mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-30 05:16:50 +01:00
d66e96646de7bdaa4c1e3409f7806387a97d6649
1394
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0b496c9c03 |
feat(secrets): add run-bound agent secret access (#9921)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Agents already receive selected company secrets through `env.*` bindings at run launch, but environment injection is ambient, long-lived, and not suitable for every secret consumer. > - The existing binding and secret-access-event models already provide company-scoped authorization and per-resolution audit seams. > - Agents need an explicit way to discover only the secrets granted to them and fetch a value on demand without exposing the wider company catalog. > - That capability must remain run-bound, preserve low-trust token carve-outs, and make every value read visible in both security and operator audit trails. > - This pull request adds an `access.*` delivery namespace, two run-bound agent routes, dual audit logging, documentation, and an operator grants editor. > - The benefit is least-privilege, revocable, auditable secret access while preserving existing env injection behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No pre-existing public issue. Related work: - Refs #9797 — existing in-sheet agent access UI that this PR extends to distinguish env and API delivery. - Refs #9918 — complementary searchable-agent picker improvement for the same secrets sheet. - Refs #9530 — related company-wide metadata catalog proposal; this PR intentionally exposes only the authenticated run's granted aliases and values. **Problem / motivation:** Agents can currently consume secrets only through process environment injection. This keeps values resident for the run, does not support on-demand consumers, and cannot provide a discrete operator-visible activity event for each agent-initiated read. **Proposed solution:** Treat `company_secret_bindings` as the source of truth for agent secret grants. Keep `env.KEY` as env delivery and add `access.ALIAS` for API-only delivery; an env binding also implies read access because the value is already present in the agent process. Add run-bound list/fetch endpoints that derive scope from the authenticated heartbeat run and never accept caller-selected overlays. **Alternatives considered:** A company-wide agent-readable catalog was rejected for this value path because it increases reconnaissance and does not prove a per-secret grant. Reusing the ephemeral environment-probe resolver was rejected because it lacks binding enforcement. Approval-gated reads and user-scoped secrets remain deferred beyond v1. **Roadmap alignment:** This extends the completed **Secrets Manager with per-agent access** roadmap capability from launch-time env injection to explicit run-bound API delivery without duplicating a separate planned initiative. ## What Changed - Added `access.*` agent binding validation and a dedicated run-bound resolver that combines `secrets:read` authorization with binding-context enforcement. - Added `GET /api/agents/me/secrets` for minimal granted metadata and `POST /api/agents/me/secrets/:key/value` for on-demand value fetches with `Cache-Control: no-store`. - Preserved the existing denials for low-trust review agents, task-bridge credentials, and skill-test tokens; standard long-lived agent API keys cannot call the run-bound routes. - Added dual audit behavior: value attempts write `secret_access_events` and `activity_log` (`secret.value.read`), while metadata listing writes the lighter `secret.access.listed` activity event. - Kept env compatibility: `env.*` remains injected at launch and also implies API read for the same bound agent; `access.*` never becomes an environment variable. - Added the agent-settings **Secret access** editor plus delivery-mode/alias surfacing on the Secrets page, with focused UI tests and tokenized layout styles. - Updated OpenAPI, shared types, agent-facing skill documentation, and API reference documentation. ### UI Screenshots P3 produced and reviewed three screenshots using mock data; images are intentionally not committed to the repository: - `secret-access-editor.png` — agent settings grant editor. - `secret-access-light.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in light mode. - `secret-access-dark.png` — Secrets-page delivery surfacing in dark mode. The source attachments are retained with the implementation task and linked in the internal handoff; the public page publisher was unavailable in the PR-prep runtime. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/secret-delivery.test.ts ui/src/components/AgentSecretAccessEditor.test.tsx` — 5 files, 122 tests passed. - Security follow-up: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` — 2 files, 73 tests passed after active-run and version-consistency fixes. - Final-head CI: all feature, typecheck, build, e2e, security, and review gates pass; `General tests (server (1/3))` remains red after one rerun because unrelated `heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts` cleanup deletes `heartbeat_runs` before referenced `activity_log` rows. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — feature-local arbitrary-value violations fixed; command still reports five unchanged `#9627` literals outside this PR. - End-to-end QA passed all eight acceptance criteria: grant/list, fetch, dual audit, env-implies-read, denial matrix, revocation, UI rendering, and env-injection regression. Evidence: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455492 - Security review returned PASS-with-required-changes; the implementation uses the required dedicated binding-enforcing resolver, run-bound JWT restriction, run-derived overlays, minimal metadata, and a resolver redaction-registration hook. Evidence: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9921#issuecomment-5027455382 ## Risks - A compromised agent can exfiltrate any secret explicitly granted to it; explicit company-scoped/run-scoped grants, revocation, and audit reduce but cannot remove that inherent capability risk. - The resolver invokes a redaction-registration hook before returning values, but the current route has no persistent cross-request per-run redaction registry. Paperclip-owned later comments/events therefore cannot yet guarantee automatic scrubbing of a deliberately copied fetched value; QA classified this as non-blocking residual hardening. - Audit-event insertion currently fails open if the security-event insert itself fails; the operator activity event provides partial redundancy, but a future hardening change should define fail-closed behavior for value delivery. - This PR overlaps `ui/src/pages/Secrets.tsx` with #9918 and may require a straightforward rebase after that PR moves. > 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-5.3-codex`, with reasoning, repository tool use, terminal execution, Paperclip API access, and GitHub CLI capabilities. Context-window size is not exposed by the runtime. - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 with 1M context and tool use assisted with the UI implementation commit. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d23fbf8ae4 |
feat(connections): add AppDefinition Wave 1 catalog (#9981)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Connections is the subsystem that defines which external apps and MCP-style integrations operators can browse, configure, and run > - The v3 schema core in #9958 added stable connection identities, auth metadata, and grant-aware contracts, but the app catalog still used the older gallery shape > - The product needs a richer, typed AppDefinition catalog so browsing and setup can render provider-specific auth and configuration requirements consistently > - This pull request moves the Wave 1 app catalog onto generated AppDefinition data and carries that shape through shared types, server lookup paths, and app connection UI > - The benefit is that follow-up runtime and wizard work can build against one catalog contract instead of local-only mock/gallery data ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9958. No public GitHub issue exists for this branch. This is the catalog layer for the Connections v3 stack after the schema-core foundation in #9958. ## What Changed - Adds generated AppDefinition data for the Wave 1 catalog and ingestion reporting. - Replaces the legacy tool app gallery exports with AppDefinition-centered shared contracts, validators, and tests. - Updates server tool-access lookup behavior to use the AppDefinition catalog. - Updates app connection UI surfaces and tests to consume AppDefinition-backed catalog data. - Documents the catalog ingestion workflow in the connector playbook. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts packages/shared/src/app-definitions-url.test.ts ui/src/pages/apps/AppsConnect.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` ## Risks - Medium: this changes the catalog contract used by shared, server, and UI app connection surfaces. - Catalog data quality matters because generated definitions now drive browse/setup display. - Follow-up runtime and wizard PRs must rebase on this branch or on master after this lands. > 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-5 Codex coding agent with repository tool use. ## 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
|
7e00f67138 |
feat(connections): add v3 schema core (#9958)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their governed access to external systems. > - Connected Apps build on the existing Apps and MCP gateway substrate so companies can configure reusable, auditable integrations. > - The current connection record does not yet have a stable public address, explicit ownership/auth method fields, or subject-specific credential grants. > - Without that schema core, later OAuth, per-user authorization, token brokering, triggers, and connector-service phases cannot enforce tenant and subject boundaries consistently. > - This pull request adds the forward-compatible Connections v3 schema core while preserving the existing connection lifecycle and directly migrating the remote MCP transport name. > - The benefit is a company-scoped, least-privilege foundation for one-click integrations without bypassing Paperclip secrets, profiles, rules, or audit controls. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public issue was found. **Problem** Paperclip's current app connections need a durable identity and authorization substrate before Connected Apps can safely support multiple setup methods, per-user credentials, provider tenants, and managed connector services. The existing schema only models a single connection-level credential set and uses legacy transport terminology. **Proposed solution** Add a stable company-scoped connection UID, explicit ownership/auth/transport fields, a subject-aware `connection_grants` table, and multi-key credential annotations. Backfill existing connections and workspace grants in a reversible migration, then update shared/server/UI contracts to the new `mcp_remote` transport name. **Related work** - Related foundation: #9534 - Roadmap: Connected Apps (one-click integrations) ## What Changed - Added company-scoped connection `uid`, `ownership`, `authKind`, and canonical transport fields across database, shared contracts, validators, services, and UI fixtures. - Added `connection_grants` with workspace/user subject rules, provider tenant metadata, credential secret refs, revocation state, company scoping, and uniqueness constraints. - Added migration `0182_connections_v3_schema_core` to backfill stable UIDs, rename `remote_http` to `mcp_remote`, infer auth kinds, create default workspace grants, and support rollback coverage. - Added multi-key credential annotations and updated gateway/access services without changing the existing lifecycle behavior. - Updated the connection glossary, connector playbook, and security threat model for the new identity, grant, and relay boundaries. - Added explicit test UIDs to direct database fixtures so the new non-null invariant is exercised across affected server suites. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-gateway.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-skills.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-oauth-legacy-backfill.test.ts server/src/__tests__/tool-access-policy-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-runtime-mcp-servers.test.ts packages/db/src/connections-v3-schema-core-migration.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/tool-access.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` — 9 files, 218 tests passed. - Latest-head GitHub Actions: build, typecheck, general/serialized suites, backup/worktree restore coverage, both e2e shards, canary, policy, and security scans pass. - Greptile: 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - `pnpm check:token-gates` remains red only on five pre-existing `#9627` color literals outside this change. ## Risks - **Migration risk:** UID backfill and default-grant creation touch every existing connection. The migration uses company-scoped uniqueness, deterministic legacy UIDs with ID suffixes, and seeded up/rollback coverage. - **Authorization risk:** Grant rows carry credential references. Constraints enforce workspace-vs-user subject shape, company/connection lookup indexes, one default grant per connection, and one user grant per connection/subject. Security review is requested specifically for this design. - **Compatibility risk:** `remote_http` is renamed directly to `mcp_remote`; all repository call sites and fixtures are updated in the same change. - **Future-phase risk:** Subject-bound token issuance, triggers, and connector-service relay verification remain fail-closed requirements documented for later phases; this PR does not expose those capabilities. > 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 CLI coding agent. The runtime did not expose an exact underlying model ID or context-window size; capabilities used include repository inspection, code editing, shell execution, test execution, Git/GitHub CLI operations, and structured reasoning. ## 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> |
||
|
|
6439572ecd |
fix(ui): sync cron validity + settle branch test for radix-ui 1.6.4 (#9966)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open-source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The `ui` package contains React components that drive the agent scheduling and workspace configuration UX > - Dependabot PR #9895 bumped `@radix-ui/react-*` from 1.6.0 → 1.6.4, which changed the internal effect-scheduling order inside Dialog and Select primitives > - Two `workspaces-a` CI tests started failing: `RoutineRunVariablesDialog` and `editable-sections / TriggersSection` > - Root cause for both: radix 1.6.4's changed scheduling pushes a cascaded state update one render-tick later, and each test asserted before that tick landed > - This PR fixes the two affected surfaces at the source (one production fix, one test fix) so the radix bump can land cleanly > - The benefit is unblocking PR #9895 without compromising test fidelity or production correctness ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9895 — this PR fixes the two `workspaces-a` test failures that blocked the radix-ui 1.6.0 → 1.6.4 Dependabot bump. **Root cause:** radix-ui 1.6.4 changed the internal effect-scheduling order inside its Dialog and Select primitives, pushing certain cascaded state updates one render-tick later than before. Two tests each asserted against the intermediate state, before the deferred tick landed. **Affected tests (both now pass at radix 1.6.0 AND 1.6.4):** 1. `editable-sections / TriggersSection` — `ScheduleEditor` disabled-button assertion 2. `RoutineRunVariablesDialog` — workspace branch propagation assertion Production behavior is unchanged and correct in both cases (verified via tracing). ## What Changed - **`ui/src/components/ScheduleEditor.tsx`** — `onValidityChange` is now called synchronously inside the custom-cron `onChange` handler, not only via the passive `useEffect` below. Previously there was a one-render window where an invalid draft still read as valid to the parent (button enabled); this closes that window. The effect call is preserved as a safety net for other entry paths; only the `onChange` path is new. - **`ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx`** — the post-mount settle loop now waits for the branch value to actually appear in an `<input>` (`value === "pap-1634-routine-branch"`) rather than exiting as soon as the workspace card mounts. The card reports its branch name through an effect callback that triggers a follow-up render; the old loop exited one tick too early. Iteration cap raised from 10 → 20 to give the extra tick room. This PR intentionally does **not** bump radix-ui — that stays in #9895. ## Verification ```sh # TypeScript — clean at radix 1.6.0 (master): tsc -p ui/tsconfig.json # Targeted vitest: npx vitest run ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx npx vitest run ui/src/components/editable-sections npx vitest run ui/src/components/ScheduleEditor # Full ui suite — green with radix 1.6.4 installed locally (371 files / 3035 tests): npx vitest run --project ui # check-forbidden-tokens — clean ``` All of the above pass at **both** radix 1.6.0 (current master) and 1.6.4. ## Risks Low risk. The production change (`ScheduleEditor.tsx`) adds a synchronous call to an already-injected `onValidityChange` prop — same value, earlier in the same event cycle. No new state, no new effects, no API changes. The test change tightens an assertion (waits longer, checks a more specific condition) rather than relaxing one. ## Model Used Claude Sonnet (Anthropic) — Paperclip agent workflow; model family claude-sonnet-4-x with tool use and extended reasoning enabled. ## 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: Harold Kim <harold@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
53d6297f75 |
fix(ui): simplify external object labels and star controls (#9929)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents and their work > - Operators rely on task detail properties and header actions to scan linked resources and make quick decisions > - External GitHub objects used a long pull-request label and repeated mention counts that added visual noise without adding state > - The task-detail star action also rendered as a labelled outline button, unlike the compact star controls used elsewhere > - These inconsistencies made dense task-detail surfaces slower to scan and broke Paperclip's content-first visual language > - This pull request shortens the GitHub pull-request label, removes duplicate mention-count decoration, and aligns the detail star action with the icon-only control pattern > - The benefit is a calmer, more consistent task-detail experience with accessible labels preserved for assistive technology ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue or open pull request was found. **What happened?** On the task detail surface, linked GitHub pull requests were labelled `Github Pull Request` and could show a repeated `×N` mention count. The detail-header star control used a labelled outline button rather than the compact icon-only star pattern. **Expected behavior** Linked pull requests should use the concise `Github PR` label without duplicate mention-count decoration, and the detail star action should render as an accessible icon-only ghost button consistent with neighboring controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task with a linked GitHub pull request mentioned more than once. 2. Inspect the external-object property label and value row. 3. Inspect the star action in the task detail header. **Paperclip version or commit:** `230126d80b` (`master` at preparation time) **Deployment / installation:** Local development, built from source. **Scope:** Core UI; not adapter-specific, database-related, or configuration-related. ## What Changed - Render GitHub pull-request property labels as `Github PR`. - Remove repeated external-object mention-count decoration from property values. - Render detail-header star controls as icon-only ghost buttons while preserving `aria-label`, pressed, busy, error, and tooltip states. - Expand component coverage for concise labels, duplicate-count suppression, visual variants, and accessible star actions. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx src/components/StarToggle.test.tsx` — 54 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Visual review (before/after plus normal, starred, pending, and error states): https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://gist.githubusercontent.com/cryppadotta/9688862a8826c1134aa2b2e8c16509d8/raw/45cb4921851f8968b21e7490e0d705161a9e165d/star-toggle-review.html - `pnpm check:token-gates` — reports five existing `#9627` violations in files unchanged by this PR; the same values are present on `master`. ## Risks - Low risk: changes are limited to task-detail presentation and tests. - The star action remains fully accessible through its existing ARIA label and tooltip, but it no longer displays visible text. - External-object mention counts remain available in data; only the redundant property-row decoration is removed. > 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-5.3 Codex, tool-enabled coding agent with repository and shell access. ## 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
|
b9f4073a13 |
fix(ui): use searchable agent picker for secret access (#9918)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - Operators need to grant secrets to specific agents safely and efficiently. > - The secrets access sheet previously used a native select while similar agent-assignment surfaces use a searchable picker. > - That inconsistency makes finding an agent slow and error-prone as companies grow. > - This pull request reuses the shared agent picker behavior for single-agent secret access grants. > - The benefit is a consistent, searchable selection experience without changing secret-access semantics. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9797 **Problem / motivation:** The in-sheet agent access form introduced in #9797 renders every grantable agent in a native select. In companies with many agents, operators cannot filter by name or title and the experience differs from other agent-selection surfaces. **Proposed solution:** Add a single-select variant beside the existing `AgentMultiSelect`, then use it in the secret access grant form. **Alternatives considered:** Keeping a native select would preserve less code but would not scale or align with existing searchable agent selection. **Roadmap alignment:** This is a focused usability fix for an existing core control-plane surface and does not overlap an unstarted roadmap initiative. ## What Changed - Added `AgentSelect`, a searchable single-agent popover that filters by agent name and title. - Replaced the secret access form's native select with the shared searchable picker. - Added focused coverage for filtering, selecting, callback behavior, and popover closure. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/AgentMultiSelect.test.tsx` — passes (3 tests). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — branch adds no violations; the command currently fails on five unchanged `#9627` literals already present on `master`. - Manual: open Secrets, choose a secret, add agent access, filter by agent name or title, select the result, and grant access. ## Risks - Low risk: the change is limited to agent selection UI and preserves the existing grant request payload. - The new picker depends on the existing popover/input primitives and resets its filter when closed. > 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-series coding agent (exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed), with reasoning, repository tool use, terminal execution, and GitHub CLI capabilities. ## 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> |
||
|
|
f12bb27bcd |
