mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 00:05:49 +02:00
df4ee06e2f613649f8331cc18a1b587e6146f8a8
5141
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
df4ee06e2f |
feat(skills): select and validate tracked GitHub branches (#16288)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Skills can track a branch in an authorized GitHub repository. > - Sources previously offered only a default-branch repair action. > - People need to select a listed branch or enter a branch that GitHub has not listed. > - The server must validate the selected ref with the caller's authorized connection. > - This pull request connects the approved branch picker to production APIs. > - Installed skills remain usable while the source changes its tracked ref. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Skills UI, shared API contracts, GitHub source services, and agent API discovery. **Problem or motivation** The default-branch repair action does not let people choose another branch. The settings service also validates the old ref when a caller supplies a new ref other than HEAD. A missing tracked branch can prevent connection repair even when the selected account has repository access. **Proposed solution** Load a bounded branch list with the authorized connection. Mark the default branch. Search listed branches or accept a typed ref. Validate the selected ref before saving. Keep the chosen value after a load error, invalid ref, or concurrent update. Save the selected connection and branch together during connection repair. **Alternatives considered** A default-branch button does not support a named branch. A text field alone does not help people find the repository default or available branches. **Roadmap alignment** This improves the existing Skills source manager. It does not add a new skill import system. **Additional context** Refs #16066 and #16256. This is the production implementation of the approved branch-selection Storybook journeys. ## What Changed - Add an authorized branch-list endpoint and shared response/query types. Register it in agent API discovery. - Validate the requested ref, including the returned commit SHA. Preserve source leases, revision checks, project ownership, skill identities, selections, and installed versions. - Add the searchable branch picker to Sources and connection repair. Allow typed refs during branch discovery and after discovery fails. - Keep save errors in the dialog. Retain the selected branch through a concurrent source update. - Use the production components and API client in Storybook. Add keyboard, touch, loading, retry, invalid-ref, connection-repair, and concurrent-update browser journeys. - Update product documentation and the feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red/green: two new database regressions fail against the previous service and pass against the implementation. - Linux database/service suite: 85 tests passed. This includes source visibility, human/agent authorization, selected connections, immutable versions, and invalid refs. - Rebased branch and review fixes: 94 focused UI, route, branch-validation, and fixture tests passed. Two conflict-message regressions and the stale-retry fixture regression fail before the fix and pass after it. - Storybook build passed. All 26 focused browser journeys passed. - Repository typecheck and build passed. Final UI typecheck passed after the review fixes. - The full local Vitest run was interrupted when the checkout and its dependencies disappeared. It reported missing working-directory/Postgres files and worker startup errors. Its two timed-out tests pass after the checkout was restored. The complete CI suite passed on the final head, `cf5d4c8f0a`: [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38571068332). One unchanged workspace timestamp test required a single rerun. Its release-minus-one-millisecond value can equal the original confirmation time. The rerun passed. - Live acceptance passed on implementation head `5dd935bf14` in an isolated macOS arm64 instance with Node 24.21.0 and an authorized private GitHub repository. The UI loaded the actual default branch, saved branch and selected connection together, and preserved the installed skill/version IDs after reload. An invalid typed ref retained the draft and showed the provider error. A valid typed HEAD ref then saved successfully. The owned runtime and database were stopped after the test. Focused unit, Linux database, and browser suites passed again after the error-handling review fixes. - Greptile reviewed final head `cf5d4c8f0a` at 5/5. Both review threads are resolved; the fresh review has no remaining findings. - Token gates and map/catalog checks passed. - Review entry points: `Skills / Project repository skills / 03 Branch selection components` and `04 Branch selection journeys`. Run `pnpm storybook` to inspect them. - Browser command: `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts tests/storybook-visual/skill-source-branch-selection.spec.ts tests/storybook-visual/project-repository-skills.spec.ts`. - Manual check: open an independent GitHub source, choose a new branch, select the default or type a ref, save, and reload. Try an invalid ref and confirm the selection remains in the dialog. For a project-bound source, change its ref in project settings. ## Risks - GitHub discovery is bounded to 100 listed branches. The default branch is always included. Typed refs remain available. - A source can change while the dialog is open. The API rejects a stale revision and the UI keeps the draft for retry. - A ref change schedules the existing refresh pipeline. Installed versions remain available until a successful refresh imports new content. - No database migration or credential storage change is required. Existing HEAD requests remain supported. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The serving model's exact identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d4892d4761 |
fix(observability): sample native runs independently of triggers (#16285)
Start native background run traces under the operator's root sampling policy and link them to valid trigger contexts. Preserve child parenting and silent unconfigured tracing. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f69c6a8a35 |
fix(github): retry and recover review publication (#16284)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results.
> - GitHub review bots publish task-bound assessments through governed
tools.
> - A review can survive a caller timeout because its publication intent
is durable.
> - A transient provider failure still returned a failed receipt before
recovery.
