mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 16:27:18 +02:00
d9bcf4dfe8e4f6c46bb0c3cd2ff0e56bb73e0cfe
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
63fbb714e6 |
fix(server): release idle tracking after aborted static UI files (#16685)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip runs work for AI agents. > - Hosts must prove that accepted work has finished before idle sleep. > - HTTP request tracking keeps unfinished writes active after a client leaves. > - Static file middleware has no returned completion promise. > - An aborted UI download can leave its request active forever. > - This PR completes only a matched file response and keeps other work tracked. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15522. Found while qualifying #16679. A search found no duplicate static-download idle fix. **What happened?** Closing a client during a static UI download leaves one tracked request active. The response has closed, but the file middleware never calls the wrapped response end method. The instance cannot report idle after that request. **Expected behavior** A closed, matched static file response must not leave a permanent work hold. Unfinished application writes must remain tracked. A missing file must keep the normal fallback and error paths. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Serve a large local file through the static UI middleware with idle admission enabled. 2. Start the download over HTTP. 3. Disconnect the client after its first data chunk. 4. Observe that the tracked request remains active with the original middleware. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the behavior in `d30648dee89720358271c276b9fc28cf83f18be7`. This branch starts at `cfa9dce295970a85b3d8ee14cab0eccf50bc72e2`. ## What Changed - Mark the completion of a known read-only response without dropping pending middleware promises. - Wrap static UI file serving. A successful file match is required before a closed response can complete its tracking. A late match rechecks an already closed response. Missing files keep the normal fallback. - Use the wrapper for hashed assets, other static UI files, and public development files. Preserve caller headers and cache options. - Test both HTTP abort timings, nested routers, conservative mounted-application holds, parent writes, mutating GET fallbacks, and callback-only work. - Update the idle contract and its verification map. Correct the paused-message recipe from hosted qualification: an explicit Pause cancels older queued work, so test new accepted input after the pause and await the normal resume lifecycle. ## Verification - The original two real stream-abort regressions fail with the original Express static behavior. - Three review regressions fail on `e260f4694afab8447b0cb203f439cb3ccad254e8`: a client closing before file lookup, an unfinished parent in a mounted application, and an unfinished parent in a root without installed handler tracking. Fixed sources were restored byte for byte after the comparison. - Two focused suites: 16 passed. They cover nested routers, both abort timings, hidden parent writes, late missing-file fallbacks, contents, HEAD, conditional responses, and caller headers. - Module and map checks pass. Map checks are structural only. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed on `f242ee739344484995d3addf81635512370778c8`. - Full CI matrix: 54 successful checks and 2 intentional Storybook skips. - Apex: 5/5 on the exact current head, with zero unresolved threads. - Full local maintained test groups are still running before final handoff. - The initial local broad run was stopped before changing source for the P1 review findings. Two file-mode fixture failures in that run came from the scratch runner's inherited `0077` mask; the same suite passes with the normal child test mask `0022`, without source or host configuration changes. The replacement run uses `0022` for test children and command-scoped `init.defaultBranch=master` for existing Git fixture assumptions. - This PR has not been deployed to a hosted environment. ## Risks Only a matched file served by the admitted application with installed handler tracking can complete this way. Routers share that scope. Mounted Express applications and roots without handler tracking keep the existing conservative response hold; this change does not claim their hidden writes are tracked. An unfinished tracked parent promise still blocks sleep after a file client disconnects. Redirects, missing files, application callbacks, and other GET requests retain their guards. No authentication, company scope, provider cleanup, or scheduling gate is removed. No schema or API response changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, source editing, and shell tools. The session does not expose a more specific serving model ID or its context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have 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 FoleyandPaperclip
|
d30648dee8 |
Preserve accepted messages for paused recipients (#16679)
Keep accepted deferred requests pending while their recipient is paused and deliver through normal gates after resume. Preserve company, task hold, and cleanup checks. Verification: 247 focused checks, recursive typecheck, the full CI test and build matrix, and Apex 5/5. The local Git fixture initial-branch limitation is documented in the PR. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5c7a025032 |
fix(ui): clear consumed messages from the pending queue (#16317)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations keep follow-up messages pending while an agent works. > - The screen combines optimistic sends, queue snapshots, and run input records. > - A late send response can restore a local queue flag after a run takes the message. > - A stale queue snapshot can then keep the same message in pending. > - This pull request matches the input record to its source queue and clears stale pending flags. > - The benefit is that consumed messages leave pending while unsent messages stay visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A follow-up can remain in the task composer's pending row after a run takes it as input. Local queue state can outlive the send request. The old projection cleared that state for steering, but not for ordinary run-start input. A stale queue read can also retain the consumed entry. **Expected behavior** A message that a started run takes as input appears once in history and leaves pending. Other pending messages remain available. A message assigned to a run that has not started remains pending. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Send a follow-up while a task has a live run. 2. Let a started run record that message as input before or after the send response arrives. 3. Let a queue read still include the consumed message. 4. Observe the message remain pending on the base revision. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master at `33d24e48ad` with controlled request ordering. **Deployment mode** Source checkout. Browser verification used the production task screen with a simulated native runner and delayed API responses. It did not run a live model or change a deployed instance. Related: [PR #15030](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15030) addresses acknowledgement matching in the runner console. This change addresses the task-detail composer and does not modify that console. ## What Changed - Clear local pending flags when a started run records the comment as input. - Use live-run input IDs while the run-history query catches up. - Match stale queue entries by their primary or coalesced source wake ID, even when the snapshot targets the previous run or has no target. - Retain coalesced source queue IDs in run context and include receipt IDs in compact task run reads. - Keep unstarted run inputs and authoritative retries pending. Cover send ordering, same-run and successor delivery, queued snapshots, coalesced inputs, and retry consumption. - Add the delivery-race checks to the steering feature map. ## Verification - Before the fix, the first four request-order regressions failed with the consumed message still in pending. Coverage now includes 16 combinations of receipt source, send-response order, and stale snapshot kind. - Focused UI checks: 5 files and 233 tests passed. These cover task detail, queue projection, optimistic comments, queued-message controls, and the task-chat adapter. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Server receipt checks: 5 files and 139 tests passed with `PAPERCLIP_TEST_POSTGRES_TEMPLATE=0`. These exercise real database reads, coalesced heartbeat input, and polling routes. The default cached-template path timed out during setup on this host; the fresh-cluster path passed without longer timeouts. - Token gates and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Browser: sent a follow-up with a delayed response in the production task screen. The consumed message moved into history. A second unsent follow-up stayed queued. Reload preserved both states. The API and runner were simulated. - `pnpm build` passed. - The full local repository test run was started, then stopped to isolate database setup timeouts. All 55 GitHub CI checks passed on `4ec6820cf1f89880b801fd5f938d72f54591c5e2`, including the full test matrix. One serialized server shard passed on its single rerun after a 15-second route-test timeout; the same 97-test route suite also passed locally. - Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Queue display depends on matching comment IDs, source queue IDs, and a recorded start time. Rows without start evidence stay pending. Newer queues remain visible until their own input receipt arrives. - Run context gains additive receipt metadata. No schema migration is required. Dispatch order, stored queue state, company access, and steering authority stay unchanged. - Browser evidence covers controlled response ordering. It does not establish deployment or live-provider behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` 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
|
433d94ee0b |
refactor(maps): generate indexes from local story and feature metadata (#16214)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7d9b93aee2 |
docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. **Issue type** Missing documentation and maintenance contract. **Where is the issue?** The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. **What's wrong?** There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. **Suggested fix** Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## 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> |