feat: make issue monitors visible across task surfaces (#9783)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to supervise AI-agent companies. > - Operators need task execution state to be visible where they read, reply to, and manage an issue. > - Scheduled monitor state was easy to miss because it lived in a description-area card and used inconsistent, mostly static time copy. > - The task page, composer, retry card, and properties panel therefore needed one shared monitor-state and countdown language. > - This pull request adds shared live-ticking time utilities, moves monitor status into a top-of-page banner and composer strip, and redesigns the properties row with complete read-only details. > - The benefit is that operators can immediately understand when an agent resumes, why it is waiting, and how to act without hunting across the page. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Issue monitors can schedule a future agent check, retry, or wake, but the UI did not present that state consistently or prominently. The existing description-area activity card competed with issue content, the composer did not explain that replying wakes the agent early, compact properties copy truncated important details, and relative times did not share a live two-unit formatter. This change makes scheduled monitor state visible and consistent across the issue header, reply composer, properties panel, and scheduled-retry card. Related prior server-side recovery visibility work: #9629 (distinct scope). ## What Changed - Added shared two-unit monitor ETA/offset formatters and a live-ticking countdown hook, including compact absolute-time rules for Today, weekday, and cross-year dates. - Replaced the description-area monitor activity card with a top-of-page status banner and added an inline composer strip that explains replies wake the agent before the scheduled check. - Redesigned the properties Monitor row as readable two-line copy with attempt state, due/overdue/cleared wording, click-to-edit behavior, and a hover/tap details tooltip. - Adopted the shared two-unit formatting in the scheduled-retry card and added focused coverage for monitor formatting, state transitions, visibility, and controls. - Added the approved wireframe package and published reference: https://pages.paperclip.ing/pap-14557-monitor-visibility/ ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-monitor.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueMonitorBanner.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 3 files, 74 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed with existing Vite optimization/chunk-size warnings. - UX review approved the rendered real components across desktop/mobile, light/dark, and the scheduled/retrying/due/overdue/cleared/none state matrix. - QA passed 6/6 criteria in Chromium, including a live countdown transition without refresh. Review evidence included the P2 banner state-matrix screenshot and the P3 properties-row and details-tooltip screenshots, plus a dark-mode capture. - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports five pre-existing `#9627` comment literals on `origin/master`; this branch introduces none of those literals or any new token violation. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate UI behavior risk: monitor copy and placement change across several issue surfaces, but all derive from one shared state builder and focused tests cover the state matrix. - Countdown rendering wakes once per minute while a visible monitor is scheduled; the hook is limited to active monitor surfaces and stops when hidden. - No database, API contract, migration, telemetry, or authorization behavior changes. > 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-5.6-sol`; context-window metadata was unavailable in this runtime; reasoning, repository tool use, command execution, and test execution enabled. Earlier implementation commits were assisted by Claude Fable 5 and Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context), as credited in their commit trailers. ## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
051ae4d102 |
feat: restore decision training library and inspector (#9779)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and supervise governed work. > - Decisions capture high-value operator judgment, and the decision-training foundation merged in #9702 freezes that evidence for later evaluation and learning. > - Operators still need the UI from the closed stacked PR #9718 to intentionally capture examples and inspect the resulting dataset. > - GitHub automatically closed #9718 when its stacked base branch was deleted after #9702 merged, leaving the server foundation on `master` without the corresponding UI. > - This pull request restores the final UI and its still-required supporting API fields directly on current `master`, while excluding the obsolete migration and duplicated server-foundation diffs. > - The benefit is a reviewable replacement PR that preserves the completed decision-training workflow without replaying stale stack history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #9718 - Refs #9702 ## What Changed - Restored the top-level `/training` library and record inspector with search, filters, JSONL export, notes editing, and evidence tabs. - Restored the Decisions-row training affordance and capture drawer, including preview, provenance, deletion, cache refresh, and approval consistency behavior. - Restored the shared types and focused server support needed by the UI without reintroducing decision-training migrations or the already-merged server foundation. - Restored focused UI and attention-service tests from the final #9718 state. - Credit to the authors and reviewers of #9718; this recovery transplants their final reviewed delta after the stacked base deletion. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Training.test.tsx ui/src/components/DecisionTrainingDrawer.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 5 files, 48 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — 3 tests passed; confirms exact route/OpenAPI parity for the restored preview endpoint. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — the restored files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports five pre-existing false positives where comments reference GitHub issue `#9627` as if it were a color literal. ## Risks - Low migration risk: this PR contains no database migrations and is based directly on current `master`. - The main behavioral risk is cache invalidation across Decisions and Training views; focused tests cover capture, update, deletion, row state, and approval refresh behavior. - The token-gate baseline remains red on unrelated `#9627` comment references; this PR does not modify those files. > 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-5.3-Codex, reasoning with repository/tool access and code execution. Context window 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 - [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
|
a090c09ee5 |
feat: add decision training snapshot foundation (#9702)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - Human approvals, issue interactions, and execution decisions already capture high-value decision moments > - Those moments are currently transient and cannot be reused as stable evaluation or training examples > - Reusable examples need a server-owned, immutable snapshot so later comments or runs cannot leak into the recorded state > - Human notes need to remain editable and auditable without changing the captured state > - This pull request adds the database model, snapshot capture service, API, export format, and attention-feed enrichment for decision training > - The benefit is a durable, inspectable foundation for evaluating whether agents can reproduce good human decisions from only the context available at decision time ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting (`server/`, `packages/db`, and `packages/shared`). ### Problem or motivation Paperclip has no durable dataset for converting human decisions into evaluation-ready examples. Teams need to capture pending or resolved decisions with the exact issue context, comments, runs, and repository evidence available at a cutoff, while preventing future context from leaking into the example. ### Proposed solution Store immutable, schema-versioned snapshots anchored to durable interaction, approval, or execution-decision records; keep notes separately editable with history; expose human-only CRUD, list, and JSONL export APIs. ### Alternatives considered Client-generated snapshots were rejected because they duplicate cutoff logic and cannot reliably enforce no-leakage boundaries. Automatic outcome backfill was deferred so captured examples remain faithful to what was known at capture time. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the roadmap direction of turning completed work and decision patterns into reusable organizational knowledge. ### Additional context The implementation records explicit commit-resolution confidence (`exact`, `nearest_run`, `workspace`, or `none`) so downstream evaluation can distinguish evidence quality. ## What Changed - Added the `decision_training_examples` schema and idempotent migration with company, issue, and source/author indexes. - Added shared types for decision-training records, notes history, and versioned snapshots. - Added a single server-side snapshot capture path with inclusive comment cutoffs, pre-cutoff run capture, durable decision payloads, and explicit commit-resolution confidence. - Added create, list, detail, notes-only update, delete, and JSONL export routes with human-only write authorization and activity logging that skips no-op note submissions. - Added per-user `trainingExampleId` enrichment to attention items. - Added focused embedded-Postgres tests for cutoff boundaries, post-cutoff leakage, immutable snapshots, human-only writes, duplicate prevention, notes history, attention enrichment, and export shape. - Updated UI test and Storybook attention-item factories for the new required `trainingExampleId` contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/decision-training.test.ts` — 10 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - The migration adds a new table and indexes only; it does not rewrite existing rows or install resolve-time hooks. - Snapshot JSON can grow with long comment threads and run histories; v1 intentionally favors complete, inspectable examples over aggressive truncation. - Commit SHA resolution is evidence-based and records `exact`, `nearest_run`, or `none` so downstream consumers can account for confidence. - The API is additive, but future UI work must continue to treat the snapshot as immutable and use notes-only updates. > 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 using `gpt-5.3-codex`, with repository tool use, terminal execution, and code-editing capabilities; context-window size is 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
1f1f545238 |
feat: add built-in summarizer and summary slots (#9713)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize, govern, and understand AI-agent work > - Operators need concise, current status views across projects and execution workspaces without manually reading every issue and run > - Paperclip already has auditable issues, documents, built-in agents, routines, and live run events, but no first-class summary-slot workflow connecting those systems > - A built-in Summarizer can generate status prose through ordinary governed tasks while summary slots provide stable, revisioned destinations for that output > - The UI needs to show current summaries, generation progress, failures, revisions, and streaming draft status in the places operators already work > - This pull request adds the end-to-end summary-slot data, API, agent, orchestration, and UI surfaces behind an experimental setting > - The benefit is decision-oriented status context that remains company-scoped, auditable, retryable, and inexpensive by default ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. **Problem** Operators currently have to reconstruct project and workspace status by reading many issues, runs, and comments. This makes it hard to identify decisions, review queues, recent work, and the next event worth watching. **Proposed capability** Add an experimental summary system with revisioned summary slots for projects and workspaces, a paused-by-default built-in Summarizer agent, governed generation tasks, live draft status, and reusable UI cards. **Expected behavior** - Summary data remains company-scoped and revisions remain auditable. - Generation runs through normal issue/agent orchestration and deduplicates active requests. - Only the linked built-in Summarizer generation task can author a slot revision. - Operators can generate, retry, inspect revisions, and follow draft progress from project and workspace views. - The feature remains opt-in and background generation remains paused by default. ## What Changed - Added summary-slot schema, idempotent migrations, shared contracts, validators, API paths, and service tests. - Added company-scoped summary-slot routes for reading revisions, requesting generation, and guarded Summarizer writes with activity logging. - Added terminal generation finalization, failure reasons, assignment wakeups, and orchestration integration. - Added the paused-by-default built-in Summarizer bundle, low-cost runtime defaults, status-summarization skill, and stale-summary routine. - Added summary cards, revision selection, retry/configuration states, live draft streaming, transcript chunk handling, and project/workspace integrations. - Updated Claude local parsing for streamed status output and expanded server, adapter, shared, database, catalog, and UI coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/summary-slots-schema.test.ts packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slot-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts server/src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/SummarySlotCard.status.test.tsx ui/src/components/useSummaryDraftStream.test.tsx ui/src/lib/summary-draft-stream.test.ts ui/src/lib/run-log-chunks.test.ts ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.hook.test.tsx` — 113 tests passed - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI suites passed; one CLI AWS doctor test was affected by inherited `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID`/`AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, and passed when those host credentials were removed - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` with inherited AWS credential variables removed — 8 tests passed - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` currently reports nine `#9627` comment references introduced by current `master`; none are in this PR diff ## Risks - Database risk is limited by incrementally ordered, idempotent migrations and migration safety checks. - Summary generation creates normal issues/runs, so misconfiguration can produce failed slots; the UI exposes retryable failure reasons and agent configuration entry points. - Streaming draft parsing depends on the documented `STATUS:` protocol; final persisted revisions remain the source of truth. - The feature is experimental, opt-in, and its built-in routine is paused with no background token spend by default. > 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-5.3 Codex with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip control-plane integration. Earlier branch commits also record Claude model co-authorship where applicable. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
009410164f |
Fix inbox unread badge alignment (#9685)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Inbox lets operators scan task state and distinguish unread activity at a glance > - Read and unread rows should keep the same status-and-title alignment so the list remains easy to scan > - The mark-read dot previously participated in flex layout, which added an extra leading column and visibly indented unread rows > - Parent rows also needed special handling because their collapse chevron occupies the normal leading gutter > - This pull request moves the unread dot out of desktop flex flow, preserves a consistent leading spacer, and positions parent-row dots after the chevron > - The benefit is consistent alignment for read, unread, leaf, nested, and collapsible parent rows without hiding tree controls ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? In the Inbox, an unread row rendered its status icon and title farther right than an equivalent read row because the mark-read dot occupied its own flex column. On a collapsible parent row, the dot also competed with the leading chevron. ### Expected behavior Read and unread Inbox rows keep identical status/title alignment while preserving the unread affordance and any tree-expansion controls. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run Paperclip from `master` and open the Inbox at desktop width. 2. Compare otherwise-equivalent read and unread leaf rows. 3. Expand a task tree containing an unread depth-zero parent. 4. Observe the unread row indentation and the dot competing with the parent chevron. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against the pre-fix `master` parent of this PR. - **Deployment mode:** Local dev (`pnpm dev`). - **Installation method:** Built from source. - **Agent adapters involved:** Not adapter-specific; this is a core Inbox UI bug. - **Database mode:** Not database-related. - **Access context:** Board (human operator). - **Additional context:** No logs or configuration are involved; the regression is visual layout behavior covered by focused component/page tests. ## What Changed - Render the desktop unread dot as an absolute overlay so it does not consume row width; retain the existing in-flow behavior on mobile. - Add an `unreadDotPlacement` option so depth-zero collapsible parents place the dot after the leading chevron. - Reserve the same leading spacer for read and unread non-chevron Inbox rows. - Expand `IssueRow` and Inbox tests to cover leaf alignment, nested rows, parent chevrons, fading state, and mobile behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 2 files, 30 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all three token gates clean across 630 scanned files. - Browser QA (desktop 1280px and mobile 375px) — PASS: read/unread desktop content measured at identical x positions; nested guides, parent chevron hit target, fading state, and mobile mark-read hit targets verified. ## Risks - Low risk: the change is isolated to Inbox row presentation and has focused regression coverage. - The main visual risk is breakpoint-specific placement of the mark-read dot; tests explicitly cover desktop absolute positioning and mobile in-flow positioning. > 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-5.6-sol`, high reasoning effort, with repository/tool execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. - Original implementation commit also records assistance from Claude Opus 4.8. ## 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 Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
5d42382df4 |
feat(ui): stabilize workspace service controls (#9705)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent work. > - Execution workspaces provide the local service loop where operators start, stop, restart, inspect, and open workspace services. > - The existing header exposed those actions through separate controls whose position and labeling changed across runtime states. > - That movement made the most common development actions harder to scan and easier to misclick, especially with multiple services or long URLs. > - The design therefore uses one fixed-geometry, state-aware control bar and keeps service-specific detail behind a compact disclosure. > - This pull request adds that control surface, maps existing runtime data and every pending mutation into it, and integrates it into the execution-workspace header without changing server contracts. > - The benefit is a calmer, predictable service-control loop across stopped, transitional, running, unhealthy, failed, multi-service, and narrow-width states. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected `ui/ — React + Vite board UI` ### Problem or motivation Execution-workspace service actions move and change shape as runtime state changes, while URLs and multi-service status compete for header space. During bulk actions, operators also need every targeted service to show its transitional state immediately. ### Proposed solution Use one fixed-geometry, state-aware service control bar in the workspace header. Map existing runtime records into a stable status, URL, and actions model, and track each in-flight bulk request independently until it settles. ### Alternatives considered Keeping the separate quick-control buttons was rejected because their geometry changes by state. Showing every service inline was rejected because it makes the header too wide; per-service detail remains in a compact disclosure and the Services tab. ### Roadmap alignment Reviewed `ROADMAP.md`; this focused execution-workspace UI improvement does not duplicate a listed roadmap initiative. ### Additional context The published design and state viewer is available at https://pages.paperclip.ing/pap-14233-workspace-service-controls/. ## What Changed - Added `WorkspaceServiceControlBar`, a fixed-geometry responsive control for single- and multi-service runtime states. - Added 15 Storybook states covering running, stopped, transitions, unhealthy, failed, disabled, long-URL, mobile, and multi-service behavior. - Replaced `WorkspaceRuntimeQuickControls` in the execution-workspace header with adapters that map live services and all pending requests into the new control model. - Added focused unit coverage for service-entry construction, bulk pending overlays, request resolution, clipboard feedback, and header integration. ## Verification - `cd ui && NODE_ENV=development pnpm vitest run src/components/WorkspaceServiceControlBar.test.tsx src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` — 29 tests passed. - `NODE_ENV=development pnpm --dir ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean. - Reviewed the Storybook captures for all primary states. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate UI risk: service controls depend on adapter mapping from existing runtime records; focused tests cover single-service and bulk-action mapping and integration paths. - Multi-service bulk actions intentionally apply to all eligible services, while per-service actions remain in the disclosure. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.3-codex`; runtime-managed context window; coding/reasoning mode with repository, terminal, Git, GitHub CLI, and test execution 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
59fb27ff79 |