> - Gateway replay could return an empty cached result, and publication
retries had no dedicated scheduler deadline.
> - This pull request adds bounded retries, receipt recovery, and an
independent durable worker.
> - A temporary GitHub failure can recover without another review or
duplicate publication.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #16275. That change increased the GitHub tool deadline. This change
repairs retry and recovery behavior.
**What happened?**
A one-off GitHub HTTP 503 or 429 left the caller with a failed
publication receipt. The saved retry did not have its own scheduler
worker. An identical gateway call after a timeout could return an empty
cached result instead of the saved publication receipt.
**Expected behavior**
Temporary failures should retry under current authority. Pending work
should resume at its saved deadline after restart. Exact retries should
return the current receipt. Lost responses must not create duplicate
comments, findings, or checks.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Admit an advisory PR review request and begin its assessment.
2. Return HTTP 503 or 429 for the first summary-comment PATCH, then let
GitHub succeed.
3. Submit the assessment through the run-scoped tool gateway.
4. On master, the result says publication failed. With this change, the
same call returns the processed receipt and neutral check.
5. For receipt recovery, use a shorter caller deadline and repeat the
exact call after publication finishes.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at `6cb6ac3b8e40cb90d734ba115a2f22f850ff9477`.
## What Changed
- Classify transient transport, server, and rate-limit failures. Honor
Retry-After and primary reset deadlines. Stop retries for permanent
permission and validation errors.
- Retry safe reads and installation-token issuance within a bounded call
window. Retry publication writes through the existing outbox and
provider receipt checks.
- Wait for up to three publication attempts within a 45-second retry
window. Keep the durable eight-failure cap and enforce saved deadlines
on explicit retries.
- Register an independent GitHub publication worker with
transaction-owned wake notifications, startup recovery, and per-PR lease
deadlines.
- Recover exact comment, progress, and assessment gateway calls from
their stored publication. Require the same company, agent, task, run,
connection, tool, arguments, and current policy. Clear stale timeout
errors after recovery. Approved exact retries read the current receipt
through the existing signed replay path; the worker retains the verified
approval for deferred writes and still rejects revocation.
- Add regression coverage and update the connector guide and
feature/access maps.
## Verification
- Red: both one-off HTTP 503 and 429 regressions failed on master with a
failed publication receipt.
- Green: the same tests passed after the change.
- GitHub review workflows: 133 covered against isolated PostgreSQL 18.
The final combined run passed 132 and hit one fifteen-second timeout
under concurrent build load. All three variants of that workflow passed
in isolation. The earlier combined run passed all 131 workflows before
the two approval regressions were added.
- Retry policy and delivery coordinator tests: 35 passed.
- Additional focused checks passed for the actual eight-failure cap,
exact-argument conflicts, policy revocation, and timeout receipt
recovery. The approved deferred-publication and revocation regressions
failed before the review repair and passed after it, with one approval
request preserved.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. `pnpm build`: passed. `node
scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed.
- The broad local `pnpm test:run` path remains blocked by the host's
exhausted PostgreSQL shared-memory slots. The changed database-backed
workflows use an isolated Docker database instead. All Paperclip CI jobs
passed at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7c016c049b |
perf(workspaces): wake terminal cleanup from committed changes (#16282)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents use execution workspaces to retain their files and Git branches. > - A reaper closes eligible workspaces after their task tree is terminal. > - The reaper scanned every heartbeat tick and read Git before cheap eligibility checks. > - Permanent scans also query idle databases when no cleanup work exists. > - This pull request wakes cleanup after transaction settlement and restores bounded work at startup. > - The benefit is fewer scans while fresh cleanup guards continue to protect retained work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13619, Refs #11753. Those PRs bound scans or back off unchanged candidates. This PR uses the transaction work coordinator to remove the permanent reaper tick. It overlaps their early terminal-state filtering but does not change their runtime restart behavior or introduce a second Git scheduler cache. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Terminal workspace cleanup and Git inspection for workspace detail reads. **Subsystem affected** Server orchestration, execution workspaces, and idle sleep admission. **Current behavior** The heartbeat tick scans workspace candidates every thirty seconds. It runs Git before rejecting nonterminal trees, cooldowns, and active runs. Display inspections expire after five seconds. **Proposed behavior** Recover workspace rows in bounded startup pages. Wake after relevant issue, workspace, and pull-request work-product transactions settle. Schedule the terminal tree cooldown or a five-minute eligibility retry. Back off unchanged candidates across unrelated wakes, and invalidate their backoff after relevant committed changes. Park empty and nonterminal-only lanes. Reuse display inspections for thirty seconds. Read fresh Git before destructive cleanup. **Reason and benefit** Avoid recurring database and Git work when no cleanup is possible. Retain transaction admission holds, restart recovery, and fresh deletion checks. Retention eligibility can wait for the next host wake; active and failed recovery work still blocks sleep. **Breaking changes** No schema or API shape changes. Display Git state can lag by thirty seconds. Cleanup eligibility retries can take five minutes. ## What Changed - Add a terminal-workspace worker to the existing transaction work coordinator and scheduler. - Signal relevant writes before mutation on the owning transaction. Outer transaction settlement wakes cleanup. - Derive cooldown deadlines from the full company-scoped terminal task tree. Continue bounded recovery pages without a permanent