4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	21ee5c9c85	feat(sentry): add opt-in run failure reporting with saved run references (#16300) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs retain execution results and output in the instance. > - Operators can report run failures to Sentry for investigation. > - A backend Sentry DSN currently enables those reports with no separate choice. > - A repair bot also needs the exact instance, company, agent, and saved run. > - This pull request adds an explicit reporting mode and authenticated run references. > - The benefit is that operators can investigate every failure on selected deployments while keeping other deployments quiet. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Optional server reporting of terminal agent run failures to Sentry. **Current behavior** A backend DSN enables run failure reports. Known account, quota, and connection failures are excluded. Reports omit company and agent references. Runs without a task are skipped. Tool-name collision errors omit the conflicting bindings. **Proposed behavior** Set `PAPERCLIP_SENTRY_RUN_FAILURES=unexpected` to retain the existing filters. Set it to `all` to report every failed or timed-out run, including known setup and quota failures. The default is `off`. Expected stops stay excluded. Each report supplies identifiers and API paths that a bot can use with its own authorized Paperclip connection. **Reason and benefit** Operators can enable broad failure reporting on one staging deployment. A bot can fetch the saved run, events, and logs instead of relying on a short error label or copying complete transcripts into Sentry. **Breaking changes** A backend DSN alone no longer enables run failure reports. Existing operators must set `PAPERCLIP_SENTRY_RUN_FAILURES=unexpected` to retain the previous policy. Ordinary server exception capture remains enabled by the DSN. Failure grouping gains the phase and original cause code when available. Refs #16281, #16297, #16298. These cover related tool discovery and failure diagnostics. This change retains their existing boundaries and does not depend on their open changes. ## What Changed - Add `off`, `unexpected`, and `all` modes. Missing and invalid values keep reporting off before diagnostic reads. - Keep the Sentry backend DSN and audited optional SDK requirements. - Include company, agent, run, and optional task identifiers. Include versioned paths for the saved run, events, log, and task. Add absolute run URLs only for a valid public HTTP(S) origin. - Report company runs without a task. Prefer the first-class issue binding when selecting the task reference. - Select saved native provider/model settings, timestamps, and original failure codes. Preserve gateway reason codes through redacted exception projection. - Group by error code, adapter, and available phase/cause. Keep run IDs and error text out of grouping. - Include the tool names and connection bindings in collision errors without copying tool schemas or provider metadata. - Document configuration, upgrade behavior, bot access, redaction, retention, and best-effort delivery. ## Verification - All 56 checks passed for `cccb47a721eaa1cc36e63278fc177b9101477541`. Two unrelated Storybook jobs were skipped by their path filters. No checks remain pending. - Complete [Paperclip CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38591422284): passed. This covers general and serialized tests, Runner checks, browser E2E shards, typecheck, build, release-registry checks, canary dry run, and Docker checks. - Greptile reviewed that exact head: 5/5, with no unresolved threads or actionable findings. Superagent, Socket, and Snyk checks passed. - Local focused reporting, diagnostics, collision, and real SDK contract tests: 410 passed across five suites. This includes the external-wake filter in both reporting modes. - The audited `@sentry/node@10.71.0` tests use an in-memory transport. No events were sent to Sentry. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed locally after the final rebase. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` and `git diff --check`: passed. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command was stopped to avoid duplicating the complete CI shards. It did not finish locally. The full suite passed in CI. ## Risks - The new default disables existing run failure exports until the operator selects a mode. The upgrade setting is documented. - `all` can increase event volume and include known user-action failures. Secret redaction and diagnostic limits still apply. - Reporting remains asynchronous and best effort. This PR adds no durable delivery queue and does not install a bot or Sentry alert rule. - API references grant no authority. Existing company, private-task, and run-output checks still apply. Complete transcripts stay in Paperclip. - This changes optional Sentry error reporting. It changes neither first-party Telemetry nor OpenTelemetry span exports. It adds no database migration. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, shell, file editing, and test execution. The exact backend deployment 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>	2026-10-14 10:56:40 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	1e731520bb	fix(mcp): deduplicate discovered tool descriptors (#16281) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents receive governed app tools through the MCP gateway. > - GitHub review tasks can contain a PR discussion and inline finding threads. > - Discovery repeated each tool for every conversation linked to the task. > - Native tool registration treated these repeated descriptors as a fatal collision. > - This pull request lists GitHub tools once and deduplicates identical descriptors across providers. > - Agents can continue work while conflicting definitions and normal tool permissions remain enforced. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A follow-up run on a GitHub review task failed with `assigned_mcp_tool_name_collision` before the provider started. The task had a main conversation and an inline finding thread. Discovery returned the same seven tools twice. Repeated descriptors from other providers could cause the same failure. **Expected behavior** Discovery exposes each identical tool once. Separate connection names remain separate tools. Conflicting definitions remain an error. Every call still passes the gateway's policy, approval, revocation, and audit checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a GitHub review and publish an inline finding. 2. Send a follow-up request on the same PR task. 3. Inspect the task-bound bot catalog and the next native startup. 4. Separately, return two identical descriptors from an assigned app or plugin catalog. Related: #13717 added the GitHub review workflow. ## What Changed - Use a distinct GitHub discovery query across conversations that share an endpoint and task. Keep both thread mappings. - Deduplicate identical gateway descriptors by their full gateway name across providers. Use this rule for MCP listings, plugin listings, assigned-tool startup, and fresh assigned-tool discovery. - Reject conflicting descriptors with `tool_name_collision`. Keep the projected-name collision guard. - Cover GitHub inline-thread discovery, repeated plugin/app tools, direct and on-demand catalogs, revocation, conflicting bindings, and separate connection names. - Update the execution contract, GitHub documentation, and agent access map. ## Verification - Regression baseline: six new assertions failed on the original implementation. GitHub returned fourteen entries, plugin discovery repeated a tool, and native startup failed on repeated app tools. - Focused verification passed: 272 GitHub cases, all 29 assigned-tool cases, and all 88 gateway acceptance cases. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Current-head CI passed: 55 checks passed, two inapplicable checks skipped. Greptile scored the current head 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - Full local `pnpm test:run` encountered a 15-second timeout in the existing bearer-auth throttling test, before tool discovery. That test passed in the separate 88-case gateway run and on one isolated rerun. The duplicate broad local run was then stopped; the complete current-head CI matrix passed. ## Risks - Deduplication keeps the first identical descriptor and preserves listing order. Same-name descriptors with different definitions fail with HTTP 409 rather than selecting an ambiguous binding. - The GitHub query changes result cardinality. It retains the existing task/company/agent filters and leaves conversation rows intact. - No schema migration or credential change. Live staging recovery requires deployment and a new authorized run. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code inspection, editing, browser investigation, and test execution. The exact serving 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>	2026-10-14 07:39:54 -05:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	5ee9e751fb	fix(runner): discover assigned tools when direct catalogs exceed limits (#14218) ... Keep assigned app tools accessible when the combined Runner catalog exceeds its operation or byte limits. Reserve task and completion tools, then expose bounded discovery and call tools for large catalogs. Fetch oversized schemas in reauthorized chunks without blocking later search results. Retain task ownership, work-mode restrictions, pinned assignments, current gateway authorization, approvals, and audit. Small catalogs stay direct. Validation: 46 focused server tests, two Runner capacity tests, local typecheck/build, 52 passing CI checks, and Greptile 5/5 with no open findings. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-27 00:22:16 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	18dac1e1ef	feat(connections): add experimental memory providers and remote MCP access (#13942) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Connections give agents governed access to external tools. > - Agents need durable memory across tasks and execution environments. > - Mem0, Zep, Supermemory, Cognee, and Honcho provide hosted memory tools. > - This pull request adds their setup flows behind an experimental toggle. > - It also delivers assigned MCP tools through the native remote Codex runner. > - Operators can connect a provider once and use the same governed tools locally or in Daytona. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** The Apps catalog lacks a complete set of memory providers. Remote native Codex agents also need access to assigned managed MCP tools without receiving provider credentials. **Proposed solution** Add five memory connectors behind the disabled-by-default Experimental memory connectors setting. Use the existing connection setup and permissions UI. Default their tools to Allowed. Preserve company boundaries, operator permission changes, provider scopes, and audit attribution. **Alternatives considered** Direct provider credentials in each sandbox would duplicate setup and bypass the managed gateway. The remote runner instead uses its existing protocol channel to call the gateway on the server. **Roadmap alignment** This maintainer-requested experiment supports the Memory / Knowledge and Connected Apps roadmap areas. It adds provider connections without introducing a separate memory UI. Related connector authoring documentation is tracked in #13692; no duplicate memory-provider implementation was found. ## What Changed - Add provider definitions, official branding, and the experimental setting for all five providers. - Use OAuth for Zep and Supermemory, API credentials for Mem0 and Honcho, and a bundled Cloud API bridge for Cognee with no runtime downloads or subprocesses. - Default memory tools to Allowed and classify destructive actions explicitly. - Fix personal remote credential resolution and propagate provider tool errors. - Relay assigned managed MCP tools to remote native Codex through the runner protocol. Recheck current authority for each call and rotate stale tool contracts. - Add 21 Storybook states and complete OAuth walkthrough fixtures. - Document provider research, sanitized tool inventory, and live local and Daytona proof. ## Verification - Passed workspace typecheck: `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed production build: `pnpm build`. - Full local `pnpm test:run`: 13,273 passed, with failures from process/readiness timeouts under parallel load. Reran all 16 affected suites with one worker: 456 passed, leaving two macOS `/var` versus `/private/var` path assertions. Both passed with `TMPDIR=/private/tmp`. No test failures remain unverified. Latest-head remote CI passes all 54 checks (two optional Storybook jobs skipped). Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Latest Cognee gateway regression: 71 passed, including public deployment without a runtime host and immediate recovery after a provider error. Bundled bridge tests: 25 passed. - Browser setup and real agent tasks exercised all five providers. Mem0, Cognee, Zep, and Honcho have successful store/retrieve proof. - Supermemory now has scoped read/write consent. Local storage and real Daytona write, document read, and semantic recall passed; indexing completion was verified before claiming success. - All five providers were exercised through a real Daytona sandbox and its native runner MCP relay. Provider credentials remained on the server. The final bundled Cognee bridge also passed a fresh Daytona store/recall run. All disposable sandboxes were removed and verified absent after testing. - Storybook is rebuilt and contains the experimental toggle, catalog, setup, permissions, and error states. The Zep and Supermemory access steps advance correctly. ## Risks - Provider OAuth scopes and plan limits remain independent of Paperclip tool permissions. An Allowed tool can still be rejected by the provider. - Providers can queue memory indexing; save acceptance does not prove that semantic recall is ready. - Remote tool contracts must stay synchronized with current connection authority. Regression tests cover revocation and stale contracts. - This change has no database migration. Existing connections remain usable when the experimental catalog toggle is disabled. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 Astra (`gpt-6-astra`), with reasoning, repository edits, code execution, and browser automation. The exact context window size is not exposed in this session. Live acceptance agents used `gpt-5.6-sol`. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-24 15:54:38 -05:00