feat(inbox): let agents safely tidy user inboxes (#9724)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and their work > - The inbox is a per-user attention view, so archiving an item must not alter the underlying issue, assignment, or status > - Agents can help responsible users tidy resolved work only when the action is company-scoped, reversible, policy-controlled, and fully attributable > - The database and authorization foundations landed in #9654 and #9658, but the end-to-end archive routes, audit details, agent workflow guidance, and operator UI still need to ship together > - Separate stacked PRs #9659 and #9661 made the complete behavior harder to review and land as one coherent capability > - This pull request consolidates the remaining server, shared-contract, documentation, skill, and UI work on top of current master > - The benefit is a single reviewable change that lets agents safely archive responsible-user inbox items and lets users control or undo that behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Cross-cutting inbox management across shared contracts, server authorization/routes/services, shipped agent skills, and the board UI. ### Problem or motivation Agents may complete work whose issue remains in the responsible user's Mine inbox. Existing board-user archive behavior does not provide the agent-facing policy endpoints, target resolution, heartbeat-run attribution, typed denials, conservative workflow guidance, or UI needed for safe agent-managed cleanup. ### Proposed solution Allow authorized agents to archive or unarchive responsible-user inbox items under the user's open, allowlist, or disabled policy; preserve actor/agent/run attribution in issue detail and activity records; expose policy controls and agent archive attribution in the UI; and document conservative cleanup rules for agents and PR gardening. ### Alternatives considered - Reuse generic issue mutation permissions: rejected because inbox state belongs to a target user and requires user-scoped authorization. - Automatically archive every completed or closed item: rejected because completion signals can still require human review or a decision. - Keep the backend and UI as separate stacked PRs: superseded by this consolidated PR so the complete user-visible behavior can be reviewed and verified together. ### Related work - Builds on merged foundations #9654 and #9658. - Supersedes the remaining stacked changes in #9659 and #9661. - `ROADMAP.md` has no overlapping inbox archive or inbox authorization initiative. ## What Changed - Added shared inbox-agent policy types and validators plus company-scoped self-service policy routes and OpenAPI coverage. - Enabled agent archive/unarchive mutations with responsible-user targeting, policy enforcement, typed failures, attribution, idempotency, and detailed activity auditing. - Returned agent archive attribution in issue detail and documented reversible inbox cleanup semantics in the implementation spec and Paperclip skill. - Added conservative PR-gardening inbox tidy guidance that keeps GitHub access read-only and avoids archiving work that still needs human action. - Added the Profile settings policy control and Issue Properties attribution/unarchive UI with focused component coverage and narrow-pane handling. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-agent-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ui/src/components/InboxAgentPolicyControl.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 110 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/inbox-archive-agent-policies-migration.test.ts` — 1 passed. - `node --test .agents/skills/pr-gardening/scripts/pr-gardening.test.mjs` — 9 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — changed files are clean; the repository-wide command currently reports nine unrelated pre-existing `#9627` literals outside this PR's diff. ## Risks - Agent inbox mutations broaden an existing endpoint path, so authorization and target resolution must remain fail-closed; focused route and authorization tests cover allowed and denied paths. - Archive state affects only the responsible user's inbox presentation and remains reversible; it does not mutate issue status, assignment, or visibility. - The UI policy defaults to the existing open behavior, while allowlist and disabled modes can reduce agent access. - This PR intentionally builds on #9654 and #9658 and contains no new migration number or modification to an already-applied migration. > 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 using GPT-5.4, medium reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, code review, 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 (`feat/inbox-agent-archive-complete`) 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
89af58b6dc |
Clarify task-level model overrides in issue properties (#9710)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane where operators configure and inspect AI-agent work. > - An issue can override the assigned agent's primary model for that task. > - The issue-properties UI labeled that per-task setting as `Custom · <model>`, which could be read as a property of the model rather than a replacement of the agent default. > - Operators need the UI to distinguish the agent's primary model from an issue-specific override at both the collapsed summary and selection point. > - This pull request renames the lane presentation to `Override` and adds concise provenance text without changing the stored lane value or adapter configuration behavior. > - The benefit is that operators can immediately understand which model will run and why it differs from the agent default. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. Related implementation work: #9700 moved Codex ACPX model configuration to startup and is already on `master`; #9355 also addresses ACP session-config rejection behavior. Those PRs concern execution behavior, while this PR is limited to clarifying the issue-level override UI. Bug report details: - **What happened?** The issue-properties Model row displayed `Custom · <model>` for a task-level `assigneeAdapterOverrides.adapterConfig.model`. Operators could misread `Custom` as describing the model itself and could not see that the value replaced the agent's primary model for this issue. - **Expected behavior:** The UI should explicitly identify a task-level model as an override and explain that it replaces the agent's primary model for the issue. - **Steps to reproduce:** Configure an agent with a primary model, set a different model on an issue, and inspect the Model row and model picker in Issue Properties. - **Paperclip version or commit:** Reproduced on the pre-change branch derived from current `master`. - **Deployment mode:** Local development or any deployment using the board UI. - **Installation method:** Built from source. - **Agent adapters involved:** Adapter-agnostic; any adapter exposing model selection. - **Database mode:** Not database-related. - **Access context:** Board operator viewing issue properties. - **Relevant logs or output:** Not applicable; this is a presentation ambiguity. - **Relevant config:** An issue-level `assigneeAdapterOverrides.adapterConfig.model` differing from the assigned agent's primary model. - **Additional context:** The internal lane identifier remains `custom`; only user-facing copy and explanatory text change. - **Privacy checklist:** No private instance links, internal ticket IDs, secrets, usernames, or local paths are included. ## What Changed - Renamed the collapsed issue model label from `Custom · <model>` to `Override · <model>` and added a provenance tooltip. - Renamed the model-picker lane from `Custom` to `Override` and added explanatory subtext at the selection point. - Updated the Issue Properties component test to assert the new label. - Added an isolated Storybook fixture for the task model override state so visual review has a stable target. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — 43 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — the changed files are clean, but the repo-wide command currently reports nine unrelated `#9627` comment references already present on `master` as color literals. ## Risks - Low risk: this changes display strings and explanatory copy only; override storage, lane identifiers, API contracts, and execution behavior are unchanged. - The global token-gate false positive may also appear in CI until the unrelated `#9627` references on `master` are allowlisted or the scanner ignores issue-number comments. > 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 coding agent assisted this PR preparation using medium reasoning, repository-aware shell execution, Git/GitHub tooling, and local test/typecheck execution. The hosted runtime did not expose an exact model ID or context-window size to 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
|
52aea90263 |
feat: organize skills with nested folders and My Skills (#9633)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize and govern AI-agent companies > - Company skills are durable resources that users browse, import, assign, and maintain over time > - A flat skill list plus tags does not provide a stable location or hierarchy for personal, company, project-imported, and bundled skills > - Folder paths need to be canonical, company-scoped, safe to move, and preserved across re-imports without changing skill IDs > - The `/skills` UI also needs traversal, breadcrumbs, move/create flows, and a dedicated My Skills namespace that work on desktop and mobile > - This pull request adds the folder data model and APIs, reserved-root lifecycle, project import behavior, and the folder-first skills experience > - The benefit is a predictable filesystem-like organization model while tags remain available for cross-cutting classification ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9619 — the reviewed folder foundation was intentionally closed and folded into this combined feature PR. Refs #9026 — earlier flat-folder attempt superseded by this integrated implementation. Refs #3281 — related skill organization proposal; this PR uses canonical persisted folders rather than deriving groups from skill keys, and does not add hidden-skill behavior. **Feature request** - **Problem:** Skills currently lack a canonical hierarchical location, making personal skills, project imports, bundled skills, and company-authored skills difficult to traverse and manage at scale. - **Proposed behavior:** Add nested company-scoped folders with stable paths, reserved My/Projects/Bundled roots, subtree queries, safe move/create operations, and a folder-first `/skills` library UI. - **Import behavior:** New project scans file skills under `projects/<project-slug>`; later imports update content without overriding a user-selected folder. - **Alternatives considered:** Tags alone remain useful for cross-cutting classification, but they do not provide canonical location, nesting, reserved namespaces, or stable import placement. - **Roadmap alignment:** Extends the completed Skills Manager and Scheduled Routines capabilities without duplicating an active roadmap item. ## What Changed - Adds `folders` persistence for routine and skill folders, nested canonical paths, parent/slug/system-key fields, migration backfills, and reapply-safe migrations `0174`–`0175` after current master migrations. - Adds company-scoped folder CRUD, cycle/depth/namespace validation, reserved My/Projects/Bundled lifecycle, item moves, subtree filtering, and folder paths on skill results. - Preserves project-import placement: first import files into the project folder, while re-import keeps user-owned placement and stable skill IDs. - Adds the `/skills` folder tree rail, tags facet, breadcrumbs, subfolder browser, move/new-folder dialog, canonical detail location, inline tag editing, and folder-aware Studio creation. - Keeps bundled skills read-only even when their source metadata is incomplete by detecting the reserved Bundled folder and hiding selection/move actions. - Extends routine folder UI and OpenAPI coverage, and adds regression tests across migrations, services, routes, tree helpers, pages, and Studio creation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/nested-skill-folders-migration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/folders-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/folders-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/components/folders/FolderControls.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/skill-folder-tree.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx ui/src/lib/company-skill-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-create.test.ts` — 13 files, 192 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx` — 2 files, 20 tests passed after preserving the existing PR's bundled-skill fixes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace packages. - `pnpm test:run` — passed in an isolated CI-like environment with inherited Paperclip runtime identity and static AWS credential variables removed. - `pnpm build` — production build passed for all workspace packages. - Greptile iteration 2 — 5/5 confidence with zero unresolved threads on commit `ff2d67aa71`. - Latest-head GitHub checks — all success, neutral, or skipped; PR is mergeable with a clean merge state. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — reports nine existing `#9627` comment false positives already present on `master`; this PR introduces no new token violation. ## Risks - **Migration/backfill:** `0174` creates the foundation and `0175` adds nested/reserved semantics. Both are ordered after current master migration `0173`, are covered by numbering/safety checks, and are designed to be reapply-safe. - **Reserved namespaces:** My, Projects, and Bundled roots are service-managed. Regression coverage prevents namespace squatting, cross-company folder use, bundled writes, cycles, and excessive depth. - **Behavioral change:** Project scans choose a project folder only on initial creation; existing skills deliberately retain their current folder during refresh. - **UI scope:** The folder rail applies to the Installed library; Catalog retains the discovery-oriented category sidebar. > 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-5.5` in Codex CLI, medium reasoning mode; runtime did not expose a context-window value. Used repository/file tools, terminal execution, Git/GitHub operations, test execution, and code editing. ## 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> |
||
|
LeonSGP
|
d62c5adb7a |
fix(ui): stop recreating markdown mention observers (#3809)
Fixes #3759 ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents and issue workflows, so the comment composer has to stay stable under normal typing. > - The affected subsystem is the shared markdown comment editor used across issue and workflow surfaces. > - That editor decorates mention links after Lexical updates the editable DOM. > - The current mention decoration effect recreates its `MutationObserver` whenever `value` changes, which happens on every keystroke. > - That observer also reacts to the DOM mutations produced by mention decoration itself, creating unnecessary observer churn in Chrome. > - This pull request keeps one observer instance alive, batches decoration work into `requestAnimationFrame`, and disconnects the observer while decoration writes run. > - The benefit is lower observer churn while preserving the existing mention chip behavior. ## What Changed - Removed `value` from the mention-decoration observer effect dependency list so the observer is not recreated on every external value update. - Batched mention decoration with `requestAnimationFrame` and temporarily disconnected the observer while DOM decorations are applied to avoid self-triggered feedback loops. - Added a regression test that verifies external value changes do not recreate the mention decoration observer. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx` currently fails before test collection on the existing repo baseline with `TypeError: undefined is not an object (evaluating 'z.string')` from `packages/shared/src/adapter-type.ts` ## Risks - Low risk. The change is scoped to the mention decoration observer lifecycle and keeps the existing decoration logic intact. - The main behavior change is deferring decoration to the next animation frame instead of running immediately on every observed mutation. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent with local tool use in the Codex CLI environment. ## 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) - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
8b04147ca4 |
perf(ui): stop polling the event-sourced company live-runs list (#9701)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its web UI keeps live views fresh with a live-events websocket plus React Query, and #9627 began replacing polling with event-sourcing (pushing data into the cache) > - After the churn fixes (#9624) and #9627 shipped, a long-lived tab's memory footprint was still climbing, so I re-profiled with the Chrome DevTools MCP > - The dominant remaining churn is React Query re-arming a polled query's `refetchInterval` timer on **every** observer notification — and our live-event handlers `setQueryData(liveRuns(companyId))` on nearly every event, so each pushed update re-arms every `liveRuns` observer's timer (the sidebar is always mounted) > - #9627 event-sourced the live-runs data but left the now-redundant `refetchInterval` in place, so we did half the fix — the poll is pure waste and the thing re-arming timers > - This pull request removes `refetchInterval` from the event-sourced company live-runs queries so the frequent cache writes have no timer to re-arm > - The benefit is that the steady-state timer churn on the most-observed resource collapses, so the off-heap footprint stops climbing ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists; describing inline per CONTRIBUTING.md → "Link Issues or Describe Them In-PR", following the bug report template. Continues #9569 / #9624 / #9627. **What happened?** With the earlier fixes deployed, a browser tab left open on the app kept growing its memory footprint. MCP profiling showed ~100+ `setInterval` create/clear cycles per 5s on an aged tab (vs ~16 fresh), all from React Query's refetch-interval timers being re-armed on every `setQueryData` to the frequently-written `liveRuns(companyId)` query. **Expected behavior** A resource whose data is pushed (event-sourced) should not also poll; cache writes should not repeatedly re-arm interval timers. Idle tabs should hold a bounded footprint. **Steps to reproduce** Open a tab with agents streaming, leave it open, and instrument `setInterval`/`clearInterval`: the churn rate climbs and traces to `QueryObserver.updateTimers` (`refetchInterval`) for `liveRuns`, re-armed by every live-event cache write. **Paperclip version or commit** Branch `perf/drop-live-runs-refetch-interval`, off `master` (after #9627). **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`), web UI. Core UI live-updates plumbing; not adapter-specific. ## What Changed - Set `refetchInterval: false` on every site that polls the **plain** `queryKeys.liveRuns(companyId)` query (event-sourced by #9627): `Sidebar`, `SidebarAgents`, `Issues`, `Inbox`, `IssueDetail` (companyLiveRuns), `ProjectDetail` (×2), `Routines`, `ExecutionWorkspaceDetail`, `bridge-init`. - Removed the now-unused `useVisibilityRefetchInterval` interval vars/imports in `Issues`, `Inbox`, `IssueDetail`. - **Left variant-key sites polling on purpose** — `Agents` page (`[...liveRuns, "agents-page"]`) and `ActiveAgentsPanel` (`[...liveRuns, scope, …]`) are NOT event-sourced by #9627 (different exact cache key), so dropping their poll would make them stale. Those are a later phase. - Freshness for the converted queries now comes from event-sourcing (#9627) + its reconnect reconcile; the initial mount fetch and cross-tab publish (`usePublishSharedQueryData`) still happen. ## Verification - MCP profiling identified the churn: the single churning callback is React Query's `refetchInterval` timer, re-armed by `setQueryData(liveRuns)` on live events. - `vitest`: all affected suites pass (`Sidebar`, `SidebarAgents`, `Issues`, `Inbox`, `IssueDetail`, `ProjectDetail`, `Routines`, `ExecutionWorkspaceDetail`, `LiveUpdatesProvider`) — 153 tests. - Updated two `SidebarAgents` linger-window tests: they advanced fake timers to the *exact* linger-expiry boundary and had relied on poll-induced re-renders to flush. The linger self-schedules its own `setTimeout`, so the tests now cross the boundary with a small margin + an explicit flush (no product change). - `tsc -b` clean. - End-to-end footprint reduction should be re-measured against a rebuilt bundle with the same instrumentation. ## Risks Low, client-only. - `liveRuns(companyId)` freshness now depends entirely on event-sourcing + reconnect reconcile (both from #9627). If an event path is missed, the reconnect handler refetches once; durable replay is a planned later phase. - Variant-key run lists (Agents page, ActiveAgentsPanel) are unchanged and still poll, so they don't regress. - Issue-scoped run queries (`issues.liveRuns/activeRun/runs`) are **not** touched here — they aren't event-sourced yet and are a separate phase. ## Model Used - **Provider:** Anthropic, via the Claude Code CLI. - **Model:** Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`). - **Reasoning mode:** Extended thinking enabled. - **Capabilities used:** tool use (shell, file editing), and the Chrome DevTools MCP to re-profile the live instance and pinpoint the `refetchInterval` timer churn. ## 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 (a perf/plumbing change) - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above (continues #9627; no duplicates) - [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 considered and documented any risks above - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A — no user-facing docs; rationale documented inline) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6ec059ab4e |
fix(server): suppress stale handoff alarms during live continuation (#9695)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The control plane records a successful-run handoff when productive work ends without a durable next-step disposition > - That handoff state was derived only from the latest activity event, without checking whether a corrective run or wake was currently alive > - As a result, actively progressing issues could still show a high-severity missing-disposition alarm and blocked-inbox row > - The same stale required event could also remain indefinitely when a later successful run correctly skipped recovery because another valid continuation path already existed > - This pull request makes the derived state liveness-aware, suppresses attention only while the live path exists, and resolves stale required events on valid-path skips > - The benefit is that productive work stays calm while genuine stalls still resurface automatically when liveness disappears ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - **Bug:** An issue whose latest successful-run handoff event is `required` continues to report a missing disposition even while a heartbeat run, scheduled retry, or queued/deferred/claimed wake is actively targeting that issue. - **Expected behavior:** The API should expose current continuation liveness, the blocked inbox should suppress the alarm only while that path remains live, and a later successful run that skips recovery because a valid path exists should durably resolve the stale event. - **Related but distinct:** #9370 changes disposition freshness at detection time; #8748 adds an explicit policy opt-out. This PR preserves detection/escalation policy and fixes read-time/current-liveness state. ## What Changed - Extended `SuccessfulRunHandoffState` with `hasLiveContinuation` and optional `liveRunId` evidence. - Added bounded liveness hydration for required handoff states using active heartbeat-run and wake-request signals. - Suppressed `missing_disposition` blocked-inbox rows only while a run, scheduled retry, or live wake targets the issue. - Added durable `issue.successful_run_handoff_resolved` logging when handoff detection skips because another valid continuation path owns the next action. - Added focused regressions for live/absent derived state, self-healing attention suppression, valid-path skip classification, and resolved-event logging. - Updated UI normalization and fixtures for the shared contract without changing rendering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` — 56 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "queues one finish-handoff wake when a successful run leaves in-progress work without a next action"` — 1 passed - `git diff --check` ## Risks - Low risk: no schema or migration changes, and detection, bounded correction attempts, and escalation behavior are unchanged. - Liveness lookups are limited to issues whose latest handoff state is `required`; blocked-inbox suppression reuses rows already loaded by that query path. - Suppression is read-time and self-healing: when the run or wake stops, the alarm returns on the next fetch. > 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 using `gpt-5.4`, tool-enabled software-engineering workflow with repository, shell, test, Git, GitHub, and Paperclip control-plane access. Context-window size is not exposed by this 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 - [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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.8
|
cf7711ecc5 |
feat(ui): explain when a message won't reopen a blocked issue (Rule C, PAP-13554) (#9417)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - When an agent's task is `blocked`, humans often comment on the issue
thread expecting it to reopen and resume
> - If the issue stays `blocked` because an unresolved (not-done)
blocker still gates the reopen path, the UI said nothing — the human
"sent a message and nothing happened" (a real silent-failure report)
> - That silence makes the product feel broken even though the gate is
working as designed
> - This pull request adds Rule C copy to the existing
`IssueBlockedNotice` surface: when a comment won't reopen a blocked
issue, it explains why and names the deepest unresolved blocker leaf
with its status
> - The benefit is that the human immediately understands the task is
*paused, not stuck*, and knows exactly which task to act on to unblock
it
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
<!-- No public GitHub issue — describing the underlying problem inline
(path B), following the feature issue template. -->
**Problem or motivation**
A human comments on a `blocked` issue expecting it to move back to
`todo` and resume. When the reopen gate keeps it blocked because an
unresolved (not-`done`) blocker remains, nothing in the UI communicates
this, so the user perceives a dropped message ("I sent a message and
nothing happened").