sweep. - Bound unchanged candidate inspections to five minutes, retain at most 256 entries, and invalidate affected entries with scoped transaction hints. Repeated wakes preserve the earliest inspection deadline. - Collect deadlines from task trees already read by bounded pages. Restore the cursor after a failed page and rescan commits received during a rotation. - Check terminal state, cooldown, and active runs before Git. Preserve lifecycle locks, generation fences, and fresh final checks. - Keep failed or incomplete recovery visible to idle admission. Preserve the passive retention exception. - Extend the bounded display cache to thirty seconds and document the scheduling and wake limits. ## Verification - Focused workspace, coordinator, cache, and local sleep suites: 111 tests passed with real local PostgreSQL and Git worktrees where applicable. - Final worker, display cache, and local sleep suites: 28 tests passed. - The regressions prove three ineligible workspaces invoke zero Git scans, cached clean display state cannot remove new untracked files, and real producer notifications wait for outer transaction settlement. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. Map and module-boundary checks passed. - Work-product and sleep-safety suites: 221 tests passed. Reopen and issue-tree control suites: 46 tests passed. Final backoff, workspace, worker, and work-product suites: 87 tests passed. - Final workspace and worker suites: 81 tests passed. Deadline selection performs zero database reads. A failed full page retries its unread terminal workspace before recovery can park. - Full CI coverage passed on head `2c397970f7`: general tests, serialized server suites, runner verification, E2E shards, typecheck, build, and the final verification gate. The duplicate serial local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after full CI coverage passed; it is not reported as a completed local pass. - Greptile: 5/5 with both findings resolved. The security scan also passed. No failing or pending PR checks remain. ## Risks - Display state can be stale for thirty seconds. Destructive guards bypass the display cache. - Undelivered or otherwise ineligible terminal work retries after five minutes instead of each heartbeat tick. - Transaction signals cover the owning `createDb` scope. Direct SQL and independent server processes require startup recovery. - Local cooldown timers are maintenance hints. They do not establish an external wake alarm or whole-instance sleep safety. Existing blockers remain in force; failed bounded recovery keeps the host awake. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, model ID `gpt-6`, through Codex. Reasoning, repository inspection, shell execution, and browser tools assisted the change. The runtime does not expose the 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>canary/v2026.1014.0-canary.8 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
1e731520bb |
fix(mcp): deduplicate discovered tool descriptors (#16281)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents receive governed app tools through the MCP gateway. > - GitHub review tasks can contain a PR discussion and inline finding threads. > - Discovery repeated each tool for every conversation linked to the task. > - Native tool registration treated these repeated descriptors as a fatal collision. > - This pull request lists GitHub tools once and deduplicates identical descriptors across providers. > - Agents can continue work while conflicting definitions and normal tool permissions remain enforced. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A follow-up run on a GitHub review task failed with `assigned_mcp_tool_name_collision` before the provider started. The task had a main conversation and an inline finding thread. Discovery returned the same seven tools twice. Repeated descriptors from other providers could cause the same failure. **Expected behavior** Discovery exposes each identical tool once. Separate connection names remain separate tools. Conflicting definitions remain an error. Every call still passes the gateway's policy, approval, revocation, and audit checks. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a GitHub review and publish an inline finding. 2. Send a follow-up request on the same PR task. 3. Inspect the task-bound bot catalog and the next native startup. 4. Separately, return two identical descriptors from an assigned app or plugin catalog. Related: #13717 added the GitHub review workflow. ## What Changed - Use a distinct GitHub discovery query across conversations that share an endpoint and task. Keep both thread mappings. - Deduplicate identical gateway descriptors by their full gateway name across providers. Use this rule for MCP listings, plugin listings, assigned-tool startup, and fresh assigned-tool discovery. - Reject conflicting descriptors with `tool_name_collision`. Keep the projected-name collision guard. - Cover GitHub inline-thread discovery, repeated plugin/app tools, direct and on-demand catalogs, revocation, conflicting bindings, and separate connection names. - Update the execution contract, GitHub documentation, and agent access map. ## Verification - Regression baseline: six new assertions failed on the original implementation. GitHub returned fourteen entries, plugin discovery repeated a tool, and native startup failed on repeated app tools. - Focused verification passed: 272 GitHub cases, all 29 assigned-tool cases, and all 88 gateway acceptance cases. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Current-head CI passed: 55 checks passed, two inapplicable checks skipped. Greptile scored the current head 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - Full local `pnpm test:run` encountered a 15-second timeout in the existing bearer-auth throttling test, before tool discovery. That test passed in the separate 88-case gateway run and on one isolated rerun. The duplicate broad local run was then stopped; the complete current-head CI matrix passed. ## Risks - Deduplication keeps the first identical descriptor and preserves listing order. Same-name descriptors with different definitions fail with HTTP 409 rather than selecting an ambiguous binding. - The GitHub query changes result cardinality. It retains the existing task/company/agent filters and leaves conversation rows intact. - No schema migration or credential change. Live staging recovery requires deployment and a new authorized run. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with code inspection, editing, browser investigation, and test execution. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e9b6c4d44c |
