mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-25 02:26:12 +02:00
dc12197cce0d7c0b849c560b4ab1d7dd920b4bfd
18
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
e4e12bfb89 |
fix(workspaces): persist readiness state and validate ports (#9408)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Execution workspaces can run managed services that must report reliable lifecycle and readiness state > - Service startup previously waited for readiness before committing the starting row, making concurrent control actions see stale state > - Fixed service ports also needed clearer configuration and ownership diagnostics to avoid cross-workspace collisions > - This pull request persists startup state before readiness, validates port ownership, and exposes configurable service ports in the workspace UI > - The benefit is dependable service controls and actionable diagnostics when workspace runtimes start slowly or compete for ports ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? Slow-starting workspace services could remain invisible to concurrent stop/restart controls until readiness completed, and fixed-port conflicts lacked enough ownership context for safe repair. ### Expected behavior A starting service is persisted immediately, control operations can observe it, configured ports are editable, and conflicts identify the owning process/workspace. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Configure a workspace service that delays binding its HTTP port. 2. Start the service and immediately request another control action. 3. Observe stale persisted state before this change. 4. Configure two workspaces for the same fixed port and observe limited conflict diagnostics. ### Paperclip version or commit `origin/master` at `02e2dd271` ### Deployment mode Local dev; built from source; not adapter-specific; database-backed workspace runtime state. ## What Changed - Commit the `starting` runtime-service row before waiting for readiness and transition it after the probe completes. - Add port-owner inspection and cross-workspace conflict details to local service supervision. - Preserve configurable runtime service ports through workspace configuration updates. - Surface service-port editing and validation in the execution workspace details UI. - Add server and UI regression coverage for slow readiness, concurrent controls, port persistence, and conflict diagnostics. ## Verification - `vitest --project @paperclipai/server src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` — 118 tests passed. - `vitest --project @paperclipai/ui src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.service-ports.test.ts` — 4 tests passed. - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` — all token gates clean. ## Risks - Moderate risk: changes touch workspace service lifecycle persistence and local process/port inspection. - No schema migration is required; tests exercise slow readiness, concurrent control, persisted ports, and cross-workspace conflicts. > 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 use and code execution; 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> |
||
|
|
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> |
||
|
|
b13eb5b2b5 |
Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > 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 with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
bb87047fe6 |
Add auto-forward execution workspace branch reconciliation (#9172)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages execution workspaces for AI agent runs, each associated with a git branch so the agent always works in a known code state. > - Workspace runtime reconciles an agent's checkout branch against the workspace's recorded branch when a heartbeat resumes; without forward-ancestry detection, any divergence fails closed and blocks the run. > - When the workspace branch has moved forward (e.g. after a feature merge), the recorded branch is an ancestor of the current HEAD — a safe, forward-only case that the previous implementation refused even though it carries no safety risk. > - The gap means legitimate forward-advancing deployments require manual operator intervention to unblock agents every time, creating operational friction and interrupting automated workflows. > - This pull request adds a flag-gated reconcile-forward path that detects when the current branch is a strict forward descendant of the workspace branch and auto-reconciles, while preserving fail-closed behavior for all non-forward or flag-off cases. > - It also threads the active execution workspace id through restore and finalize call sites so the reconcile verdict can be persisted durably across heartbeats. > - The benefit is that agents resume automatically from forward-advancing workspace branches without operator intervention, while adversarial and backward branch changes continue to fail closed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This PR adds an auto-forward reconcile path for execution workspace branch tracking. When a workspace's recorded branch is a strict ancestor of the current HEAD (a forward-only advancement), the runtime now auto-reconciles rather than hard-blocking. The feature is gated behind an explicit runtime flag, defaults to off, and falls back to fail-closed behavior for all non-forward or flag-off cases. The prior implementation treated all branch divergences identically: any mismatch between the recorded workspace branch and the current HEAD failed closed. This prevented agents from resuming after routine forward deployments (e.g. after a feature branch merges into the workspace branch), requiring manual operator action to unblock every affected run. ## What Changed - Added `reconcileForward` flag-gated path in workspace runtime reconciliation logic that allows auto-reconciliation when the workspace branch is a strict ancestor of the current HEAD. - Threaded active execution workspace id through `restore` and `finalize` call sites so reconcile verdicts are persisted durably. - Added `plainLanguageReason` and `ancestryVerdict` evidence fields to the reconciliation result structure for operator visibility. - Stabilized a branch containment test that exposed a late run-linked activity FK cleanup race during the focused Vitest rerun. - All new paths remain fail-closed when the flag is off or when the branch relationship is