**Proposed solution**
Reuse the existing amber `IssueBlockedNotice` surface (the designated
blocked/recovery surface — no new component). When a message won't
reopen a blocked issue, the notice states that it won't reopen yet,
names the unresolved blocker leaf with its status (e.g. "Still blocked
by PAP-XXXXX (in progress)"), and reassures that it reopens
automatically once the blocker is done. UI-only; no server change.
**Alternatives considered**
Adding a server signal (a reopen-suppressed reason on the comment/notice
payload) was considered but rejected as unnecessary — the
unresolved-blocker set is already available client-side, so the copy is
derived in the component. Done-but-pending-finalize blockers are `done`,
so they fall out of the unresolved set into the standard reopen (Rule B)
path and are correctly not shown as reopen-suppressed.
## What Changed
- `ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.tsx`: added reopen-suppressed
messaging for `blocked` issues that still have unresolved blockers — a
lead sentence ("a message won't reopen it yet, then it reopens
automatically"), the named unresolved blocker leaf with its status, and
an "and N other task(s)" summarization when multiple blockers remain.
- `ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx`: added/updated tests
covering the single, nested-chain (deepest-leaf), multiple-blocker, and
empty-blocker states, plus the not-a-reopen-case (`in_progress`) path.
- `ui/storybook/stories/issue-blocked-notice.stories.tsx`: new Storybook
stories rendering each notice state for copy review.
## Verification
- `cd ui && tsc -b` — typecheck clean (previously failed TS2322 on the
story meta; fixed by a default `args`).
- Vitest: `IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx` green (single / nested /
multiple / empty / in-progress states).
- Storybook stories rendered at 1440×900 for all four states;
screenshots posted on the tracking issue.
- UXDesigner reviewed the notice copy and signed off (no copy edits
required).
## Risks
Low risk. UI-only, additive copy on an already-shipped amber notice
surface; no server or schema changes. The reopen behavior itself is
unchanged — this only explains the existing gate. Worst case is copy
wording, which had a design review.
## Model Used
Claude — claude-opus-4-8 (Opus 4.8), extended thinking, with tool use /
code execution in the Paperclip harness.
---
- [x] I searched the GitHub PR list for similar/duplicate PRs before
opening this one.
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8368fb30b0 |
fix(routines): coalesce sub-hourly catch-up runs (#9649)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to run AI-agent companies. > - Scheduled routines support catch-up policies when the server resumes after missed cron ticks. > - The existing capped replay policy dispatched once per missed tick, which can flood the board after downtime for frequent schedules. > - Sub-hourly routines usually need one prompt catch-up execution rather than historical per-tick replay, while hourly-or-slower schedules may rely on the existing behavior. > - This pull request coalesces missed sub-hourly ticks into one execution and keeps the slower-schedule behavior unchanged. > - The benefit is bounded recovery work without changing the semantics of lower-frequency scheduled routines. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? When a scheduled routine using `enqueue_missed_with_cap` resumes after several missed sub-hourly cron ticks, Paperclip dispatches one catch-up execution for every missed tick. Those executions arrive in a same-second burst and can flood the board with duplicate-looking work. ### Expected behavior Sub-hourly schedules should advance past all missed ticks but dispatch exactly one catch-up execution. Hourly-or-slower schedules should retain capped per-tick replay. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Build Paperclip from `master` and create a routine with a sub-hourly cron schedule and `catchUpPolicy: enqueue_missed_with_cap`. 2. Set its persisted `nextRunAt` far enough in the past to cover several scheduled occurrences. 3. Run routine catch-up processing. 4. Observe multiple catch-up dispatches instead of one coalesced execution. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` before this PR. ### Deployment mode Built from source in local development with embedded PGlite. ## What Changed - Classify sub-hourly cadence from timezone-aware scheduled occurrences, avoiding daily multi-minute false positives while supporting schedules restricted to active days. - Coalesce all missed sub-hourly ticks into one catch-up dispatch while advancing `nextRunAt` to the next future occurrence. - Preserve capped per-tick replay for hourly-or-slower schedules. - Clarify the catch-up policy labels in both routine editing surfaces. - Add regression coverage for both the coalesced and preserved behaviors. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --testNamePattern='coalesces multiple missed sub-hourly ticks|continues replaying each missed hourly tick|continues replaying missed ticks for daily schedules with multiple minute values|coalesces sub-hourly schedules restricted to weekdays'` — 4 passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — clean. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: sub-hourly routines using `enqueue_missed_with_cap` now intentionally receive one recovery execution instead of one per missed tick. - Hourly-or-slower schedules retain their previous capped replay behavior, limiting the compatibility surface. - No schema, migration, workflow, or lockfile changes. > 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 CLI with GPT-5.5, medium reasoning, code execution and repository tool use; the runtime did not expose a 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
|
f1508a7929 |
feat(decisions): expand image rows into gallery (#9532)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and review work that needs human attention. > - The Decisions page condenses approvals, failed runs, reviews, and issue interactions into a scannable attention queue. > - Some decision rows already include screenshot evidence, but the collapsed thumbnail stack is too small for meaningful inspection. > - Image-only rows were not expandable because expansion was previously reserved for inline decision resolvers. > - Reviewers therefore had to leave the Decisions page before they could understand the visual evidence attached to a row. > - This pull request makes rows with images expandable and presents a readable, linked gallery while preserving the compact collapsed view. > - The benefit is faster evidence review without sacrificing queue density or existing inline-resolution behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue currently tracks this feature. ### Subsystem affected `ui/` — React + Vite board UI ### Problem or motivation Screenshot evidence in Decisions rows is only visible as small overlapping thumbnails, and non-inline rows cannot expand to show it. This makes visual review unnecessarily slow and forces reviewers to navigate away from the queue. ### Proposed solution Treat active rows with images as expandable, render the first three images at a readable size in an expanded gallery, and link images plus any remaining-image affordance to the related issue. ### Alternatives considered Always rendering large images would make the queue difficult to scan; opening the issue immediately preserves density but prevents in-context review. An explicit expandable gallery keeps both behaviors available. ### Roadmap alignment `ROADMAP.md` does not list overlapping Decisions image-gallery work. This is a focused improvement to the existing review surface rather than a new product area. ### Additional context The Storybook variants document both the collapsed thumbnail treatment and deterministic expanded gallery state for reviewer inspection. ## What Changed - Allow active Decisions rows with screenshot evidence to expand even when they have no inline resolver. - Keep compact thumbnails in collapsed rows and render up to three larger, linked images when expanded. - Add an accessible remaining-image tile that links to the related issue when more screenshots exist. - Add component coverage for image-only expansion and the remaining-image issue link. - Add collapsed and expanded image-gallery Storybook variants, including deterministic initial expansion. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm --dir ui typecheck` - `pnpm --dir ui build-storybook` - QA visual verification (light + dark, no defects): https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9532#issuecomment-4964769485 ## Risks - Low risk: the change is isolated to Decisions row rendering and Storybook fixtures. - Rows with images gain a new expansion interaction, but existing inline resolver behavior and deep links remain intact. - The gallery intentionally limits the in-row preview to three images to avoid unbounded row height. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 assisted with the original implementation and tests. - OpenAI `gpt-5.4` via Codex CLI assisted with current-master rebase integration, verification, and PR preparation. The runtime context-window size is not exposed; capabilities used include reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d32ed88443 |
fix(recovery): route recovery by failure cause (#9634)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies and their work. > - Its recovery subsystem detects stranded issue execution and decides whether to retry, escalate, or request operator intervention. > - The existing recovery path used a mostly generic owner ladder and generic execution contract, so transient failures could wake a manager who then performed the deliverable instead of repairing and returning the task. > - Provider quota failures also entered the same takeover path even when the correct action was to wait for capacity and retry the original assignee. > - Recovery actions already retain the source owner and evidence needed to choose a cause-specific route, render a scoped contract, and measure whether work was handed back. > - This pull request adds a cause-keyed recovery playbook, propagates its contract through every built-in adapter, and makes resolved recovery actions return work to the original owner by default. > - The benefit is bounded self-recovery that preserves task ownership, avoids needless management takeover, and makes recovery outcomes observable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No matching public GitHub issue was found. Related recovery work was reviewed but is not duplicated here: #9630 restores bounded recovery continuations, #8807 changes one assignee-ranking case, and #9404 records runtime-failure transition evidence. This change instead introduces cause-specific routing and recovery contracts across the recovery lifecycle. ### What happened? When an issue became stranded, recovery generally selected an owner through the same fallback ladder and rendered the normal execution contract. That made the recovery wake look like ordinary deliverable work, even when the correct action was to retry the original agent, repair its runtime, or wait for a provider quota reset. ### Expected behavior Recovery should select a response by failure cause, tell the recipient to recover rather than complete the deliverable, suppress takeover wakes for provider quota waits, and return repaired work to its original assignee unless the recovery owner explicitly completes it. ### Actual behavior Recovery could escalate transient failures to management, omit the cause-specific next action from the wake, and leave the recovery owner assigned after the runtime problem was resolved. ### Impact The generic path creates avoidable management work, ownership churn, and budget consumption while obscuring whether recovery successfully returned work to the responsible agent. ## What Changed - Added cause-keyed routing for process loss, missing disposition, provider quota limits, Codex output inactivity, workspace validation failures, and fallback recovery causes. - Added recovery-scoped wake rendering that replaces the generic execution contract with the failure summary, original assignee, attempt count, next action, and cause-specific playbook instruction. - Propagated the structured recovery contract through all built-in adapter execution paths, including Hermes local and gateway adapters. - Added provider-quota wait monitoring so capacity failures schedule the original assignee instead of enqueueing a takeover wake. - Added hand-back behavior and `handed_back` / `owner_completed` outcome accounting when recovery actions are resolved. - Added focused routing, renderer, quota-monitor, and hand-back regression coverage plus implementation-spec documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts` - 4 test files passed; 194 tests passed. - Targeted `pnpm --filter ... typecheck` across `@paperclipai/adapter-utils`, `@paperclipai/shared`, `@paperclipai/server`, `@paperclipai/ui`, and all nine changed adapter packages. - 13 affected workspace packages passed typecheck. - `pnpm check:token-gates` - All UI token gates passed. ## Risks - Recovery routing behavior changes for stranded work, so an incorrectly classified cause could select a different recipient than before; fallback causes retain the existing management ladder. - Provider quota detection depends on structured failure evidence and conservative text matching; unmatched failures continue through fallback recovery. - Adapter prompt plumbing changes across built-ins, covered by shared renderer tests and compile-time call signatures. > 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 with exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, using reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose its configured 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 4.8
|
3e348b96b9 |
perf(ui): cut live-updates churn that inflates tab memory (#9624)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its web UI keeps live views (issue threads, run transcripts, dashboard) fresh via React Query polling plus a live-events websocket, coordinated across tabs with a `BroadcastChannel` layer > - Long-lived tabs viewing live agent runs grew to multi-GB memory footprints while their JS heap stayed ~60–200 MB — so the memory is off-heap (Blink/native + committed allocator arenas), not a classic JS leak > - Live profiling of a reproduced 2.7 GB / 66 MB tab showed 15–30% idle CPU, ~3 fetches/sec across overlapping poll loops, and ~8 `setInterval` create/clear cycles per second whose rate grew ~7× as the tab aged — relentless allocation churn that inflates committed memory the OS never reclaims, amplified across tabs by the cross-tab fan-out > - This pull request cuts that churn at its four largest sources (invalidation storm, per-instance 1 s timers, redundant polling, unbounded streamed-run set) > - The benefit is that idle tabs do far less periodic work, so their off-heap footprint stops ballooning over a long session ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists; describing inline per CONTRIBUTING.md → "Link Issues or Describe Them In-PR", following the bug report template. **What happened?** Browser tabs viewing live agent runs grew to 8–16 GB memory footprint over a long session (multiple tabs open), while each tab's "live" JS heap stayed only ~150–250 MB. Every idle tab also burned 15–30% CPU. Tabs eventually approached the ~4 GB V8 heap ceiling / OS pressure and could crash. **Expected behavior** Tabs viewing live runs should hold a bounded footprint and do minimal work while idle, regardless of how long they stay open or how many tabs are open. **Steps to reproduce** Open several issue/run tabs that have agents actively streaming and leave them open for a while. Watch Chrome's Task Manager: Memory Footprint climbs into the GBs while "JavaScript Memory" stays small, and CPU stays high on idle tabs. Reproduced in ~90 minutes: a tab reached 2.7 GB footprint on a 66 MB JS heap, and the per-second timer-churn rate was ~7× higher on a 90-minute-old tab than a fresh one. **Paperclip version or commit** Branch `fix/live-updates-churn`, off `master`. **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`), web UI. Not adapter-specific — core UI live-updates plumbing (observed with `claude_local` / `codex_local` runs). ## What Changed - **`ui/src/lib/query-invalidation-batcher.ts` (new)** — `createInvalidationBatcher` throttles + de-dupes React Query invalidations into one flush per ~300 ms, and `createCoalescingQueryClient` wraps the client via a `Proxy` so only `invalidateQueries` is batched (optimistic `setQueryData` writes stay immediate). Wired into `LiveUpdatesProvider`, which previously invalidated synchronously on every websocket event. - **`ui/src/hooks/useSecondTick.ts` (new)** — one shared, ref-counted, page-wide 1 s ticker. `useLiveElapsed` in `IssueChatThread` now uses it instead of a per-instance `setInterval` that forced a full-thread re-render every second per live element. - **`ui/src/components/transcript/useLiveRunTranscripts.ts`** — when the realtime websocket is enabled, the recurring log poll backs off to a 30 s safety-net cadence instead of polling every 2 s on top of the live stream. Added a marker for the durable poll→push rearchitecture. - **`ui/src/lib/issueChatTranscriptRuns.ts`** — `resolveIssueChatTranscriptRuns` now caps the streamed run set (live/active runs always kept; most-recent linked runs fill up to 20) so a large run history can't open a live-transcript poll per historical run. - **`ui/src/main.tsx`** — explicit `gcTime` so cross-tab-published cache entries for unobserved resources are collected promptly. - Tests for the batcher, shared ticker, and run cap. ## Verification - `vitest`: new suites `query-invalidation-batcher.test.ts` (batcher collapses 20 invalidations → 1 flush; keeps distinct keys/variants; dispose cancels; proxy passes non-invalidate methods through), `useSecondTick.test.tsx` (single ref-counted timer, stops when idle), `issueChatTranscriptRuns.test.ts` (cap keeps newest + live). All pass. - Existing affected suites pass: `LiveUpdatesProvider` (23), `IssueChatThread` (), `useLiveRunTranscripts`, `AgentDetail.instructions` — 109 tests across affected files. - `tsc -b` clean. - Behavior confirmed by live profiling before the change (2.7 GB / 66 MB tab, ~8 interval churns/sec growing 7× with age). Runtime churn reduction should be re-measured against a rebuilt bundle with the same instrumentation. ## Risks Low-to-moderate; all changes reduce work rather than add features. - **Invalidation batching** delays live-driven refetches by up to ~300 ms. Optimistic `setQueryData` writes (e.g. the visible issue's new comment) remain immediate, so foreground updates still feel instant; only the safety-net refetch is throttled. Non-live invalidations (user actions, mutations) are unaffected — they use the real client. - **Poll back-off** relies on the websocket as the live source when realtime is enabled; a 30 s fallback poll still covers gaps/reconnects (both the transcript hook and `LiveUpdatesProvider` also auto-reconnect). - **Run cap (20)** means an issue with a very large run history streams live transcripts only for its live/active + 20 most-recent runs; older runs still open normally via their run pages. - Downstream test fallout (timing-sensitive tests around invalidation/polling) may need adjustment — flagged intentionally for follow-up. Durable follow-up (out of scope, marked in code): replace transcript/run polling with server push (SSE/websocket deltas) so idle tabs do no periodic work at all. ## Model Used - **Provider:** Anthropic, via the Claude Code CLI. - **Model:** Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`). - **Reasoning mode:** Extended thinking enabled. - **Capabilities used:** tool use (shell, file editing), sub-agent fan-out for codebase analysis, and the Chrome DevTools MCP to reproduce and profile the memory/CPU churn on a live instance. ## 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 (a bug/perf fix, not planned core feature work) - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above (none found) - [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 considered and documented any risks above - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A — no user-facing docs; rationale documented inline) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