perf: remove history scans from task and chat queries (#16278)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task reads and external chat notices must remain responsive as run history grows. > - The chat notice sweep casts indexed UUID columns to text. > - Run redaction and task provenance filter large JSON contexts with expressions that lack matching indexes. > - These queries scan history and read large stored contexts on common requests. > - This pull request adapts two existing fixes to current master and adds the missing provenance index. > - The benefit is less database work with the same query results and access rules. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15927. This change adapts that chat sweep fix to the extracted inbound notice module and retains the contributor credit. Refs #12499. This change adds that missing nested-context index through a current, concurrent migration. It retains the contributor credit. This combined change replaces those older layouts for the measured query paths. It also covers task creation provenance, which those pull requests do not address. **What happened?** The chat notice sweep scans wakeup history. Issue redaction scans run contexts because only one branch of its JSON condition has an index. The task creation-source filter also scans contexts because its native and legacy ID expression lacks an index. **Expected behavior** The queries use indexed lookups and return the same rows. Company access, task origin precedence, secret redaction, and chat notice ordering remain the same. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsx ../scripts/benchmark-slow-queries.ts --baseline-ref=f8af817f8d`. The benchmark creates disposable PostgreSQL data and compares the old query with the current query on the same fixture. ## What Changed - Compare chat UUID columns directly with safely parsed payload IDs. Reject malformed and noncanonical IDs without a cast failure. - Add the nested `paperclipIssue.id` run-context index and the exact native/legacy task-provenance expression index. - Build both indexes concurrently. Register the migration for top-level execution and invalid-index retry repair. - Extend chat payload and migration regression coverage. - Add a repeatable synthetic SQL benchmark and document its scope and command. - Keep the five newest schema snapshots. ## Verification - Focused local checks: 76 selected tests passed in five files. These cover FIFO notices, malformed IDs, conversation state, redaction, provenance, and company boundaries. - Disposable PostgreSQL 18.1 fixture: 335 tasks, 1,400 runs, 13,000 wakeups, 377 actions, and 192 KiB synthetic contexts. - Five warm samples per query, after two warmups. Every returned SQL column matched before and after, compared as positional tuples so duplicate unnamed projections are retained. | Query | Before, median | After, median | Improvement | | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | | Chat notice candidates | 26.21 ms | 6.43 ms | 4.1× | | Task creation-source list | 159.69 ms | 6.51 ms | 24.5× | | Issue redaction contexts | 131.88 ms | 0.34 ms | 389.1× | The run-history context projection returned the same 200 rows and kept the same index plan and buffer counts. Its timings were noisy (37.30 ms before and 56.78 ms after in the last run; 34.25 ms and 34.14 ms in the previous run). No improvement is claimed for this control. Its repeated JSON projection remains a separate optimization opportunity. The populated plans use the wakeup primary key, the provenance expression index, and a BitmapOr over both redaction indexes. These are local SQL measurements. They do not prove an equivalent change in hosted API latency. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed locally. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was started and then interrupted (exit 130) when the Mac reached its PostgreSQL shared-memory limit. It did not complete and is not reported as passed. The final SQL benchmark passed after its disposable database resources were released. The full general and serialized test suites passed in CI. - All CI checks for final head `193acca6abaa992acad12f4b631bd31dd3234641` passed, including full Vitest coverage, E2E checks, typecheck, build, migration order, and lifecycle boundaries. - Greptile reviewed that exact head at 5/5 with no actionable comments. ## Risks - Both indexes add storage and write cost. Initial builds read stored run contexts and can take time on large histories. - Concurrent index builds avoid holding a write-blocking table lock for the whole build. The existing migration retry path removes invalid partial indexes before retrying. - The chat parser accepts only canonical lowercase UUID text. This preserves the prior text comparison, including rejection of uppercase and malformed values. - Staging has not been migrated or deployed. Local PostgreSQL and synthetic data do not reproduce hosted load or network latency. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, browser inspection, and local code execution. The adapted fixes retain their original contributor credits. ## 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>canary/v2026.1014.0-canary.7 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5498e8ba64 |
docs(skills): add maintenance bot setup workflow (#16279)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents, skills, and routines support recurring repository maintenance. > - Setting up that work requires choices about the instance, agent, credentials, repository, and trigger. > - A repeatable setup procedure must preserve those choices and verify saved configuration. > - This pull request adds a skill that configures maintenance bots for any selected maintenance task. > - Each run creates useful PRs and revises them until required checks pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16211 for the test-audit skill that can serve as one maintenance task. **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The repository skill library lacks a procedure for setting up a code maintenance agent and routine. **What's wrong?