not strictly forward. ## Verification ```bash pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck pnpm exec vitest run \ server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts \ server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts git diff --check origin/master..HEAD ``` All 3 test files / 98 tests pass. Typecheck passes for both shared and server packages. > **Note:** This is a stacked PR on top of PR #9170 (Add execution workspace branch reconciliation route). The diff shown targets that branch; the combined change builds on the reconciliation route infrastructure it provides. ## Risks - **Flag-off default:** The reconcile-forward path is off by default. No behavior change for existing workspaces unless the flag is explicitly enabled by an operator. - **Ancestry check correctness:** The forward-only guard uses git ancestry verification; a branch that is not a strict ancestor of HEAD remains fail-closed. Adversarial or concurrent branch resets are not auto-reconciled. - **FK cleanup race (stabilized):** A late run-linked activity FK cleanup race in the containment test was exposed during the Vitest rerun. The stabilization commit addresses the non-deterministic ordering without changing production behavior. - **Stacking dependency:** This PR must not be merged before PR #9170 merges, as it is built on top of the reconciliation route infrastructure. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model: Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`) - Context: 200k token context window - Mode: Agentic tool use with code execution and git operations ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
f17202b571 |
Add execution workspace branch reconciliation route (#9170)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is an open-source app that lets teams run AI agents for work tasks; each agent session uses an execution workspace — a git checkout — to track the agent's active code state. > - Every execution workspace has an expected target branch (`PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_BRANCH`). The workspace git HEAD should always point to that branch so agents commit in the right place. > - When workspace git HEAD diverges from the expected branch — for example after a harness branch-name fix or an accidental `checkout -b` during a CI-retrigger — the discrepancy must be corrected before agents can continue safely. > - Operators (board users) need a controlled, audited path to reconcile a workspace's live branch back to the expected target, with an override escape-hatch for cases where the normal forward path is blocked. > - This pull request adds a board-only `POST /api/execution-workspaces/:id/reconcile-branch` service operation and route that validates safety preconditions, resolves matching recovery-action fingerprints, posts source-issue audit comments, and records the reconciliation outcome. > - The benefit is that operators can correct branch divergence through the API with a full audit trail, instead of via raw database edits. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Context below follows the feature-request template format. **Subsystem affected** server/ — REST API & orchestration services; packages/shared — request validation. **Problem or motivation** Execution workspaces have an expected branch record that must match the checked-out worktree branch. When the live git branch and stored branch record drift apart, operators currently lack a first-class, audited API to reconcile the record. The fallback is manual database repair or workspace replacement, both of which are risky and hard to audit. **Proposed solution** Add a board-only execution workspace branch reconciliation operation. `forward` mode re-inspects the server-side git state and only updates the branch record when the stored branch is an ancestor of the checked-out branch. `override` mode is a break-glass path that requires board access and an operator reason. Both modes require a clean, idle workspace, write audit details, post a source-issue audit comment, and resolve the matching workspace-validation recovery action. **Alternatives considered** Manual database edit (no durable audit trail and easy to mistype), recreating the workspace (heavier operational disruption), or trusting client-supplied ancestry evidence (unsafe because the server must verify the git state itself). **Roadmap alignment** This is incremental hardening for execution-workspace recovery and operator controls. It does not duplicate a public roadmap item. **Additional context** The endpoint is intended for operator recovery, not normal agent control flow, so the generated OpenAPI metadata and runtime route both classify it as board-only. ## What Changed - Added `reconcileExecutionWorkspaceBranchSchema` discriminated-union validator (`forward` with optional reason, `override` requiring a non-empty reason string) to `packages/shared/src/validators/execution-workspace.ts` - Exported `ReconcileExecutionWorkspaceBranch` type and the new schema from the shared package index - Added board-only reconcile-branch service operation in the execution workspaces service: safety checks, recovery-action fingerprint resolution, source-issue audit comment, and outcome recording - Added clean-worktree and stopped-runtime-service preconditions before branch-record mutation. - Marked the reconcile route as board-only in OpenAPI generated auth metadata. - Added `POST /api/execution-workspaces/:id/reconcile-branch` route wired to the new service operation with board-permission gate - Extended `execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts` and `execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` to cover: safety-check rejection, override-reason validation, audit-comment posting, and recovery-action fingerprint resolution (2 files / 19 tests) ## Verification ```sh pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts ``` ## Risks - **Board-only gate:** the operation is gated behind the board permission; no agent can trigger it without operator authorization. - **Override requires reason:** the `override` mode requires a non-empty reason string so every bypass is audited. - **Idempotent recovery-action resolution:** re-running with the same fingerprint is safe; duplicate resolution is a no-op. - **No execution-state mutation:** the route records a reconciliation intent and updates the branch record; it does not restart the workspace or modify running agent state. - Overall risk: **low**. ## Model Used - Provider: Anthropic - Model ID: `claude-sonnet-4-6` (Claude Sonnet 4.6) - Context window: 200 K tokens - Capabilities: tool use, code execution, multi-turn context Follow-up safety commit: - Provider: OpenAI - Model ID: `codex` / GPT-5 with tool use and code execution ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (`feat/execution-workspace-branch-reconciliation-route`) 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