89ce36d7af |
feat(skills): open-by-default company skill policy and core UX (#9564)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses company skills to make agent capabilities reusable across an organization. > - Skill operations currently mix capability availability with permission checks, which creates avoidable setup friction and inconsistent denial handling. > - The policy contract needs to remain open by default while allowing company-scoped restrictions for governed deployments. > - Core owns the canonical policy actions, persistence, evaluation, API behavior, safe import boundaries, and generic denial/read-only UI. > - Enterprise policy-editor implementation belongs in the separate `paperclip-ee` repository and is intentionally excluded from this PR. ### Problem or motivation Company skill operations can encounter permission dead ends even when no explicit restriction has been configured, and import-source classification can drift between policy evaluation and execution. ### Proposed solution Define eight canonical skill policy actions, default all actions to allowed, persist company-scoped restrictions, expose policy evaluation APIs, normalize import sources at the boundary, and update Skill Studio to present actionable restriction states without embedding Enterprise Edition implementation in the core repository. ### Alternatives considered Keeping capability checks distributed across routes and UI surfaces was rejected because it duplicates policy logic and makes denial behavior inconsistent. Shipping the Enterprise policy editor in this repository was rejected because `paperclip-ee` is a separate repository and must receive its own PR. ### Roadmap alignment Extends the completed **Skills Manager** roadmap area by adding coherent governance and removing workflow dead ends. ### Additional context The core API contract remains suitable for a separate Enterprise Edition editor, but this PR contains no `paperclip-ee` package or EE-specific UI integration code. ## What Changed - Added the company skill policy contract to product and implementation documentation, including the open-by-default rule, eight canonical actions, decision shape, and core/EE ownership boundary. - Added the company-scoped policy schema, migration `0170`, shared validators, policy service, REST routes, OpenAPI coverage, and focused server tests. - Hardened import policy enforcement by normalizing import sources and keeping source classification consistent between policy evaluation and execution. - Updated core Skill Studio behavior to remove generic permission dead ends and show actionable policy/platform denial states only when an operation is actually denied. - Removed the `plugin-paperclip-ee` package, Docker wiring, EE discovery/deep-link helpers, and EE-specific UI tests/stories from this PR so that implementation can be submitted separately to the EE repository. - Preserved open-by-default behavior when no explicit company restriction exists. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/skill-studio/SkillPolicySurfaces.test.tsx src/lib/skill-policy-denial.test.ts` — 20/20 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec tsc --noEmit` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` — 12/12 passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - `git diff --check` — passed. - `git diff --name-only origin/master | rg 'paperclip-ee|ee-skill-policy'` — no matches. ## Risks - Migration `0170` introduces company policy persistence; rollout depends on the migration applying before policy routes are exercised. - Open-by-default is an intentional behavioral policy: deployments expecting implicit denials must configure explicit restrictions. - Import normalization is security-sensitive and should retain focused review. - The separate EE editor must stay contract-compatible with the core policy API as policy actions evolve. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex CLI, runtime model identifier and context-window size not exposed by this execution environment; reasoning, repository tool use, shell execution, and code review capabilities enabled. ## 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 available to this runtime) - [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 or described the result 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 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 any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the latest head - [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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Evyatar Bluzer <bluzername@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f712cedbc2 |
feat(mcp) [split 7/8]: activate Apps and gateway UI (#9562)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 7/8 and focuses on Apps/Gateways UI and feature-flagged activation > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: The standalone UI foundation needs feature-flagged routes, navigation, app detail flows, gateways, Storybook scenarios, and QA configuration. - Proposed solution: Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components, navigation/route activation, remaining page integrations, Storybook stories, and QA Vite configuration. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/06-ui-tools-foundation`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: UXDesigner sanity pass on Apps/Gateways flows and flag-off behavior; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components, navigation/route activation, remaining page integrations, Storybook stories, and QA Vite configuration. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean - Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 17 files, 147 tests passed ## Risks - Navigation or flag regressions could expose incomplete experiences; activation remains controlled by existing experimental settings. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [ ] 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. ## UI Evidence QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and verified clean rendering:    --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a116713b9a |
feat(mcp) [split 6/8]: add Tools and Profiles UI foundation (#9561)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 6/8 and focuses on UI API, shared components, and Tools/Profile surfaces > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: Operators need typed clients and administration surfaces that compile independently before navigation exposes them. - Proposed solution: Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new company-scoped API. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/05-runtime-integration`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: UXDesigner sanity pass on Tools/Profile surfaces; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new company-scoped API. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean - Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 28 files, 183 tests passed ## Risks - Large dead-code UI additions can drift from activation routes; PR 7 supplies the registration layer and top-level parity catches omissions. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > 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, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [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 - [ ] 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. ## UI Evidence QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and verified clean rendering:    --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6f204605ad |
fix(ui): show source SHA for unreleased builds (#9508)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies > - Operators need to identify the exact build running from the persistent account menu > - Formal releases already have a concise public version, but source builds include a long derived version string > - The derived version identifies a commit but does not expose the source branch or a direct path to inspect the code > - Server Git metadata is auth-sensitive, so the UI must also refresh it when the current session changes > - This pull request shows linked branch and commit metadata for source builds while preserving `v<version>` for formal releases > - The benefit is faster build diagnosis with correct metadata across sign-in and sign-out transitions ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I searched existing open and closed issues and found no duplicate implementing this exact account-menu behavior. - [x] The behavior reproduces on `master`. - [x] The behavior originates in Paperclip's core UI, not an adapter, provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? Source builds displayed the full derived version, such as `2026.626.0+58.git.518fc71ce`, without linking the operator to the corresponding source branch or commit. ### Expected behavior Source builds should show the concise branch and short commit SHA with links to GitHub, while formal releases should continue showing their public version. Auth transitions should refresh the health metadata that supplies those Git details. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run Paperclip from a commit after a release tag. 2. Open the account menu. 3. Inspect the build label beneath the user identity. 4. Sign in or out and reopen the menu. ### Paperclip version or commit Any source build whose server version uses the `<version>+<count>.git.<sha>[.dirty]` format. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) or authenticated deployments. ### Installation method Built from source. ## What Changed - Detect source-derived version strings and render the source branch plus seven-character commit SHA in `SidebarAccountMenu`. - Link source branches and commits to the canonical `paperclipai/paperclip` GitHub repository. - Extend server Git metadata with the full SHA and expose it through health/OpenAPI contracts. - Refresh auth-sensitive health metadata after sign-in and every sign-out entry point. - Preserve the existing `v<version>` label for formal releases and add focused regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Auth.test.tsx src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx src/components/SidebarServerInfo.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/health.test.ts src/__tests__/server-info.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check public/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Low risk: formal release rendering retains the existing fallback behavior when the source-version pattern does not match. - Source links assume the build came from the canonical public repository; fork-only branches or commits may not resolve there. - Health metadata is invalidated after auth transitions, adding one bounded refetch so the displayed Git details match the new session. > 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 using GPT-5.4 with medium reasoning, repository/tool access, shell execution, and code editing; context-window size was 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 - [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> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Fable 5
|
634ae1298f |
fix(ui): consolidate live/running blues; stop inbox unread badge indenting the row (#9383)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The web UI leans on a shared design-token + component system so surfaces stay visually consistent as they grow > - Two small inconsistencies had crept in: several distinct blues were used to signal "live/running" agent state across the sidebar, task header, and chat thread; and in the Inbox an unread task's mark-read dot was pushing that row's status icon and title one column right of read rows > - Both read as "not quite aligned" in daily use and undercut the polish of the lists work that just landed > - This pull request consolidates the live/running blues onto one shared recipe and stops the unread dot from indenting the row > - The benefit is one consistent "live" blue everywhere and Inbox rows that line up whether read or unread ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work; describing inline per the bug-report template. - **Problem**: (1) the same concept — an agent actively working — rendered in three visibly different blues: the sidebar `N live` dot, the task-detail "Live" badge, and the chat-thread "RUNNING" badge each used a different token/recipe. (2) In the Inbox, unread rows carry a leading mark-read dot that occupies the chevron column, but a per-row spacer was still rendering in that same column — so on unread rows the status icon + title were shifted one column (~24px) further right than read rows. Most visible when grouped by workspace. - **Steps to reproduce**: open the Inbox with a mix of read and unread tasks (group by workspace). The unread rows' status icons sit further right than the read rows'. Separately, compare the blue of the sidebar `N live` dot, a task's "Live" header badge, and a chat "RUNNING" badge — they don't match. - **Expected behavior**: unread and read rows align on the same status column, with the unread dot centered on the workspace group chevron; and all three "live/running" affordances share one blue. ## What Changed - Added a shared `liveBlueBadge` recipe in `ui/src/lib/status-colors.ts` and pointed the task-detail **Live** badge (`IssueDetail.tsx`) and the chat-thread **RUNNING** badge (`IssueChatThread.tsx`) at it; removed the now-redundant `brandChipBadge` usage from the chat thread and a stray `🔵` breadcrumb prefix. - Changed the sidebar **`N live`** dot (`SidebarNavItem.tsx`) to the same `blue-600 / dark:blue-400` as its adjacent label text. - **Inbox** (`Inbox.tsx`): skip the per-row leading spacer when the unread mark-read dot is present, so the dot alone fills the chevron column. Unread rows' status icon + title now sit in the same column as read rows, and the dot centers on the workspace group chevron. - **Test** (`Inbox.test.tsx`): added a regression test asserting an unread leaf row renders the mark-read dot and drops the spacer, while a read row keeps the spacer. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` — clean (all packages) - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 CLEAN - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 14/14 (includes the new regression test) - Full Storybook visual suite (514 stories, both themes) — green locally (CI cannot run this suite yet — the baseline-manifest archive is unpublished, a pre-existing condition from #9134) - Manual (workspace-grouped Inbox, 2× dark): measured the unread badge center at the same x as the workspace chevron (276 = 276) and the unread-row status icon at the same x as read-row status icons (292 = 292). Before/after screenshots in a PR comment below. ## Risks Low risk — presentation only. No data, routing, or state changes. The blue consolidation is a token/class swap; the Inbox change removes a redundant spacer element on unread rows only (read rows and non-grouped/mobile views are unaffected). The unread-row behavior is covered by the new unit test. ## Model Used Claude (Anthropic), Opus 4.8 — model id `claude-opus-4-8`; extended thinking + tool use, driving local verification (typecheck, token gates, vitest, Playwright visual suite + pixel measurements). ## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c36f1a4afd |
fix(ui): make mobile decision rows readable (#9472)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent companies > - Human operators use the Decisions attention queue to review and resolve work that needs them > - Decision rows were composed as a fixed content column plus a right-side controls column > - At phone widths, timestamps, actions, menus, and evidence thumbnails compressed the decision headline until it was barely readable > - This pull request makes each row respond to its own container width and stacks metadata, content, evidence, and actions on narrow surfaces while preserving the dense desktop layout > - The benefit is a useful, thumb-reachable Decisions workflow on phones and narrow side panels without regressing wide-screen density or scrolling performance ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exactly matches this bug, so it is described here using the bug-report fields. **What happened** Decision rows used a fixed two-column layout. On narrow screens, the right-hand timestamp, overflow menu, decision buttons, and optional thumbnails squeezed the headline into a truncated sliver. **Expected behavior** Decision headlines should remain readable on mobile, supporting context should flow below the headline, and primary actions should remain easy to tap. Wide rows should retain the compact desktop presentation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open the Decisions / What needs me surface with populated attention items. 2. Reduce the row container to a phone-width layout (approximately 390px). 3. Observe rows with multiple actions or evidence thumbnails. **Paperclip version / deployment mode** Current `master`, board UI in local or hosted deployments. **Related public work found during dedup search** - Refs: #9311 — original What needs me attention queue work. - Refs: #9468 — recent Decisions scrolling performance work preserved by this change. ## What Changed - Reworked `AttentionQueueRow` into a container-query-driven vertical stack on narrow surfaces, with the existing compact layout restored at wide row widths. - Made decision titles wrap to two lines, moved project/evidence context below the headline, and promoted actions to full-width mobile tap targets. - Preserved upstream row memoization and `content-visibility` scrolling optimizations while rebasing onto current `master`. - Added three 390px Storybook scenarios covering populated rows, type/detail variants, and snoozed/dismissed curtains. - Updated the focused row test to assert the new thumbnail/context alignment. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` — 1 file passed, 16 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all token gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` — completed successfully. - `git diff --check public/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk: the behavior is isolated to the Decisions row presentation and its Storybook coverage. - Container-query breakpoints could need future visual tuning for unusual embedded widths, but the wide layout remains available at the row-level breakpoint. - The mobile layout increases row height by design in exchange for readable content and usable actions. > 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 CLI coding agent. The exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed to this runtime; reasoning, repository editing, shell execution, and test execution capabilities were enabled. ## 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> |
||
|
|
8a0db228a6 |