** Users must compose agent selection, skill delivery, scheduling, workspace access, and PR follow-up themselves. The setup must also work through the browser when API access fails. **Suggested fix** Add a standalone setup skill with API guidance and reusable maintenance-run instructions. Support existing agents and new hires. Support scheduled, webhook, and manual triggers. ## What Changed - Add `setup-code-maintenance-bot` with instance and agent selection. - Document harness, provider, AI account, repository, skill, and trigger choices. - Add API setup guidance, browser fallback, paused setup, and saved-field verification. - Add a generic run template with work limits, duplicate-PR checks, and PR revision until current-head checks pass. - Keep private run-to-PR mappings on Paperclip execution issues. Publish internal references only when the target repository permits them. - Add skill UI metadata. ## Verification - Skill frontmatter validator passed. - Relative links, JSON examples, UI metadata, and whitespace checks passed. - Compared API shapes and authorization rules with Paperclip source. - No live agent or routine was created. No maintenance trial was run. - Local application typecheck, Vitest, and build were not run for this Markdown/YAML-only change. - Repository CI and automated review will run on this PR. ## Risks Low code risk. The change adds instructions and metadata only. API details can differ by deployment. The skill requires discovery from the selected instance and verification of saved settings before activation. Browser setup must preserve the same permissions and approval rules. Live setup remains untested. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, tool use, and file editing. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (skill/document validation; application suites were not run) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (no application behavior changed) - [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 - [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
|
c80d93e14e |
fix(observability): time execution configuration steps (#16236)
Record optional execution-configuration timings before provider dispatch, with success, failure, sampling, cleanup, and silent-unconfigured controls. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6cb6ac3b8e |
fix(github): allow review publication to finish before tool timeout (#16275)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results. > - GitHub review bots publish task-scoped assessments through the tool gateway. > - A submission saves its assessment and publication intent before it waits for GitHub. > - The gateway's ten-second default can expire while those provider requests continue. > - GitHub can then show a completed review while the agent receives a timeout and blocks its task. > - This pull request gives GitHub bot tools the existing sixty-second maximum by default. > - The caller can receive the confirmed publication result without manual task repair for ordinary slower responses. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A GitHub bot's `submit_review` call returned `504 tool_timeout`. Its saved assessment continued to publish a summary and completed check after the caller stopped waiting. The agent treated publication as unconfirmed and blocked the task. **Expected behavior** A valid GitHub response that takes longer than ten seconds should return its confirmed publication receipt within the gateway's supported deadline. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a report-only GitHub review bot and admit a PR review request. 2. Delay the summary-comment PATCH response by eleven seconds. 3. Submit a complete assessment through a real run-scoped tool gateway. 4. Before this fix, the caller gets a timeout while the durable action publishes one summary and a neutral check. 5. With this fix, the caller gets `completed`, `processed`, and the assessment score. Retrying does not add another comment. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced from master at `2c17d3ca52a7840f280f1dd87975a2ad77de3b35`. Related changes: Refs #16259 and #16263. Those changes repaired connection recovery. This change addresses the subsequent submission deadline. ## What Changed - Use a sixty-second default for `paperclip_github_chat` tools in run execution and board tool tests. - Preserve explicit shorter deadlines and the existing maximum. - Add PostgreSQL-backed regressions through the real gateway for delayed publication, explicit deadlines, neutral checks, and duplicate prevention. - Document the deadline and the durable publication behavior. ## Verification - Red: the eleven-second publication regression failed with `ToolGatewayHttpError(504, tool_timeout)` after the summary and neutral check were published. - Green: the same regression passed after the repair. - GitHub review workflow suite: 122 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - `pnpm test:run`: running; results will be recorded before handoff. - Live local verification is running against a dedicated test App on [the disposable test PR](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-permissions-smoke-20260926-pap57-fee7428e/pull/9). A test-only preload delays one real GitHub PATCH response by eleven seconds. It is not part of this change. ## Risks GitHub bot calls can occupy their execution slot for up to sixty seconds by default. Calls that exceed that limit can still time out. Durable publication may continue after any caller timeout, so a timeout alone is not proof of a failed write. This change does not add automatic task reconciliation for arbitrarily slow or unavailable providers. No schema or credential changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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
|
f8af817f8d |
fix(ui): make external agent pairing codes copyable (#16274)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - External agents connect through the shared MCP agent gateway. > - Grok setup gives the operator a one-use code for the authorization page. > - The password field hides the code but does not provide a working copy action. > - The pending approval button names Dot before the agent preview loads. > - This pull request adds explicit code copying and a neutral approval label. > - The operator can review the fixed agent without sending credentials to chat. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16219, #15581, #15414. **What happened?** The Grok setup code is in a read-only password field. Ordinary browser copying does not copy that field. The shared authorization page says “Connect Dot with pairing code” before it knows the invited provider. These defects blocked a watched Grok desktop setup before approval. **Expected behavior** An operator can copy the one-use code with a visible control. The code stays hidden and outside the Bot prompt. The authorization page shows the registered client and the fixed company, agent, permissions, and authorizing person before approval. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Choose New agent, Invite an external agent, and Grok Bot. 2. Save the Bot identity and open Connect access. 3. Try to copy the masked code into the Bot's browser authorization page. 4. Inspect the pending approval action before a valid preview loads. **Paperclip version or commit** The fix starts from master commitcanary/v2026.1014.0-canary.6 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2c17d3ca52 |