|
569b7affc4 |
[codex] Add bounded workspace overview (#8627)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The execution workspace subsystem powers project and workspace views by listing runtime state, branch metadata, issue links, and status summaries. > - The existing workspace views relied on broad list data that can grow expensive as a company accumulates many workspaces and linked issues. > - That makes the Workspaces page and project workspace cards slower than necessary because the UI does not always need the full workspace detail payload up front. > - This pull request adds a bounded overview contract for workspace listings and moves the relevant UI surfaces to that cheaper path. > - The benefit is faster workspace loading while preserving detail fetches for pages that actually need full workspace data. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### What happened? Workspace index-style screens can load too much execution workspace detail before the user asks for it. Several UI surfaces used fuller workspace data paths for summary displays, which can make workspace loading slower as workspace history grows. ### Expected behavior Overview screens should request a bounded summary payload, while detail screens should keep using the full workspace detail endpoint. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run Paperclip from source with enough execution workspace history to make workspace lists non-trivial. 2. Open the Workspaces page or a project workspace summary card. 3. Observe that summary UI needs only bounded workspace metadata but can depend on broader workspace payloads. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` at the time this branch was prepared. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, and path constants for bounded execution workspace overviews. - Added server service and route support for overview queries with bounded linked issue/runtime metadata. - Updated workspace overview UI API calls, query keys, breadcrumbs, quicklooks, close dialogs, project summaries, and detail links to consume the cheaper overview shape where appropriate. - Added regression coverage for the new server route/service behavior and the UI overview consumers. - Registered the new workspace overview route in the generated OpenAPI spec. - Kept overview totals aligned with the project join and preserved project slug links in workspace headers. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts ui/src/api/execution-workspaces.test.ts ui/src/components/ProjectWorkspaceSummaryCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Workspaces.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts` - `pnpm test:run:serialized -- --shard-index 1 --shard-count 4` ## Risks Low to medium risk. The change introduces a new overview contract across shared/server/ui layers, so the main risk is a mismatch between summary and detail payload expectations. The added route/service/UI tests cover the intended split, and full detail pages continue using the detail path. > 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 with repository tool use and local command execution. Exact served model identifier 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 - [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> |
||
|
|
ece8a51e22 |
[codex] Bundle local branch fixes from PAP-10032 (#6604)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - This branch accumulated multiple already-tested control-plane, adapter runtime, invite, workspace, plugin, and UI quality fixes on the primary Paperclip checkout. > - `origin/master` advanced while those commits were still local, so the branch needed to be preserved and reconciled before review. > - Splitting the branch commit-by-commit against the new base produced overlapping conflicts with recently merged upstream PRs. > - This pull request keeps the remaining branch as one standalone PR because the final diff is 38 files after removing screenshot artifacts, under Greptile's 100-file cap, and can be merged independently after review. > - The benefit is that none of the local work is lost, the branch is now based on current `origin/master`, and reviewers can evaluate the reconciled changes in one place. ## What Changed - Merged the local accumulated branch with current `origin/master` and resolved the invite-flow overlaps from the newer upstream companies query helper. - Preserved the local fixes for invite existing-member behavior, invite link copy fallback, reusable workspace selection, worktree auth, static SPA fallback, markdown wrapping, plugin slot registration, cloud upstream UX/server polish, project sorting, and related tests. - Removed screenshot artifacts from the PR per review request. - Kept the PR under the requested file limit: 38 files changed, with no `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*` changes. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanyInvites.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InviteLanding.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Projects.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/slots.test.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/invite-accept-existing-member.test.ts server/src/__tests__/static-index-html.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/better-auth.test.ts server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - Confirmed `git diff --name-only origin/master...HEAD | wc -l` is `38`. - Confirmed no PR diff entries match `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows/*`, or `screenshots/*`. ## Risks - Medium review risk because this is a bundled rescue PR rather than several narrow feature PRs. - Invite flow and company cache behavior overlapped with newer upstream changes; the merge resolution intentionally keeps the shared `companiesListQueryOptions` helper while preserving local existing-member invite behavior. - Visual review evidence is no longer attached in-repo because screenshots were removed from this PR per review request. > 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, with repository tool access, terminal execution, and git/GitHub CLI operations. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI screenshots were intentionally removed from this PR per review request - [x] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: CodexCoder <codexcoder@paperclip.local> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