perf(ui): improve Decisions scrolling performance (#9468)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators use the Decisions page to review an uncapped attention feed across active, snoozed, and dismissed items > - Large feeds mounted every row eagerly, and routine interactions re-rendered the full queue > - That made initial paint and scrolling progressively slower as decision history accumulated > - This pull request bounds rendering, stabilizes row props, and lets off-screen rows skip layout and paint work > - The benefit is a responsive Decisions page even for companies with large attention histories ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? Opening `/decisions` for a company with a large attention history eagerly mounted every visible-feed row. Expanding, selecting, dismissing, snoozing, or restoring an item could also re-render the entire queue. ### Expected behavior The page should render a bounded initial window, progressively reveal more rows near the scroll boundary, and avoid re-rendering unaffected rows during interactions. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Populate a company with hundreds of attention items. 2. Open `/decisions`. 3. Scroll and interact with individual rows. 4. Observe increasing initial render, layout, paint, and interaction cost on the previous implementation. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` before this PR. ### Deployment and installation Local development, built from source. This is a core UI issue, not adapter- or database-specific. ### Additional context Searched open public issues and PRs; no duplicate was found. ## What Changed - Added a pure `planAttentionRenderRows` helper that allocates one render budget across active groups and open snoozed/dismissed curtains in document order. - Render 50 rows initially and add 100 more when the Decisions page approaches the scroll boundary. - Memoized `AttentionQueueRow`, stabilized parent callbacks and inbox dismissal actions, and passed row items through a shared expand callback. - Added `content-visibility: auto` and intrinsic containment so accumulated off-screen rows avoid unnecessary layout and paint work. - Added render-plan coverage and a regression test proving identical row props do not re-render after a parent update. ## Verification - `pnpm -C ui typecheck` - `pnpm -C ui exec vitest run src/lib/attention.test.ts src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 96 tests passed - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean ## Risks - Low risk: the change is UI-only and does not alter API or database contracts. - The main behavioral risk is incorrect row-budget accounting across collapsed groups or open curtains; the pure planner has focused tests for ordering, truncation, and collapsed/closed sections. - Progressive rendering means rows beyond the current budget are intentionally absent until scrolling nears the boundary, matching the existing Issues list pattern. > This is a targeted performance fix and does not overlap planned core feature work in `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Fable 5 assisted with the implementation using repository tools and code execution. - OpenAI Codex `gpt-5.6-sol` prepared and verified the PR with high reasoning effort, repository tools, shell execution, and GitHub/Paperclip API access. The runtime did not expose a 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 (no documentation changes were required for this UI-only behavior) - [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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
02e2dd271b |
feat(ui): add selection debug instrumentation (#9397)
Adds debug-gated selection instrumentation and focused tests for issue document annotations. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
scotttongandClaude Opus 4.8
|
7fd321d622 |
feat(ui): use Lucide icons for task status glyphs (#9395)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators scan task state constantly, so the task **status** vocabulary (backlog / todo / in progress / in review / done / blocked / cancelled) has to read instantly > - Those statuses render through one shared component, `StatusGlyph`, whose icons were hand-rolled SVG geometry lifted from an internal spec > - Hand-rolled glyphs are harder to reason about, drift from the rest of the UI (which uses Lucide everywhere else), and mix fill/stroke styles across statuses > - This pull request swaps the hand-rolled geometry for named Lucide icons — one clean, consistent icon family — with no change to colours, sizing, or accessibility > - The benefit is a status icon set that is consistent with the rest of the app's iconography, trivially adjustable (change a mapping, not SVG path math), and simpler to maintain ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public GitHub issue. Describing the change in-PR (feature/polish): **Problem / motivation.** The task status icons in `StatusGlyph` were bespoke inline SVGs (a half-filled disc for *in progress*, a filled disc + knockout check for *done*, ring+bar for *blocked*, ring+slash for *cancelled*, etc.). The rest of the UI uses [Lucide](https://lucide.dev) icons, so the status set was the odd one out — and its mixed fill/stroke shapes were harder to scan and to tweak. **Proposed solution.** Map each status to a Lucide icon and render that instead: | Status | Lucide icon | | --- | --- | | backlog | `circle-dashed` | | todo | `circle` | | in_progress | `rotate-cw` | | in_review | `circle-dot` | | done | `circle-check` | | blocked | `circle-minus` | | cancelled | `ban` | | in_queue (covered-blocked) | `circle-minus`, recoloured blue | Colours (the `--status-task-icon-*` tokens), the `sm/md/lg` size scale, `currentColor` recolouring, and the `role="img"` / `aria-label` behaviour are all unchanged — only the shapes change. **Alternatives considered.** Keeping the bespoke geometry (rejected: inconsistent with the app and harder to maintain). **Related PRs** (linked for reviewer context, not dependencies): - Refs #8580 — the merged PR that established the current hand-rolled status glyphs this PR restyles. - Refs #8838 — open PR forwarding Radix trigger props through `StatusGlyph`; touches the same component (no overlap with this change). - Refs #1760 — open proposal to redesign the *cancelled* status icon specifically; this PR moves cancelled to Lucide `ban`. ## What Changed - `ui/src/components/StatusGlyph.tsx`: replaced the per-status hand-rolled SVG `glyphBody()` geometry with a `status → Lucide icon` map (`circle-dashed`, `circle`, `rotate-cw`, `circle-dot`, `circle-check`, `circle-minus`, `ban`). Kept the token-driven colour wiring, size scale, `currentColor` recolouring, a11y label handling, and the `in_queue` = blocked-icon-recoloured-blue behaviour. - `ui/src/components/StatusGlyph.test.tsx`: updated to lock the new icon mapping (per-status Lucide class, size scale, colour var, `in_queue`, a11y) instead of the old geometry. Net: two files, +74 / −138 (the component got smaller). Because every status surface (list, board, detail header, status picker, sub-task/blocked-by pills, chips) routes through `StatusGlyph`, this single-component edit covers them all. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` → **3/3 clean** (no hardcoded colour/spacing/font values introduced). - `pnpm typecheck` → clean across all packages. - `cd ui && pnpm vitest run` → **2509/2509 passing**, including the updated `StatusGlyph` test. - Manual: ran the worktree dev server and confirmed the new icons render everywhere (task list, task detail, related-task chips, and the status picker showing all seven). **Storybook visual-regression note:** this is an intentional visual change, so the status-icon stories will diff against the published baseline. The baseline snapshots need to be regenerated and republished by a maintainer (`pnpm test:storybook-visual:update` from a trusted environment) as part of accepting this change — the visual-regression CI check is expected to be red until then. No baseline is published in the environment this PR was authored in, so that step is left to a maintainer. ## Risks - **Low risk / cosmetic.** No logic, data, or API changes — only the rendered icon shapes. Colours, sizes, and accessibility labels are unchanged. - The most noticeable shifts are *in progress* (half-disc → rotating arrow), *done* (solid disc+check → outline circle+check), and *cancelled* (ring+slash → ban). These are deliberate. - The only CI check expected to fail is the Storybook visual-regression job, pending a maintainer baseline update (see Verification). ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), run in Claude Code with extended thinking and tool use (file edits, local test runs, browser-driven visual 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 - [ ] 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 Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
49d1abc458 |
fix(ui): detail the env unsaved-changes banner and guard against draft loss (#9391)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Instance settings include an Environments section where operators configure execution environments, each with an environment-variables editor for run-time bindings > - The editor showed a bare "Unsaved changes" banner that never said which variables changed, sometimes appeared the moment a saved config was opened (a lossy round-trip through the editor's emit rules made clean values look dirty), and the environment form let you navigate away without any confirmation, silently dropping the draft > - Operators could not tell what was unsaved, distrusted the phantom banner, and lost half-finished environment edits to a stray click — the agent configuration page already confirms before discarding, so environments behaved inconsistently > - This pull request lists the new/edited/removed variable names under the banner, normalizes both sides of the dirty comparison so saved values no longer look dirty on open, and confirms before cancel, in-app navigation, or tab unload while the form has unsaved changes > - The benefit is that the banner is trustworthy and specific, and unsaved environment edits can no longer be lost without an explicit confirmation ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related (not fixed by this PR): #8930 introduced the current environment-variables editor and its unsaved-changes banner; #9386 moved environment create/edit from a modal to routed pages, which this PR's navigation guard builds on. No existing public issue for the defects themselves; described per the bug report template: **What happened?** The environment-variables editor in Environments settings showed a bare "Unsaved changes" banner with no indication of which variables changed. For some saved configurations (names with surrounding whitespace, incomplete secret references, duplicate names differing only by whitespace) the banner appeared immediately on opening the edit form, before any user input. Navigating away from the environment form — cancel, an in-app link, or closing the tab — silently discarded the draft with no confirmation. **Expected behavior** The banner should say which variables are new, edited, or removed; a freshly opened saved configuration should show no banner; and leaving the form with unsaved changes should require an explicit confirmation, consistent with the agent configuration page. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open Settings → Instance settings → Environments and edit an environment whose saved config round-trips lossily (e.g. an env var name stored with trailing whitespace) — the "Unsaved changes" banner appears with no user edits. 2. Add or edit a variable — the banner gives no hint of what is unsaved. 3. With a dirty draft, click any in-app link or Cancel — the draft is dropped with no confirmation. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted (local development instance), reproducible on `master`. ## What Changed - The unsaved-changes banner in `EnvironmentVariablesEditor` now renders a change summary line — `New: … · Edited: … · Removed: …` — showing up to three names per group with a `+N more` overflow and the full list in a `title` tooltip. A rename shows as one addition plus one removal. - Dirty detection normalizes both the committed value and the draft through the same rules the editor uses when emitting values (trimmed names, incomplete secret refs dropped, last-writer-wins on trimmed duplicates), so a saved config that round-trips lossily no longer shows a phantom banner on first open. - The editor exposes an `onDirtyChange` callback and warns via `beforeunload` while its local draft is dirty. - The environment create/edit page (`CompanyEnvironments`) tracks a payload-level baseline fingerprint of the form as initialized and treats the page as having unsaved changes when the current form differs from it or the editor draft is dirty. While dirty it confirms ("Discard unsaved environment changes?") on Cancel, intercepts same-origin in-app link clicks, and warns on tab unload. ## Verification - `node_modules/.bin/vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyEnvironments.test.tsx ui/src/components/environment-variables-editor/EnvironmentVariablesEditor.test.tsx` — 48 tests pass, including new coverage for: the change-summary banner text, no phantom banner for lossy round-trip values, beforeunload only while dirty, cancel confirmation on the edit page, and unload/link-click warnings after edits are staged into the form. - `tsc -b` in `ui/` passes. - Manual: edit an environment, add/edit/remove variables, observe the summary line; click Cancel or an in-app link and observe the confirmation; save and observe navigation proceeds without prompting. ## Risks - Low risk, UI-only. The click interceptor is scoped to same-origin anchor navigation while the environment form page has unsaved changes and is removed on cleanup; modified-key/middle-button clicks and external links are left alone. - The dirty-normalization intentionally ignores differences the editor could never persist (incomplete secret refs, untrimmed duplicate names); those were previously reported as unsaved changes that could not be saved away. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code, with extended thinking and tool use (code editing, 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 - [ ] 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
|
b15115e05b |
fix(ui): keep rendered markdown list markers visible (#9359)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI renders agent/user-authored Markdown in task descriptions, comments, and other work-thread surfaces > - Those Markdown surfaces often live inside cards and containers that constrain overflow > - Ordered-list markers are painted outside the list content box, so too little inline padding can clip multi-digit markers at the left edge > - This pull request keeps the shared Markdown list gutter compact while giving ordered lists enough marker space for two- and three-digit counters > - The benefit is that long numbered lists in board-facing Markdown render correctly without widening unordered-list gutters or changing API, data, or editor behavior ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue found. Bug description: - What happened: rendered Markdown ordered lists with multi-digit items could show clipped marker digits when the list was flush against an overflow-constrained container. - Expected behavior: ordered-list markers such as `10.` and `100.` should render fully in task descriptions and comments. - Steps to reproduce: render a `.paperclip-markdown` ordered list with at least 100 items inside a container that clips overflow and has no extra left gutter. - Paperclip version/commit: current `master` before this PR. - Deployment mode: board UI, deployment-mode independent. Related search result: - Refs #2049 because it also touches rendered Markdown list presentation, but it styles GFM task-list checkboxes and does not address ordered-list marker clipping. ## What Changed - Set the shared `.paperclip-markdown` list padding to a compact `1.5rem` baseline for bullets and lists. - Added an ordered-list-only `2.5rem` padding override so outside-positioned multi-digit ordered-list markers have enough inline-start room. - Added a focused stylesheet regression test that verifies unordered-list gutters stay compact while ordered lists keep the larger marker gutter. - Restored the exact maintainer-skill marker phrase expected by the existing server skill utility contract test, fixing an unrelated latest-head CI failure from current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/MarkdownListStyles.test.ts` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` ## Risks - Low risk: ordered lists in rendered Markdown get a larger left gutter; unordered lists keep a smaller shared gutter. - Low risk: the skill-doc marker change is text-only and matches the existing server test contract. - No database, API, migration, auth, adapter, or telemetry changes. > 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, tool-enabled software-engineering session. Context window size was 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 - [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> |
||
|
|
36ec79c196 |
feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable in this environment. ## 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 public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
ac66fd65cb |
Fix Cody default model adapter test config (#9365)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Agent configuration includes adapter-specific model settings and a
built-in adapter test action so operators can verify runtime
configuration before saving changes.
> - Cody/Codex-style local adapters can use an adapter default model
when the user clears the explicit model field.
> - The adapter test path still passed an object containing `model:
undefined` in some create/edit flows, which is different from omitting
the model and can break default-model behavior.
> - The previous fix was reverted because it also included an unrelated
skill documentation edit.
> - This pull request reapplies only the UI default-model test-config
fix, with no doc or skill changes.
> - The benefit is that testing Cody/Codex adapter settings with the
default model follows the same contract as saving default model
settings: no explicit model key is sent.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Bug report:
- Summary: Testing a Cody/Codex local agent after selecting the default
model could send an adapter config with an undefined model value instead
of omitting the model key.
- Expected behavior: Clearing the model to use the adapter default
should test with `adapterConfig: {}` unless another model is explicitly
selected.
- Actual behavior: The UI test-config path could preserve `model:
undefined`, causing the adapter test to fail instead of exercising the
default model.
- Related PRs: Reapplies the UI-only portion of #9361 after #9363
reverted the original PR.
## What Changed
- Exported and reused `omitUndefinedEntries` so adapter test config
payloads drop undefined adapter config entries before calling the test
endpoint.
- Hardened the current model display value so create-mode values that
are nullish or non-string do not crash the model selector/test flow.
- Added render coverage for editing a Codex agent back to the default
model and for testing a create form with the default model.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
- Confirmed `git diff origin/master --name-only` contains only:
- `ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx`
- `ui/src/components/AgentConfigForm.tsx`
- `ui/src/lib/agent-config-patch.ts`
## Risks
Low risk. The change only removes `undefined` adapter config entries
from the UI adapter-test payload and adds focused render coverage.
Explicit model values and other adapter config fields are preserved.