fix(github): recover webhook verification in attention state (#16263)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots require signed webhook delivery before activation. > - Cloud can deduplicate an old ping after a connection repair. > - A fresh event could verify active connections, but an attention-state connection discarded it before authentication. > - This pull request allows signed delivery verification while the connection needs attention. > - It discards ordinary work until the manager completes the existing reconnect and activation checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16259. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization failures. **What happened?** Live verification of #16259 found that a GitHub App already marked as needing attention remained stuck waiting for a signed ping. The Cloud relay had already delivered that ping. New signed events were discarded by the attention-state ingress gate before they could verify delivery. **Expected behavior** A fresh valid event from the bound installation verifies delivery. It does not activate the connection, change repository access, or start work. The manager can then complete the normal reconnect flow. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put an existing App connection into attention state with webhook verification cleared after repair. 2. Deliver a fresh signed comment event for its bound installation. 3. Continue setup. Before this fix, webhook verification remains missing and reconnect cannot proceed. ## What Changed - Use a content-free verification path for signed ordinary GitHub events while the connection needs attention. - Allow a fresh signed event from the same installation to verify webhook delivery. - Verify delivery even from disabled or unavailable repositories. Discard the event before content storage, resource reconciliation, or runtime creation. - Keep newly verified connections in the provider-setup step. Later installation events cannot activate them before reconnect. Preserve normal installation recovery for existing qualified connections. - Extend recovery regressions to cover attention state, foreign installations, invalid signatures, missing installation IDs, unchanged resources, no wakeups, and successful reconnect after verification. - Document the recovery behavior. ## Verification - The targeted regression reproduced the attention-state failure before the change. - All ten recovery cases pass after the change. The tests cover disabled and unavailable repositories, content-free verification, and installation events after verification. - Server typecheck passed. - All 260 GitHub integration tests passed after the review fixes. Final server typecheck also passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - The full local suite is running. One unrelated workspace-runtime conflict-reference test failed and then passed on its isolated rerun. Final totals and CI/review outcomes will be updated before merge. - Live verification will use the existing advisory review bot after deployment. ## Risks - Attention-state ordinary events authenticate under the current credential lease without creating a durable content record. They return before resource reconciliation or runtime creation. - Verification is still bound to the current credential lease, runtime generation, valid signature, and installation ID. It does not activate the bot or replace normal setup checks. - Paused, revoked, archived, and unconfigured connections retain their existing ingress rules. No schema changes or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>nightly/v2026.1014.0-nightly.0 canary/v2026.1014.0-canary.5 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c36281d639 |
fix(skills): repair missing branches and show grouped import progress (#16256)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their reusable skills. > - GitHub skill sources must keep their installed content usable during updates. > - A source can track a branch that no longer exists. > - The UI treats that GitHub error as a connection problem, so saving a valid account does not resolve it. > - Project workspaces also show the same repository several times, and long imports give little feedback. > - This pull request adds explicit branch repair, groups repository imports, and shows import progress. > - People can repair the actual problem and see when their import is working. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16066 and #14713. This fixes the Sources experience introduced by those changes. Related adapter-source PRs #14340 and #14341 cover runtime mounting, not this source-management flow. No overlapping source-management fix was found. **What happened?** An installed source tracked `main` while its GitHub repository used `master`. GitHub returned HTTP 422. The UI showed a general read error and asked for a new connection after a valid account was saved. The project repository list repeated the same repository/ref for each project. Import had no spinner or explanation of queued work. **Expected behavior** Identify an unavailable branch and offer an explicit repair. Retain the selected connection and installed versions. Show one repository/ref row with its projects. Give immediate feedback and show the queued and active import states. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install a source with an immutable commit and a saved tracked branch that does not exist. 2. Refresh it, or try to save a valid GitHub connection. 3. Add the same repository/ref to two legacy project workspaces and open Sources. 