2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	71af2fbc3b	fix(slack): teach agents how people connect their accounts (#15576) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack connections let people talk to an agent with their own Paperclip permissions. > - Each bot has a saved command that starts account linking. > - The Access page explains this flow, but Slack agent turn context omitted it. > - An agent could guess the command or confuse channel membership with Paperclip access. > - This pull request gives agents the saved command and account confirmation instructions. > - People can ask the agent how to join without changing access controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Slack agent context explained messages, tools, and questions. It did not explain how a teammate can connect an account. The saved slash command can differ from the current agent name. **Expected behavior** Give the saved bot command, such as `/research_ops connect`. The teammate runs it themselves. They sign in through a private confirmation link. A new company member must receive admin approval before account confirmation. The connection manager can copy instructions from Access → Invite people. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a Slack bot with a custom slash command. 2. Rename its assigned agent. 3. Inspect a fresh or resumed Slack task prompt. Before this change, it contains no account invitation instructions or saved connect command. **Paperclip version or commit** Base: `d6df12cef69fcaf2d2fe66a393168931d5b8b4e7`. **Deployment mode** Applies to local and hosted Slack chat connections. Deterministic tests used a local isolated database. The new model probe has not run against a live Slack bot. Related work: Refs #15413 and #13638. This fixes agent guidance for their existing account-linking flow. It adds no new membership system or invitation endpoint. ## What Changed - Read only the saved public slash command from the company-scoped conversation endpoint. Supply it only to the assigned agent for Slack turns with an active or verifying connection. - Validate the command with the shared Slack configuration schema. Refer to Access → Invite people when it is missing or invalid. Never guess from the current agent name. - Explain personal account confirmation, link expiry, and company membership approval on fresh and resumed turns. Distinguish channel invitations from Paperclip access. - Add deterministic guidance regressions, a manual invitation model probe, and setup documentation. ## Verification - Passed: 63 tests in `heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` and `heartbeat-chat-task-link.test.ts`. - Passed: four real-heartbeat regressions in `heartbeat-slack-invitation.test.ts`. They check the saved command after an agent rename, a persisted resumed session, full and compact prompts, missing-command fallback, inactive endpoints, and a different assigned agent. They also reject caller-supplied command fields and exclude other setup metadata. - Passed: the isolated `chat-channels.integration.test.ts` case `discovers a Slack connect identity without starting work or granting access`. It covers the private link, duplicate connect requests, and nonmember access requests without a membership grant. - Passed: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`. - Passed: `pnpm test:slack-connector --list` and `git diff --check`. - Passed: repository `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates`. Typecheck required local IPC access for the migration check. - Passed: final-commit CI, with 54 successful checks and two optional Storybook checks skipped. CI includes all server, chat, workspace, serialized, Runner, and browser test shards, typecheck, build, and canary dry run. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was started. It was stopped after full CI passed; it had no final local summary. The focused invitation checks passed locally. Do not count the interrupted local run as a full-suite pass. - Greptile gave the exact final commit `f37e52bde621ef7f5b2bb345074d53345f8e4ee9` a 5/5 score. Both review findings were fixed and their threads resolved. - The new `invite-person` model probe is manual. These deterministic results do not establish a live model or Slack acceptance pass. ## Risks - Model guidance cannot prove that a person joined. The existing account-linking and membership checks remain authoritative. - Legacy rows without a saved command use the Access page fallback. Invalid command text is excluded from the prompt. - The query selects only the public command. It does not expose registration secrets, tokens, or personal confirmation links. - No schema changes, new provider requests, permission grants, or telemetry changes. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend variant and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-08 10:28:14 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	51653becc2	refactor(server): extract heartbeat task markdown rendering (#15568) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Heartbeat orchestration supplies each run with task context. > - The task Markdown renderer is inside a service with more than 31,000 lines. > - The renderer formats task data and does not write run state. > - It is a small first step toward a more manageable heartbeat service. > - This PR moves the renderer without changing its function body or public export. > - Direct tests and existing caller tests check the output before and after the move. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the structure and test coverage of heartbeat task context rendering. **Subsystem affected** server/ — orchestration services. **Current behavior** `buildPaperclipTaskMarkdown` occupies 352 lines inside `heartbeat.ts`. The service also owns run execution, scheduling, recovery, and cancellation. **Proposed behavior** Move the renderer to `heartbeat/task-markdown.ts`. Keep its function body and the existing `heartbeat.ts` export unchanged. Leave orchestration in place for this first PR. **Reason and benefit** Prompt formatting has its own small source file and direct regression tests. Reviewers can check this one extraction before a later refactor. **Breaking changes** None. The input type, rendered output, and existing import path stay the same. Related renderer changes: Refs: #4732, Refs: #14030. These PRs change prompt behavior. This PR only moves the current renderer. ## What Changed - Move the 352-line renderer to `server/src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.ts`. - Import and re-export it from `heartbeat.ts`. Remove imports used only by the renderer. - Add seven direct regression cases. Cover empty context, ordered comment-only wakes, input preservation, nested code fences, ancestor limits, attachment-only wakes, and rejected plans. - Keep the renderer and its direct tests in `server/src/services/heartbeat/`. Document this folder as the home for relevant later extractions in `doc/DEVELOPING.md`. ## Verification - The focused suite passed before and after extraction, and after moving to the heartbeat folder: four files, 85 tests. - Run `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/heartbeat/task-markdown.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-chat-task-link.test.ts server/src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts`. - The extracted function matches the original function byte for byte. The folder move only adjusts imports. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - The initial extraction passed local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. - The folder update passed `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` and `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server build`. - The initial extraction passed the full CI suite. Its duplicate local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after CI passed; it did not complete locally. - The folder update passed all CI gates on commit `e21e589b379d7ca2fae16c1dcd91cf2f604fd03f`: 54 passing checks, two skipped Storybook checks. Three test shards passed after one retry following simultaneous runner shutdowns; those failures had no failed test assertions. - Fresh Greptile review of commit `e21e589b379d7ca2fae16c1dcd91cf2f604fd03f`: 5/5, no actionable or inline findings. ## Risks - Low risk. A moved module can change import resolution or expose an import cycle. - Existing caller tests still load the compatibility export from `heartbeat.ts`. - The same guidance constants and public task URL resolver remain in use. - No run-state writes, transactions, locks, shared process state, or cleanup paths moved. - No database, API, telemetry, or UI contracts changed. > 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 GPT-6 via Codex. The exact serving model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, shell tools, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-08 09:06:04 -05:00