permit an independent reviewer to defer the request. - Route regression suite: 81 passed, including denial before reading or mutating a private-task request. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - Map and Storybook structural checks: passed; 30 map/catalog script tests passed. - Browser: used the production task-thread components in the completion-review fixture. Dismissed, reloaded, reopened from the feed, and dismissed again. No pending badge or composer takeover remained. Story callbacks simulate API saves; separate server tests cover persistence and permissions. - `pnpm test:run`: stopped after the general-server group reported one failure in `workspace-runtime.test.ts`: "returns a bounded structured conflict and exposes only same-company workspace references". The same test passed in isolation (1 passed, 178 skipped). The cause of the full-suite failure is not established. The full PR CI suite subsequently passed on e243cbb001; its two authorization review findings are fixed in |
||
|
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
|
faa8e452c7 |
fix(tasks): stop repeated reminders for historical questions (#15392)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task questions remain saved so a person can answer them later. > - The composer moves an old question into history after a newer human message. > - Native completion still treated every pending question as a required response. > - This caused agents to demand an old answer after the person moved work forward. > - This pull request shares the historical-question rule across context and task execution. > - Agents can finish verified work while the original question remains answerable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15229, Refs #14613, Refs #13130. **What happened?** An agent repeatedly asked a person to answer a question that had moved into feed history. Completion feedback explicitly told the agent to request a response. The saved pending row also blocked task completion. **Expected behavior** A question before newer human direction remains answerable in the feed. Its pending state alone must not require another reminder or stop completed work. A new input blocker, an approval, or a configured review stage must keep its gate. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task agent create an ordinary question. 2. Dismiss the question and send a newer task message. 3. Let the agent finish the requested work and submit its completion report. 4. Observe a demand to answer the old question and a retained completion gate. ## What Changed - Add one company-scoped predicate for historical questions. Only later human comments count. Exclude agent attribution, run attribution, system notices, and untrusted source data. - Apply the predicate to completion feedback, native waits, finalization, commit validation, retry validation, blocked routing, and successful-run handoff. - Include question classification and guidance in heartbeat context and both native task-context tools. Add the guidance to fresh and resumed task prompts. - Replace automatic reminders for current ordinary questions with instructions to assess the real blocker, continue independent work, and withdraw obsolete questions through the existing API. - Preserve historical question rows during completion while cancelling their live native source runs through the existing post-commit and recovery paths. Let an authorized human answer them after completion without reopening work or creating a response wake. Preserve cancellation, current-input, approval, permission, credential, connection, and review gates. Add no dismissal storage or migration. - Document the rule in the execution contract and agent skill. Refresh generated capability source anchors. Add database-backed status, context, attribution, and governance regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm build` passed. The server rebuild also passed after the lifecycle fix. Generated capability contract and inventory checks passed after the agent documentation update. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Final `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passed after the last test additions. - Lifecycle and interaction regressions passed: 224 tests in 3 suites. Context and prompt tests also passed. Final historical-question cases passed (33 tests), native cancellation/recovery cases passed (6 tests), and the existing interaction/confirmation suites passed (72 tests). The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after more than two hours with unrelated fixture/hook timeout failures; it did not pass. All 52 successful GitHub checks are green on the latest commit, including the complete test matrix; no checks are pending or failing. Greptile is 5/5 and both review threads are resolved. - Regression cases cover the old-question/new-human-message sequence, final task status, answering after completion with no wake, live-run cancellation and crash recovery, current input blockers, both task-context tools, API context, timestamp precision, attribution boundaries, and protected gates. ## Risks - A later human task message makes an earlier ordinary question historical even if its input is still missing. The agent must identify the current blocker and ask only for information that still prevents work. - Browser dismissal remains a local preference. Dismissal without a later human message is not recorded by this change. - No schema change or data migration. Completion retains ordinary historical questions; cancellation still expires them. A completed task accepts historical answers only from an authorized human and creates no response-delivery outbox row. Governed requests retain their gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository editing, code execution, and browser diagnostics. 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> |