4. Import that repository and observe the row until installation completes. ## What Changed - Distinguish a missing GitHub revision from access denial and temporary read errors. - Validate both repository identity and the tracked revision when saving a connection. - Offer Use default branch on independent sources and in connection repair. Keep `HEAD` as the default-branch alias after refresh. Preserve skill IDs, versions and selections. - Keep active project refs under project configuration. Reject source-level changes that would alter their tracking. Recheck the ref under the source lock when project attachment races with branch repair. - Group matching repository/ref workspaces. Adopt eligible workspaces and skip pending workspaces. Keep remaining project links inside the existing source card. Allow remaining imports while another workspace is pending. - Show a spinner, busy state and queued/importing text. Keep the saved authorized account selected in connection repair. - Update shared contracts, feature/access maps, database notes and production-component Storybook journeys. ## Verification - Red/green: three local regressions failed on the original code: missing-ref classification, duplicate repository rows, and branch repair instead of another connection prompt. The changed UI/reader tests pass after the fixes. - Live local app with a real authorized GitHub credential: reproduced HTTP 422 for the unavailable branch; used the UI to restore default-branch tracking; confirmed the same connection, skill ID and single immutable version remained. - Live local grouped Paperclip import: one source, two project associations and 52 installed skills. Sources survived reload. No staging data was changed. - All 16 project repository Storybook browser journeys pass on the final head, including keyboard focus recovery after branch repair. These include branch repair, grouped imports, connection selection, recovery, removal and responsive layouts. - Repository typecheck, production build, Storybook build, token gates and 28 map/catalog tests passed. Final UI typecheck and build also passed after grouping remaining project links. - Linux qualification: all 94 focused source, project import, GitHub reader and UI tests pass with supported Node 24. No database tests were skipped. Both review findings failed before their fixes and pass after them. - The full local `pnpm test:run` attempt was stopped after macOS database suites exhausted the host shared-memory limit. The complete Linux CI matrix is the full-suite gate. The complete Linux CI matrix passes for head `f886e3ac073ec1c6f051fd6429496234f5143694`. - Greptile rates head `f886e3ac073ec1c6f051fd6429496234f5143694` 5/5. Both findings are fixed and all review threads are resolved. - Storybook: `skills-project-repository-skills-02-journeys--missing-branch` and `--duplicate-projects`. ## Risks - Default-branch repair changes the tracked branch only after an explicit user action. Existing execution version pins stay intact. - A selected connection now needs access to the tracked revision, not only repository metadata. - Grouping is by repository and ref. Project access and provenance remain separate and are checked by the existing services. - Legacy source errors contain safe text. The repair-action classifier maps known errors and treats other failures as retryable. No credentials or provider response bodies are returned. - No schema migration, workflow change, lockfile change or staging deployment. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Tool-assisted implementation, code execution and browser 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 - [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>canary/v2026.1014.0-canary.4 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a8b652b085 |
fix(github): preserve review delivery through reconnect (#16259)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots turn authorized repository events into agent tasks and publish the result on the pull request. > - Cloud Apps send callbacks through a relay, but the direct callback recovery worker reported that URL as broken. > - Reconnecting the same App then prevented a new authorized publication from updating its existing working comment. > - Report-only runs could also produce an action-required check when no complete assessment was available. > - This pull request preserves comment identity across reconnects, verifies fresh signed delivery after repair, and keeps report-only results neutral. > - Users can receive the review without changing repository access or making an advisory bot block their pull request. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A review could be saved in Paperclip while GitHub kept showing “Working on this…”. A same-App reconnect changed the runtime generation and the existing response receipt then failed with “GitHub response binding changed”. Cloud callback recovery also compared the relay URL with a direct tenant URL. An incomplete or failed report-only run could produce an action-required check. **Expected behavior** A fresh authorized attempt updates the same App-owned comment after reconnect. Stale attempts and revoked people remain denied. Cloud relay delivery does not produce a direct-callback mismatch. Report-only checks remain neutral and explain incomplete work honestly. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept a GitHub request and publish its working comment. 2. Reconnect the same App before the agent publishes its result. 3. Submit the result and inspect the working comment and check. 4. Separately, let a report-only run end without an assessment and inspect its check conclusion. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization errors as provider credential failures. This change fixes the response binding and report-only paths themselves. ## What Changed - Bind durable response comments to the App and agent. Keep per-attempt runtime generation checks and provider comment ownership checks, including legacy receipts. - Exclude Cloud-managed Apps from the direct webhook recovery scan and its stale callback-mismatch warning. The Cloud inbox owns relay retries. - Let a fresh authenticated event from the bound installation verify webhook delivery after repair. Keep signature, runtime epoch, installation, and credential lease checks. - Keep report-only assessment and terminal-run checks neutral. Preserve incomplete/error text and gated-review behavior. - Add integration regressions for reconnect races, legacy comments, failed runs, Cloud recovery, and foreign or forged webhook traffic. Update connector documentation. - Correct the assigned-tool search guidance to name the actual input fields (`offset` and `schemaOffset`) and show valid arguments. The failed automatic review had an input-schema rejection before tool execution; this clarifies recovery without expanding tool access. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - GitHub policy and integration suite: 291 tests passed (`vitest run server/src/services/chat-github-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub|github'`). - The report-only policy regression failed before the fix and passed after it. - `pnpm build` passed. - Assigned tool discovery: 24 tests passed. Its guidance now maps returned pagination offsets to the correct input fields and tells the model to omit unused optional fields. - Full `pnpm test:run` is running. It encountered a 15-second timeout in the unrelated authenticated Workspace calendar-write test. That test passed on one isolated rerun. - After the review-requested module extraction, server typecheck and both direct/Cloud recovery activity integration checks passed. - All 55 non-skipped CI checks passed for `32e690279d847e44a6946b6c7cfb110fb11aff79`. Greptile scored that commit 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Live staging publication verification follows deployment. ## Risks - A durable response can now survive a same-App reconnect. Fresh authorization, runtime generation checks for each publication attempt, App ownership, and the publication lease still fence writes. - Report-only failures intentionally become neutral. The check still reports the failure; it does not claim a complete assessment. - Cloud-managed callbacks rely on their existing durable relay inbox. The direct callback recovery worker remains unchanged for direct installations. - No schema migration or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