e4995bbb1c |
Add SSH environment support (#4358)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The environments subsystem already models execution environments, but before this branch there was no end-to-end SSH-backed runtime path for agents to actually run work against a remote box > - That meant agents could be configured around environment concepts without a reliable way to execute adapter sessions remotely, sync workspace state, and preserve run context across supported adapters > - We also need environment selection to participate in normal Paperclip control-plane behavior: agent defaults, project/issue selection, route validation, and environment probing > - Because this capability is still experimental, the UI surface should be easy to hide and easy to remove later without undoing the underlying implementation > - This pull request adds SSH environment execution support across the runtime, adapters, routes, schema, and tests, then puts the visible environment-management UI behind an experimental flag > - The benefit is that we can validate real SSH-backed agent execution now while keeping the user-facing controls safely gated until the feature is ready to come out of experimentation ## What Changed - Added SSH-backed execution target support in the shared adapter runtime, including remote workspace preparation, skill/runtime asset sync, remote session handling, and workspace restore behavior after runs. - Added SSH execution coverage for supported local adapters, plus remote execution tests across Claude, Codex, Cursor, Gemini, OpenCode, and Pi. - Added environment selection and environment-management backend support needed for SSH execution, including route/service work, validation, probing, and agent default environment persistence. - Added CLI support for SSH environment lab verification and updated related docs/tests. - Added the `enableEnvironments` experimental flag and gated the environment UI behind it on company settings, agent configuration, and project configuration surfaces. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapters/claude-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/cursor-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/gemini-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/opencode-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts packages/adapters/pi-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/new-agent-hire-payload.test.ts ui/src/lib/new-agent-runtime-config.test.ts` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Manual verification on a branch-local dev server: - enabled the experimental flag - created an SSH environment - created a Linux Claude agent using that environment - confirmed a run executed on the Linux box and synced workspace changes back ## Risks - Medium: this touches runtime execution flow across multiple adapters, so regressions would likely show up in remote session setup, workspace sync, or environment selection precedence. - The UI flag reduces exposure, but the underlying runtime and route changes are still substantial and rely on migration correctness. - The change set is broad across adapters, control-plane services, migrations, and UI gating, so review should pay close attention to environment-selection precedence and remote workspace lifecycle behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip's local Codex adapter, GPT-5-class coding model with tool use and code execution in the local repo workspace. The local adapter does not surface a more specific public model version string in this branch workflow. ## 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 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 - [x] 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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
549ef11c14 |
[codex] Respect manual workspace runtime controls (#4125)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents inside execution and project workspaces > - Workspace runtime services can be controlled manually by operators and reused by agent runs > - Manual start/stop state was not preserved consistently across workspace policies and routine launches > - Routine launches also needed branch/workspace variables to default from the selected workspace context > - This pull request makes runtime policy state explicit, preserves manual control, and auto-fills routine branch variables from workspace data > - The benefit is less surprising workspace service behavior and fewer manual inputs when running workspace-scoped routines ## What Changed - Added runtime-state handling for manual workspace control across execution and project workspace validators, routes, and services. - Updated heartbeat/runtime startup behavior so manually stopped services are respected. - Auto-filled routine workspace branch variables from available workspace context. - Added focused server and UI tests for workspace runtime and routine variable behavior. - Removed muted gray background styling from workspace pages and cards for a cleaner workspace UI. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx` - Result: 55 tests passed, 21 skipped. The embedded Postgres routines tests skipped on this host with the existing PGlite/Postgres init warning; workspace-runtime and UI tests passed. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches runtime service start/stop policy and heartbeat launch behavior. - The focused tests cover manual runtime state, routine variables, and workspace runtime reuse paths. > 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, tool-enabled local shell and GitHub workflow, exact runtime context window 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots, or documented why targeted component/service verification is sufficient here - [x] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d4c3899ca4 |
