2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	cd5f930558	Add shareable image galleries to task documents (#18157) ... <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/247/changes/paperclip/247 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task documents hold plans, reports, and image evidence. > - Task attachments already have an image gallery. > - Inline document images had no gallery navigation or image links. > - This change gives each document a gallery that uses the existing modal. > - People can review the image sequence and share a link to one image. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Image review in task documents, including the side panel and Classic interface. **Current behavior** Inline document images do not open a gallery. People cannot move through them with arrow keys or share a link to one image. **Proposed behavior** Select an image to open the gallery. Use arrow keys or Previous and Next. The URL records its one-based position, for example `#document-report&image=2`. Reloading that URL opens the selected image. Revision links keep their exact saved content. **Reason and benefit** People can inspect a document's image evidence in reading order and share the exact view. No matching issue was found. The latest 300 open PR titles were checked for related document gallery work. ## What Changed - Add a document renderer that collects rendered images in reading order, including reference-style and repeated images. - Reuse the gallery modal with optional index-change and focus-return controls. - Keep the document owner in the saved tab identity when people switch between local and other-task documents. - Match explicit current-task document owners with local document tabs. Keep review and viewer parameters during gallery navigation. - Treat another Classic review receipt as a new request while image navigation retains the selected revision. - Make inline image controls work with a keyboard. Keep focus in the modal and restore focus on close. - Keep document, revision, review, and maximized-view link parameters during image navigation. - Fix a Classic revision-cache race found by the browser test. Recheck a pinned revision when the saved document head changes. - Update the feature and agent access maps. No new server API or permission is needed. ## Verification - Passed 119 focused tests for document galleries, the shared gallery, document rendering, the revision panel, and hash routing. - Passed all 3 Chromium journeys: desktop, mobile, and Classic. These use real uploads and saved document revisions. - The browser journeys also check explicit current-task owners, review parameters after reopening, other-task links after tab switches, and a second Classic review link after Return to latest. - Browser checks cover keyboard and button navigation, wraparound, shared-link reload, exact historical content, invalid positions, focus return and containment, scroll locking, and Escape, Close, and backdrop dismissal. - UI typecheck, token gates, map checks, and diff whitespace checks passed. - The UI production build passed in the browser harness. - Earlier browser runs found and then verified the Classic revision-cache fix. A later build exited 137 while the full test suite ran. The browser run passed after that suite stopped. - Full repository typecheck and build could not complete because Cargo is absent. The full repository test run did not complete within this sandbox. These checks remain subject to CI. ## Risks - Image positions follow document reading order. Editing an unpinned document can change those positions. A revision link retains the saved sequence. - The shared modal now uses Radix Escape handling. The existing gallery tests and nested mobile dialog journey pass. - No schema change or migration. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context window size. Used reasoning, code editing, shell commands, and browser automation. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-30 07:52:15 -05:00
Dotta	b4fccaa8c4	[codex] Unify issue media attachment gallery (#8785) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue detail pages and run output cards both render user-facing attachment previews > - Media attachments were handled through separate gallery entry points, so attachments from issue comments and issue output did not share one consistent viewing path > - A shared gallery path makes image browsing more predictable across the issue surface > - This pull request unifies the issue media attachment gallery behavior across attachments, output cards, and issue detail rendering > - The benefit is a more consistent image preview experience with focused regression coverage around the affected UI paths ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8788 This PR fixes inconsistent issue media preview behavior across attachment and output surfaces. ## What Changed - Unified issue media attachment gallery behavior across issue attachments, issue output, output primary cards, and issue detail rendering. - Added image gallery modal coverage and regression tests for attachments, output image handling, keyboard navigation, and issue detail interactions. - Preserved the primary video output Open action while still allowing gallery browsing when a gallery handler is available. - Updated issue attachment and issue output helper logic to preserve shared image gallery metadata. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/ImageGalleryModal.test.tsx src/components/issue-output/IssueOutputSection.test.tsx src/components/IssueAttachmentsSection.test.tsx src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - Result: 4 files passed, 47 tests passed. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The change is UI-scoped but touches shared issue attachment/output rendering paths, so regressions would most likely appear as image/video preview ordering, missing gallery entries, or incorrect non-image attachment behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent session with shell and git/GitHub CLI tool use. Exact serving revision and context window were not exposed 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 (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	2026-06-30 07:53:40 -07:00