> 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, tool-use enabled. Context window size
not exposed in this 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
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
|
1fe89eb8f8 |
Enforce durable external-wait liveness (#9373)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat/recovery subsystem decides whether an agent run has a durable continuation path after the process stops. > - External waits need stricter semantics than local background watchers: a killed local process is not durable, while a first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake is. > - Without that distinction, recovery can repeatedly treat adapter-failed continuations as live work and obscure the real reason a task stopped. > - This pull request adds explicit durable external-wait liveness handling and documents the expected execution semantics. > - It also improves operator-visible recovery evidence so invalid external-wait paths explain why they were rejected. > - The benefit is clearer recovery behavior, fewer duplicate continuation recoveries, and a safer contract for monitor-backed external waits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #5978 - Related PRs: #4988, #7495, #8502 ## What Changed - Added durable external-wait liveness classification so local/background watchers are not accepted as durable live paths after the owning process exits. - Preserved first-class blocker/monitor/scheduled wake paths as valid external-wait continuations. - Added backend regression coverage for killed watcher failure, monitor-backed durable wait resumption, normal completion, blocker behavior, and no duplicate recovery. - Added adapter utility coverage for terminal cleanup behavior used by local process adapters. - Surfaced invalid external-wait recovery evidence in the recovery action card and run ledger. - Updated execution semantics documentation and the V1 implementation contract. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-server` equivalent lane passed in CI-clean env: 238 files, 2164 tests passed, 1 skipped. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-workspaces-a` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: UI 305 files / 2430 tests; CLI 43 files / 230 tests. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode general --group general-workspaces-b` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: shared/db/adapters/plugin packages all green. - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --mode serialized` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env: 107 serialized server suites green, including 84/84 heartbeat-process-recovery tests. - `pnpm build` passed in fully Paperclip-env-clean env. Notes: running `pnpm test:run` directly inside the Paperclip heartbeat environment exposed local harness env contamination in existing tests (`PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_DB_BACKUP_DIR`, and `PAPERCLIP_WORKTREE_START_POINT`). Re-running the same lanes with inherited `PAPERCLIP_*` and port env removed produced the CI-equivalent green results above. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery classification for stopped local external-wait processes, so adapters relying on unmanaged background watchers must use blockers, monitors, scheduled wakes, or explicit durable handoff instead. - Low UI risk: recovery-card copy changes are covered by component tests and Storybook screenshot QA. - No database migration is included. > 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-based coding agent, tool-enabled terminal/code execution. Exact context-window metadata was not exposed in 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1f07690184 |
fix(ui): keep issue threads from jumping to latest comment (#9354)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue and item detail pages use a shared issue chat thread to show comments, runs, activity, and interactions. > - That thread still defaulted to landing on the latest comment when messages first loaded. > - On long issue/item pages, that default can yank the operator away from the top of the page before they choose to inspect the newest message. > - Deep links to comment hashes can create the same kind of initial viewport jump when they are used as generic navigation targets. > - This pull request makes initial latest-comment and initial thread-hash scrolling opt-in instead of default behavior. > - The benefit is stable initial page position across issue-thread surfaces while keeping the explicit Jump to latest control available. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found for this bug. Bug description: - What happened: opening a page with a shared issue conversation thread could automatically move the viewport toward the newest comment/thread target. - Expected behavior: ordinary page loads should keep the initial viewport stable unless the user explicitly clicks Jump to latest. - Steps to reproduce: open an issue or item detail page with a long conversation thread and observe whether the page jumps to the newest thread entry on initial load. - Paperclip version/commit: reproduced while working on the current `master` branch lineage. - Deployment mode: local trusted/dev UI. Related public thread/comment UX work: Refs #3916, Refs #7972, Refs #8800. ## What Changed - Changed `IssueChatThread` so initial latest-comment scrolling defaults to off. - Added a separate opt-in for initial thread-hash scrolling, also defaulting to off. - Preserved stale deleted-comment hash cleanup without scrolling the page. - Updated regression coverage so default initial load stays put, comment hashes do not scroll by default, and manual Jump to latest still scrolls. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed on the clean PR branch. - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx -t "loads from the pending state into issue detail without changing hook order"` passed on the clean PR branch. - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx` was attempted on the clean PR branch, but the file fails before changed assertions with the existing `TypeError: act is not a function` test-harness issue across 58 tests; 14 tests passed. - Static check: no `autoScrollToLatestOnInitialLoad={true}` or `autoScrollToHashOnInitialLoad={true}` call sites remain in `ui/src`. ## Risks Low risk. This only changes initial scroll defaults in the shared issue thread. The main behavioral shift is that direct comment/thread hashes no longer auto-scroll on first load unless a caller explicitly opts in; the Jump to latest button and post-submit scroll behavior are unchanged. > 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-5 via Codex coding-agent runtime; exact context window not exposed in this environment; tool-enabled repository inspection, editing, testing, git, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API usage. ## 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 - [ ] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
be1fcb2b46 |
Fix agent sidebar liveness churn (#9358)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI includes an agents sidebar so operators can see which agents are currently active. > - That sidebar depends on live-run polling, heartbeat events, and cross-tab cache sharing to stay current without overloading the API. > - The sidebar was visually churning because agents could leave the live section immediately after a run ended, while progress events and cross-tab broadcasts kept forcing hot query updates. > - This pull request stabilizes live sidebar membership and makes shared polling broadcasts monotonic/deduplicated. > - The benefit is a calmer operator sidebar that still reflects real live state without flashing between stale and fresh snapshots. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this operator-facing bug. Bug summary: - What happened: the agents sidebar could flash or reshuffle around active agents while live-run and heartbeat data was updating. - Expected behavior: active and recently-active agents should remain visually stable, and cross-tab cache sharing should not overwrite fresher data with older snapshots. - Reproduction context: run Paperclip with multiple tabs or rapid live-run/progress updates and watch the agents sidebar while agents enter/leave live execution. - Deployment mode: local/operator board UI. Related PR: - Supersedes #9357, which carried the same fixes on a branch/title/body that were not suitable for public contribution hygiene. ## What Changed - Restored the maintainer-only warning wording in the developer skill guide so the existing server skill-utils CI gate passes on current master. - Added a 120-second linger window for streamlined sidebar agent rows so an agent does not immediately disappear from the live section as soon as its last run ends. - Deferred the recent-agent fallback until there are no live or lingering agents, while keeping the live badge tied only to actually-live runs. - Stopped broad live-runs/heartbeats/agents-list invalidation on every run progress event, while preserving targeted agent-detail invalidation. - Added producer timestamps to cross-tab shared polling result messages so older-or-equal snapshots are dropped before `setQueryData`. - Added per-resource broadcast dedupe/rate limiting so tabs do not rebroadcast equivalent cached data in a loop. - Added focused coverage for sidebar linger behavior, staggered multi-agent linger expiry, live update invalidation scope, shared polling timestamp handling, and cross-tab broadcast dedupe. ## Verification Run locally on the rebased PR branch: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/SidebarAgents.test.tsx src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts` — 44 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/cross-tab-poll.test.ts src/hooks/useSharedPolling.test.ts` — 10 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — exit code 0. ## Risks - Low migration risk: the sidebar/polling changes are UI/client cache behavior only, with no database or API contract changes. - Sidebar visibility now intentionally lingers for 120 seconds after the last live run; stale rows could remain briefly visible, but their live badge is removed when they are no longer actually live. - Cross-tab broadcasts are now more conservative; a missed publish should be corrected by the next normal poll or accepted newer timestamp. > 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-5 Codex via the Paperclip Codex coding-agent runtime; exact API model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this environment. The agent used terminal/tool execution for repository inspection, focused tests, branch preparation, and PR creation. ## 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 Foley
|
e84731af70 |
Revert "Fix default model adapter test config" (#9363)
Reverts paperclipai/paperclip#9361 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandCody
|
ebd62ca5ae |
Fix default model adapter test config (#9361)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI lets operators create and edit agent adapter configuration, including a primary model field and an adapter test action. > - For Cody and similar adapter forms, selecting the default model means the model value is intentionally unset so the adapter can use its default. > - The adapter test path still allowed `model: undefined` to survive in the generated adapter config, which could send an invalid test payload instead of omitting the field. > - This pull request normalizes create/edit adapter test config so default-model selections omit `model` entirely. > - The benefit is that testing an agent configured to use the adapter default model exercises the same clean config shape that should be saved and run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this local UI bug, so the problem is described inline. Bug description: - What happened: using the adapter test action after choosing the default model could include `model: undefined` in adapter config and surface a UI/runtime error instead of testing with the adapter default. - Expected behavior: choosing the default model should omit the `model` field from adapter config so the adapter default is used. - Steps to reproduce: edit a Codex/Cody-style agent with a concrete model, switch the model selector to Default, then run the adapter Test action. - Paperclip version/commit: current `master` before this PR. - Deployment mode: board UI, deployment-mode independent. ## What Changed - Sanitized adapter test config assembly so undefined adapter config entries are omitted before the test request is sent. - Made create-mode current model display resilient when the model is unset for adapter defaults. - Added regression coverage for editing an existing agent from a concrete model back to Default and testing it. - Added regression coverage for create-mode testing with an unset/default model. - Hardened the developer skill wording used by the existing server skill utility contract test. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/paperclip-skill-utils.test.ts` - GitHub PR checks on this branch are green, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, e2e, verify, security scans, and Greptile Review. ## Risks - Low risk: this only removes undefined values from adapter test config payloads, which aligns with the existing persisted patch behavior. - Low risk: default-model display now treats unset create-mode model values as an empty string. - No database, API schema, migration, auth, or adapter runtime contract changes. > 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, tool-enabled software-engineering session. Exact context window size was 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 - [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: Cody <cody@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
a4993a72a6 |
Fix live run streaming text readability (#9330)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The issue thread UI renders live agent output from adapter run logs and transcript parsing. > - Some adapter streams emit many small or repeated token chunks, and live UI updates can expose partial words, duplicated slices, or transient markdown placeholders. > - That makes active run updates look like gibberish even when the underlying agent output is valid. > - The fix needs to preserve raw logs while making the live thread view stable, readable, and ordered. > - This pull request adds monotonic run-log sequencing, safer live transcript dedupe/order handling, markdown placeholder hiding, and readable live text stabilization. > - The benefit is a live issue thread that updates smoothly without showing confusing partial parser artifacts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists yet, so this PR includes the bug details inline. ### What happened? Live run updates in the issue thread can show confusing repeated or partial text while an adapter is streaming. The visible text appears to lose parsing boundaries during active updates, especially with ACP-style token deltas, so the live output can briefly render duplicated chunks, incomplete words, or HTML-comment placeholders. ### Expected behavior Live text should remain readable while preserving the underlying run output for raw inspection. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Start a live agent run whose adapter emits small stdout token deltas. 2. Watch the issue thread while the run is still active. 3. Observe transient duplicated chunks, incomplete words, or markdown placeholder artifacts in the live rendered text. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against current `master` before this PR branch. ### Deployment mode Local dev issue-thread UI with live local adapter runs. ### Additional context GitHub PR search for `live run streaming text markdown transcript` found one broad merged PR, `#252` (“Dotta updates - sorry it's so large”), but no targeted duplicate for this live streaming readability bug. ## What Changed - Added per-run monotonic sequence numbers to persisted and live run-log chunks. - Dedupe and order live transcript chunks by sequence before falling back to timestamp ordering. - Hide markdown HTML comment placeholder text from rendered markdown output. - Smooth live issue-thread text updates so partial additions reveal at readable word boundaries and sliding-window removals do not produce gibberish. - Added coverage for run-log ordering/deduping, markdown comment hiding, live issue-thread stabilization, and Greptile-reviewed edge cases where overlap rewrites could synthesize text or no-boundary additions could stay hidden. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx src/components/transcript/useLiveRunTranscripts.test.tsx` passed before the review fix: 3 files, 86 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` passed after the review fix: 1 file, 30 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts src/components/transcript/useLiveRunTranscripts.test.tsx` passed after the final Greptile overlap fix: 2 files, 40 tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Local PII/secret scan of touched files found only expected code/test words such as `secret`, `token`, and redaction-related strings; no literal credentials found. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed after restoring declared dependencies with `CI=1 pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` and running with a short `TMPDIR` because `tsx` IPC sockets fail under the long sandbox temp path. - `pnpm build` passed with existing Vite CSS/font/chunk warnings. - GitHub PR checks passed on head `4c052dfe86aecb5feb73504e6b48843f68fce813`: build, typecheck/release registry, server and workspace test shards, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, review, Socket, Superagent, Snyk, and verify. - Greptile review passed on head `4c052dfe86aecb5feb73504e6b48843f68fce813` with confidence score 5/5 and no blocking issues found. - `pnpm test:run` failed in unrelated server workspace tests on this macOS local environment: - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`: two assertions compare `/tmp/...` with `/private/tmp/...`. - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-worktree-suppression.test.ts`: expected one heartbeat run but observed two, followed by cleanup fallout in the full run. - Isolated rerun of those two server suites reproduced the same three failures. ## Risks - Low product risk for the UI changes: the readable smoothing only affects active live-run display stabilization, not stored comments or raw run logs. - Moderate verification risk: local full Vitest did not pass because of unrelated server workspace tests. Targeted tests for this change, typecheck, token gates, and build passed. - Run-log sequence fields are optional for compatibility with older log rows that do not include `seq`. > 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-based coding agent, tool-using local workspace 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a02fe8d575 |
Update Codex adapter GPT-5.6 defaults (#9352)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Codex local is the adapter subsystem that exposes OpenAI Codex CLI model choices to agents and issue overrides. > - OpenAI has GPT-5.6 Codex-capable models that should appear in Paperclip's built-in Codex model list and refresh behavior. > - Paperclip's server model listing falls back to the adapter metadata and merges OpenAI refresh results with known Codex defaults. > - This pull request updates the Codex default model metadata to include GPT-5.6 options and adds regression coverage for fallback and refresh paths. > - The benefit is that operators can select the new Codex models without relying on manual model IDs, and refresh behavior keeps known GPT-5.6 options visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9322. Refs #9342. Refs #9346. ### Agent or provider Codex CLI (OpenAI). ### Why this adapter is useful OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Codex-capable models should be available in Paperclip's Codex adapter defaults and model refresh path. ### How the agent is invoked `codex` ## What Changed - Changed the `codex_local` default model metadata from `gpt-5.5` to `gpt-5.6`. - Added `gpt-5.6-sol`, `gpt-5.6-terra`, and `gpt-5.6-luna` to the built-in Codex adapter model list. - Updated adapter and server model-listing tests to cover GPT-5.6 fallback and refresh behavior. - Aligned Codex Fast mode support and helper text with the new `gpt-5.6` default, while preserving GPT-5.5, GPT-5.4, and manual model ID support. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/codex-local/src/index.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/codex-args.test.ts server/src/__tests__/adapter-models.test.ts server/src/__tests__/adapter-model-refresh-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-codex-local typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` ## Risks Medium risk because changing `DEFAULT_CODEX_LOCAL_MODEL` from `gpt-5.5` to `gpt-5.6` changes the adapter's default model selection for new blank configurations. The model-list additions are otherwise low risk and covered by adapter/server metadata tests. This PR intentionally overlaps related PRs #9342 and #9346, so reviewers may prefer to close or fold it into one of those branches. > 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell, git, GitHub CLI, and repository editing tool use. Exact served model ID 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 - [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
|
cc81eefb60 |
Make plan-approval continuations durable after failed wakes (#9331)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents often work from reviewed plans that are approved through issue-thread interactions. > - Accepting a plan is not just a UI decision; it must reliably resume the assignee so approved work continues. > - A failed continuation wake could leave an approved plan stranded in review with no durable retry or visible recovery path. > - This pull request makes approved plan continuations retryable, recoverable, and visible when resume fails. > - The benefit is that operators can trust plan approval to either resume the agent or produce an explicit actionable failure instead of silent limbo. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? When a plan-confirmation interaction was accepted, the assignee continuation wake could fail before useful agent execution. In that case the issue could remain in review even though the plan had been approved, because the failed wake was fire-and-forget and there was no durable retry or recovery path for accepted continuations. ### Expected behavior Accepted plan continuations should either wake the assignee successfully, retry bounded infrastructure failures, recover dropped wakes, or surface an explicit failure state that operators can act on. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue with an assignee and a plan confirmation that wakes the assignee on accept. 2. Accept the confirmation. 3. Simulate a pre-flight continuation failure, such as process loss before agent start or workspace validation failure. 4. Observe that the approved issue can remain in review without an active assignee wake or visible retry/failure state. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproducible on `master` before this PR's retry/recovery changes. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server-side recovery paths. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm install`, `pnpm dev`, test runner). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core continuation/recovery bug. The tests cover local-agent failure shapes without relying on a provider-specific API. ### Database mode Embedded Postgres test database for verification. The affected logic is database-backed and applies to normal Postgres deployments as well. ### Access context Board accepts the interaction; agent execution resumes through the assignee wake path. ### Relevant logs or output No sensitive logs are needed. The regression tests simulate the failed wake and recovery states directly. ### Relevant config No special config is required beyond an assignee with wake-on-demand enabled. ### Additional context This PR also prevents a stale workspace-validation payload from quarantining another issue's active workspace and prevents unrelated successful runs from masking a continuation that never resumed. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, and company names, and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added bounded infrastructure retries for failed accepted-interaction continuation wakes. - Extended stranded issue recovery so dropped accepted-plan continuation wakes are requeued. - Recorded and rendered explicit resume-failure state on accepted confirmation cards. - Added clean-workspace fallback for workspace-validation failures while preventing cross-issue workspace quarantine. - Tightened recovery so unrelated successful runs do not mask an accepted continuation that never resumed. - Added focused server/UI coverage for retry scheduling, recovery, visible failure state, and interaction card rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 106 tests passed. - Earlier branch verification also covered the issue-thread interaction card tests for the visible resume-failure UI. - GitHub CI is green on the replacement PR head, and Greptile reports 5/5 with no blocking issues. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery behavior for accepted continuation interactions and workspace-validation retries. - Mitigation: retries are bounded, scoped to same-company issue context, and workspace quarantine now requires ownership by the issue being retried. - Existing stored confirmation results remain compatible because the new resume-failure field is optional. > 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, tool-enabled terminal workflow. The runtime does not expose an exact context-window value to the agent. ## 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 Foley
|
05973b2073 |