[codex] improve issue and routine UI responsiveness (#3744)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Operators rely on issue, inbox, and routine views to understand what the company is doing in real time > - Those views need to stay fast and readable even when issue lists, markdown comments, and run metadata get large > - The current branch had a coherent set of UI and live-update improvements spread across issue search, issue detail rendering, routine affordances, and workspace lookups > - This pull request groups those board-facing changes into one standalone branch that can merge independently of the heartbeat/runtime work > - The benefit is a faster, clearer issue and routine workflow without changing the underlying task model ## What Changed - Show routine execution issues by default and rename the filter to `Hide routine runs` so the default state no longer looks like an active filter. - Show the routine name in the run dialog and tighten the issue properties pane with a workspace link, copy-on-click behavior, and an inline parent arrow. - Reduce issue detail rerenders, keep queued issue chat mounted, improve issues page search responsiveness, and speed up issues first paint. - Add inbox "other search results", refresh visible issue runs after status updates, and optimize workspace lookups through summary-mode execution workspace queries. - Improve markdown wrapping and scrolling behavior for long strings and self-comment code blocks. - Relax the markdown sanitizer assertion so the test still validates safety after the new wrap-friendly inline styles. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/pages/Issues.test.tsx ui/src/context/BreadcrumbContext.test.tsx ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/api/execution-workspaces.test.ts server/src/__tests__/execution-workspaces-routes.test.ts` ## Risks - This touches several issue-facing UI surfaces at once, so regressions would most likely show up as stale rendering, search result mismatches, or small markdown presentation differences. - The workspace lookup optimization depends on the summary-mode route shape staying aligned between server and UI. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment. Exact backend model deployment ID was not exposed in-session. Tool-assisted editing and shell execution were used. ## 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 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 - [x] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e89076148a |
[codex] Improve workspace runtime and navigation ergonomics (#3680)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - That operator experience depends not just on issue chat, but also on how workspaces, inbox groups, and navigation state behave over long-running sessions > - The current branch included a separate cluster of workspace-runtime controls, inbox grouping, sidebar ordering, and worktree lifecycle fixes > - Those changes cross server, shared contracts, database state, and UI navigation, but they still form one coherent operator workflow area > - This pull request isolates the workspace/runtime and navigation ergonomics work into one standalone branch > - The benefit is better workspace recovery and navigation persistence without forcing reviewers through the unrelated issue-detail/chat work ## What Changed - Improved execution workspace and project workspace controls, request wiring, layout, and JSON editor ergonomics - Hardened linked worktree reuse/startup behavior and documented the `worktree repair` flow for recovering linked worktrees safely - Added inbox workspace grouping, mobile collapse, archive undo, keyboard navigation, shared group-header styling, and persisted collapsed-group behavior - Added persistent sidebar order preferences with the supporting DB migration, shared/server contracts, routes, services, hooks, and UI integration - Scoped issue-list preferences by context and added targeted UI/server tests for workspace controls, inbox behavior, sidebar preferences, and worktree validation ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/sidebar-preferences-routes.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx ui/src/components/ProjectWorkspaceSummaryCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx ui/src/api/workspace-runtime-control.test.ts` - `server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` was attempted, but the embedded Postgres suite self-skipped/hung on this host after reporting an init-script issue, so it is not counted as a local pass here ## Risks - Medium: this branch includes migration-backed preference storage plus worktree/runtime behavior, so merge review should pay attention to state persistence and worktree recovery semantics - The sidebar preference migration is standalone, but it should still be watched for conflicts if another migration lands first ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning enabled, tool use and local code execution 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) - [ ] 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 - [x] 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 --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
f515f2aa12 |
Fix workspace runtime state reconciliation
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
caa7550e9f |
Fix shared workspace close semantics
Allow shared execution workspace sessions to be archived with warnings instead of hard-blocking on open linked issues, clear issue workspace links when those shared sessions are archived, and update the close dialog copy and coverage. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
11f08ea5d5 |
Fix execution workspace close messaging
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
1f1fe9c989 |
Add workspace runtime controls
Expose project and execution workspace runtime defaults, control endpoints, startup recovery, and operator UI for start/stop/restart flows. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
f1ad07616c |
Add execution workspace close readiness and UI
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
c114ff4dc6 |
Improve execution workspace detail editing
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
920bc4c70f | Implement execution workspaces and work products |