Enable sandbox environments for Grok local adapter (#9338)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Local CLI adapters can run against Paperclip-managed execution environments instead of only the host filesystem. > - The environment picker and environment capability API derive sandbox support from shared adapter capability lists. > - The Grok Build adapter is implemented as a local CLI adapter, but it was missing from those shared environment capability lists. > - That made Grok agents look local-only even when sandbox environments were configured. > - This pull request registers `grok_local` in the shared adapter constants and remote-managed environment support path. > - The benefit is that Grok Build agents can select the same local, SSH, and sandbox environment overrides as other local CLI adapters. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Inline bug report follows. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in the Grok adapter provider or local configuration. ### What happened? When configuring a Grok Build local agent in the board UI, Paperclip did not expose configured sandbox environments as selectable environment overrides. The shared environment capability helper treated `grok_local` as local-only because it was missing from the remote-managed local adapter allowlist. ### Expected behavior Grok Build should behave like other local CLI adapters: when environments are enabled and a runnable sandbox environment exists, the agent configuration form should show the environment override selector and allow the sandbox to be selected. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Enable environments in instance experimental settings. 2. Configure at least one runnable sandbox environment. 3. Open the agent configuration form for a Grok Build local agent. 4. Observe that the sandbox environment is not offered as an override before this fix. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` before this PR. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`). ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm dev` / `pnpm build`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved - Grok Build local adapter. - Core bug in shared environment capability logic. ### Database mode Not database-related. ### Access context Board human operator. ### Relevant logs or output No runtime error is emitted; the issue is a missing UI option caused by shared capability metadata. ### Relevant config No secret-bearing config required. Reproduction only needs environments enabled and a runnable sandbox environment configured. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, company names, and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added `grok_local` to the shared built-in adapter type list. - Added `grok_local` to the remote-managed adapter set used by environment capability helpers. - Added shared regression coverage for Grok local sandbox provider and driver support. - Added a UI render regression test that confirms Grok Build agents show the environment override when a runnable sandbox exists. ## Verification - `git diff --check` - Changed-file secret scan with `rg` for common token/key patterns. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec vitest run src/environment-support.test.ts` - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx` ## Risks - Low risk. This expands environment support for an existing local adapter to match the local CLI adapter behavior already used by Claude, Codex, Gemini, OpenCode, Cursor, and Pi. - Operators still need at least one configured runnable sandbox environment before a Grok agent has a sandbox option to select. - This PR was created from a Paperclip execution workspace branch whose name is runtime-provided; the PR body intentionally avoids internal issue identifiers or instance-local links. > 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, tool-enabled terminal/code execution environment. ## 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 |
||
|
|
5c85ae64a0 |
Cases: experimental first-class case object (#9198)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single task thread. > - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for content artifacts and their supporting metadata. > - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history, issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend on Cases. > - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views, reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases without making them the default workflow. > - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature. > - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the `enableCases` flag. > - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work, references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads without polluting the core issue model. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature. Feature request fields: ### Problem Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on. ### Proposed solution Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and writable by agent workflows through documented conventions. ### Alternatives considered Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution history. ### Roadmap alignment Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned core roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and experimental `enableCases` instance setting. - Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments, and idempotent agent-oriented upserts. - Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than leaking existence. - Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot. - Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters and no-project filtering. - Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible lookup regressions. - Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes, list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children, attachments, and issue-page case rail. - Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company route. - Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or update Cases. - Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding. - Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to `0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence. ## Verification - Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`. - Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing PR branch. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff --check` before commit. - Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no `.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the Greptile 100-file limit. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the timestamp and lookup fixes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` — passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file / 12 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the list-filter fix. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes. - Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build, typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review, Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral. - Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads. ## Risks - Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI. - The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default operator exposure while the model is exercised. - Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect remains for externally entered URLs. - Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second pass for ancestor/context rows. - Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where relevant for safer replay. > 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-5 Codex in the Paperclip local coding environment was used for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation, push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter. Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers recorded in git history. ## 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this is not a duplicate - [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) - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
606aa4f266 |
feat(search): filters, sorting, operators & command-palette parity (#9327)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Company search is the primary way operators find issues, comments, documents, artifacts, agents, and projects across a busy company > - Search previously supported only a bare text query: no way to narrow by status/assignee/project/label/date, no sort control, no typed operators, and weak relevance/snippets meant hunting through noise > - As companies accumulate tens of thousands of items, unfiltered single-sort search stops scaling for day-to-day operator workflows > - This pull request adds a full filtering model (filter bar, chips, mobile sheet, URL state), sort modes, typed query operators (`status:`, `assignee:`, `type:`, …) with command-palette parity, relevance/snippet/deep-link improvements, zero-results recovery, and the supporting shared validators, backend service work, and DB indexes > - The benefit is that operators can go from a vague query to the exact item in a couple of keystrokes, on desktop and mobile, with shareable filtered-search URLs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public GitHub issue; describing the underlying feature request inline (per feature_request template): - **Problem:** Company search accepted only a plain text query. Users could not filter results by status, assignee, project, label, or recency; could not change result ordering; and got no guidance when filters emptied the result set. - **Desired solution:** Structured search filters (UI controls + typed query operators + URL parameters), selectable sort modes, better relevance and snippets with exact deep links, and parity between the search page and the command palette. - **Alternatives considered:** Client-side filtering of unfiltered results (does not scale past the fetch limit); a separate "advanced search" page (splits the surface and duplicates state handling). Related (not duplicate) PRs found while searching: #4848 (issue search query planning), #8235 (search rate limiting). ## What Changed - **Shared contract:** new search filter/sort/count/zero-results types and validators in `packages/shared` (`validators/search.ts`, types index). - **Backend:** `server/src/services/company-search.ts` supports issue filters, sort modes, per-filter option counts, snippets, artifact visibility, and zero-results loosen suggestions; single-statement match replaces per-scope scans and predicates are trigram-index compatible (~3.7s → ~350ms on a live 14.8k-hit corpus). - **DB:** migration `0142_company_search_sort_indexes.sql` adds the supporting indexes. - **Search page (`ui/src/pages/Search.tsx`):** filter bar, removable chips, mobile filter sheet with result-count preview, sort menu, URL round-tripping, zero-results recovery UI. - **Query operators (`ui/src/lib/search-query-parser.ts`):** typed operators parsed into filters, operator autocomplete, filter pills. - **Command palette:** operator-aware parsing and full-search handoff. - **Stale-operator fix (latest commit):** typed operator filters are no longer folded into persistent URL-filter state, so deleting a token (e.g. removing `status:blocked` from the input) actually removes the filter from subsequent requests; filter-control edits materialize control state and strip typed tokens so a removed chip cannot resurrect from the input. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Search.test.tsx` — 19 tests including two new red→green regressions for the stale-operator paths (both fail on the previous commit, pass now). - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/CommandPalette.test.tsx` and `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/company-search-service.test.ts` — operator parity and backend filter/sort/count coverage. - `cd ui && npx tsc --noEmit` — clean. - Manual: open `/search`, type `auth status:blocked`, confirm the status filter applies; delete `status:blocked`, confirm results are unfiltered again; drive the same filters from the filter bar/chips/mobile sheet and confirm the URL round-trips (reload/back/forward preserves state). - Full end-to-end QA pass (9/9 acceptance checks) against the wireframes on desktop (1280px) and mobile (390px) with a live API and browser automation. ## Risks - Additive migration (indexes only, no data rewrites) — safe to roll forward; index creation cost is paid once at migrate time. - Search request shape gains optional parameters only; old clients keep working. - Behavioral shift: filter-control edits now strip typed operator tokens from the query text (their values persist as filter state) — deliberate, so removed filters stay removed. - Ranking changes alter result ordering for existing queries; covered by service tests and the QA pass. > 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 - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, extended thinking + tool use) — stale-operator-filter fix, regression tests, PR preparation. - GPT-5 Codex (`codex_local` adapter) and Claude Opus 4.6 (`claude-opus-4-6`) — earlier implementation phases (backend contract, filter UI, operators, ranking) under agent orchestration. ## 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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details — pre-existing branch name retained to avoid closing/reopening the PR - [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 (no user-facing docs affected) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending re-run on latest commit) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending re-review of the stale-filter fix) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
f3ca4d24bc |
fix: repair dirty/foreign-branch execution worktrees (#9297)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Execution workspaces are the bridge between Paperclip's control plane and a local agent's checked-out repository state. > - When a workspace is restored after a failed or interrupted run, the recorded branch can disagree with the branch currently checked out on disk. > - A clean branch mismatch can be reconciled safely, but a dirty mismatch needs a lossless path that does not discard uncommitted agent work. > - This pull request adds a quarantine-and-restore path that saves dirty work to a rescue branch, restores the recorded branch, and exposes the repair from the board UI and run page. > - The benefit is that operators can recover wedged execution workspaces without losing work or moving another live branch unexpectedly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this workspace-recovery failure, so this PR includes the bug report inline. **What happened** A git worktree-backed execution workspace could become wedged when Paperclip expected one branch but found a different checked-out branch with dirty tracked or untracked files. The existing safe repair path refused the restore, leaving the source task blocked with no lossless one-click recovery path. **Expected behavior** Paperclip should preserve dirty work before restoring the recorded workspace branch. If another live workspace claims the checked-out branch, or an attached runtime service is active, the repair should refuse with clear operator-facing evidence instead of risking work loss or file contention. **Steps to reproduce** Create a git worktree execution workspace whose persisted branch name differs from the checked-out branch, add dirty tracked or untracked files in that worktree, then trigger workspace validation or use the branch reconcile endpoint. Before this change, the dirty mismatch remained blocked because Paperclip had no quarantine restore mode. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on the pre-fix workspace-recovery implementation. Verified on this PR head after rebasing onto current `master`. **Deployment mode** Local trusted development/worktree deployments using git worktree execution workspaces and optional workspace runtime services. ## What Changed - Added dirty-worktree quarantine repair that creates a rescue branch, commits dirty tracked and untracked files there, restores the recorded branch, writes audit comments/activity, and preserves the live foreign branch ref. - Added `quarantine_restore` branch reconcile API support, recovery-action resolution, source-task wake behavior, execution-review preservation, claimant refusal, runtime-service refusal, and coverage for the non-transactional git ordering. - Added board UI controls for the repair action in the recovery card plus a compact failed-run workspace recovery surface that uses the same reconcile handlers. - Hardened Greptile follow-up cases by best-effort restoring the recorded branch after a mid-sequence rescue commit failure and by refusing quarantine restore while attached runtime services are active. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts -t "quarantine_restore"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "workspace dirty quarantine branch repair"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts -t "repairs clean unrecorded branch drift|adopts unrecorded forward branch drift"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - Earlier PR verification covered the route, service, heartbeat, UI component, and run-page recovery surfaces; Cutter posted public preview screenshots for the repair popover and run-page panel at https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/9297#issuecomment-4926934211. - GitHub PR checks are green on `dcac76b05f4cf6e1ee16544c2831d83c7857e475`. - Greptile is 5/5 with zero annotations and no unresolved review threads on `dcac76b05f4cf6e1ee16544c2831d83c7857e475`. ## Risks - Moderate risk because the change intentionally runs git commands against local worktrees; the implementation refuses dirty repair when another claimant or active runtime service is detected and records rescue refs for auditability. - Compatibility / release-note callout for self-hosted operators: existing instances that left `enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` unset now get automatic forward branch reconciliation during heartbeat workspace recovery. Operators who want the previous advisory-only behavior can set `experimental.enableWorkspaceBranchReconcileForward` to `false`; dirty quarantine repair can likewise be disabled with `experimental.enableWorkspaceDirtyQuarantineRepair: false`. - If the git rescue succeeds but a later database write fails, the worktree may already be restored while the recovery action remains open; this ordering is documented in code because git side effects cannot participate in the database transaction. - UI risk is limited to the workspace recovery surfaces and covered by component tests plus the existing Cutter visual preview. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, and local test execution. Earlier preserved commits on this branch also show Claude Code / Claude Opus 4.8 assistance in their commit metadata. ## 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] Branch naming exception documented: this PR preserves the existing worktree branch requested for publication while keeping the PR title and body public-facing - [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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
176645187c |
Fix request storm polling and issue-list coalescing (#9190)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The board UI keeps issue, agent, activity, and run state fresh through polling across several pages and sidebar surfaces > - When multiple components or browser tabs poll the same company data at the same time, the API can receive bursts of duplicate issue-list requests > - Those duplicate requests increase database and server load without returning meaningfully different data > - This pull request adds server-side compression/coalescing plus client-side visibility-aware and cross-tab shared polling > - The benefit is lower request volume during normal board usage while preserving fresh UI data for active users ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found for this request. Problem: - The board can issue redundant polling requests for the same issue-list data from multiple UI surfaces and tabs. - In busy operator sessions, those bursts can trigger request-storm behavior and unnecessary issue-list load. - Expected behavior is to reuse identical in-flight work server-side and reduce hidden-tab or duplicate-tab polling client-side while preserving normal refresh behavior. Related public context found during duplicate search: - #8206 covers a different board UI 404-storm scope. - #5165 covers separate issue-list behavior around page-size truncation. ## What Changed - Added API compression middleware foundation and a company/created-at index for heartbeat run access. - Added server-side issue-list request storm detection and identical in-flight request coalescing. - Added UI fetch metadata, visibility-aware polling, and request deduplication for issue/activity/client calls. - Added cross-tab shared polling primitives and wired them into the sidebar, inbox, dashboard, issue, project, routine, and agent surfaces. - Resolved the latest `master` migration collision by keeping upstream `0140_built_in_managed_resources.sql` and renumbering this branch's heartbeat-run index migration to `0141_heartbeat_runs_company_created_at_index.sql`; the SQL uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS` for idempotency. - Stabilized server heartbeat cleanup tests exposed by the PR check matrix. - Fixed the Greptile compression follow-up by weakening strong ETags on encoded JSON responses and bypassing compression for streamed/download responses. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — passed after resolving the latest `master` conflict in `IssuesList.tsx` and updating the 200-result cap expectations. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after the UI conflict resolution. - `jq -e '.entries | length as $n | (map(.idx) | unique | length == $n) and (map(.tag) | unique | length == $n)' packages/db/src/migrations/meta/_journal.json` — passed after renumbering the migration to `0141`. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts` - passed after the compression follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts` - passed after the compression follow-up. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - passed after the compression follow-up. - Greptile Review for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b` - passed after the latest conflict/migration fix; all Greptile review threads are resolved. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/api-compression.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-list-assignee-filter-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/client.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts ui/src/lib/polling.test.ts ui/src/lib/cross-tab-poll.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/api/client.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarProjects.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issueDetailCache.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-worktree-suppression.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - GitHub PR checks for head `8dbddac41ec273fda404100b4981ddb912fad57b`: all GitHub Actions/status checks passed; Greptile, Superagent, Socket, Snyk, build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary dry run, policy, and commitperclip review are green; Storybook visual regression and security-review were skipped/neutral by policy. - Confirmed this branch does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. ## Risks - Medium risk: issue-list coalescing changes request timing and cache semantics for a hot API path. - Medium risk: cross-tab polling uses browser coordination primitives, so older or unusual browser environments need fallback behavior to stay correct. - Low migration risk: the new index migration is ordered after current `master` and uses `CREATE INDEX IF NOT EXISTS`. > 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 coding agent, GPT-5-based model, tool-enabled with shell/git execution. Exact hosted deployment identifier and context-window size were not surfaced in the agent 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 - [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
|
9acce52aa5 |
[codex] Polish operator UI work state details (#9320)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Operators use the issue list, blocked-work notices, pipeline body documents, and issue documents to understand what agents are doing > - Some of those surfaces had low-information details: live-work blockers were visually easy to miss, revision history showed generic actor labels, and selected active subtasks carried an extra accent border > - These details matter because Paperclip's default UI should make agent state and work history legible without requiring users to inspect raw logs > - This pull request groups a small set of related operator UI polish changes for those work-state and document-history surfaces > - The benefit is clearer review context for blocked work, better attribution in document revision history, and cleaner active-subtask row styling ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue found during dedup search. ### Bug Report **Pre-submission checklist** - Searched existing open PRs/issues for `document revision authors` and `blocked notice live work`; no duplicates found. - Reproduced against the current `master` base for this PR. - Confirmed this is core board UI behavior, not adapter/provider/local configuration. **What happened?** Blocked live-work notices, document revision history, pipeline body document revision history, and active subtask rows exposed technically correct but low-signal UI details. Revision menus could show generic `Board`/`Agent` labels instead of the specific author, and selected active subtasks had an extra accent border. **Expected behavior** Operators should see clear blocked-live-work copy, recognizable revision authors using available agent/user profile data, and visually consistent selected task rows. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an issue with a live-work blocker and inspect the blocked notice. 2. Open an issue document revision menu with agent/user-authored revisions. 3. Open a pipeline item body document revision menu with agent/user-authored revisions. 4. Inspect a selected active subtask row in the issue list. **Paperclip version or commit** `8b6a06ee2` (`origin/master` at branch creation). **Deployment mode** Local dev / self-hosted board UI. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core board UI). **Database mode** Not database-related. **Access context** Board operator UI. **Relevant logs or output** Not applicable. **Relevant config** Not applicable. **Additional context** This PR is a small polish/fix contribution. `ROADMAP.md` allows tightly scoped bugs and polish without roadmap-level coordination. **Privacy checklist** Reviewed the PR body for private instance references and omitted internal ticket links. ## What Changed - Polished the live-work blocked notice copy and tests so operators get a clearer explanation of what is blocking progress. - Show issue document revision authors with agent/user names and avatar treatment instead of generic actor labels. - Show pipeline body document revision authors with the same available agent/user profile data. - Removed the extra left accent border from selected active subtask rows. - Stabilized the document revision test helper for React runtimes where `act` is not exported as a function. ## Verification - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD -- .github/workflows pnpm-lock.yaml` produced no output. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed: all color literal, arbitrary bracket value, and raw font-size gates clean. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx` passed: 3 test files, 32 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - Remote PR checks passed on head `3e18fe3f`: 22 complete, 0 pending, 0 failing. - Greptile completed at 5/5 with no blocking issues after addressing the pipeline revision author feedback. ## Risks Low risk. The change is limited to board UI rendering and component tests. The main risk is a subtle visual regression in issue/document surfaces that are not covered by screenshots; the affected component tests cover the intended copy, attribution, and row-style 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 coding agent, GPT-5 model family, tool-enabled CLI session. Exact runtime context window is not exposed by this execution environment. ## 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> |