40ecacff4c |
fix(voice): accept authenticated Cloud callers (#16254)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through company-scoped tasks. > - Speko voice connections bind a caller to that work. > - Private voice routes must recognize an authenticated human caller. > - Cloud sign-in uses a trusted Cloud actor, rather than a local session actor. > - The voice caller check rejected that existing authentication type. > - This pull request accepts authenticated Cloud callers and retains the current access checks. > - Cloud users can load call history and start private voice sessions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15727, #15728, #15729. **What happened?** A signed-in Cloud user sees “Sign in to start a private voice conversation” when the Speko connection loads call activity. The same check prevents the user from starting a private voice session. **Expected behavior** The trusted Cloud user identity should have the same voice caller access as a local authenticated session. The current company and user identity checks must still apply. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Sign in to a Cloud workspace with experimental chat connectors enabled. 2. Connect a Speko persona to an existing agent. 3. Open its call activity, or start a browser voice session. 4. Observe the sign-in rejection despite the authenticated workspace session. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the voice route in master atcanary/v2026.1014.0-canary.3 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
75189b8762 |
refactor(server): isolate channel runtime admission and maintenance (#16235)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves Discord runtime command capture and root receipts, Speko runtime and authority, and GitHub maintenance scheduling behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 5/5. Depends on #16233. Base: `master` (parent PR merged). **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements Discord runtime command capture and root receipts, Speko runtime and authority, and GitHub maintenance scheduling inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract Discord runtime command capture and root receipts, Speko runtime and authority, and GitHub maintenance scheduling into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3715 to 3649 lines. ## Verification - The same 167 selected chat-runtime cases and 87 voice ownership cases passed before and after extraction. Full workspace typecheck and build passed. Token parity checks passed for six moved control-flow blocks. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c1994056f9 |
refactor(server): isolate channel registration and setup services (#16233)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves Slack registration, account linking, test-message setup, GitHub setup progress, and Telegram webhook URL restrictions behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 4/5. Depends on #16232. Base: `master` (parent PR merged). **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements Slack registration, account linking, test-message setup, GitHub setup progress, and Telegram webhook URL restrictions inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract Slack registration, account linking, test-message setup, GitHub setup progress, and Telegram webhook URL restrictions into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3813 to 3715 lines. ## Verification - The same 97 selected setup integration cases passed before and after extraction. The cases cover Slack installer linking and welcome eligibility, GitHub registration, and Telegram webhook restrictions. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
875943ac83 |
refactor(server): isolate provider webhook lifecycle processing (#16232)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves GitHub webhook runtime deadlines and Slack lifecycle processing behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 3/5. Depends on #16231. Base: `master` (parent PR merged). **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements GitHub webhook runtime deadlines and Slack lifecycle processing inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract GitHub webhook runtime deadlines and Slack lifecycle processing into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3906 to 3813 lines. ## Verification - The same 61 selected webhook/lifecycle integration cases passed before and after extraction. They cover cold GitHub runtime startup, signed ingress, installation recovery, Slack lifecycle effects, and Telegram/Teams edits. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b8ffeb973a |
feat(runner): add experimental Grok Bot agent participation (#16219)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents that perform work for a company. > - The shared Runner owns task admission, authority, receipts and finalization. > - An existing Grok Bot needs to receive assignments and return results through that Runner. > - The Bot also needs governed access when it starts work from its own conversation. > - This PR adds agent-purpose MCP access and routine webhook dispatch. > - It reuses the external-agent Rust Runner and keeps Grok capabilities explicit. > - The provider stays experimental until the real-client managed journeys pass. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Agent or provider** Grok Bot, distinct from the Grok Build coding runtime in #13882. **Why this adapter is useful** Users can assign work to an existing Bot, receive progress, questions, documents and files in Paperclip, and let the Bot initiate work under its agent permissions. **How the agent is invoked** A webhook-only routine delivers bounded references. Dedicated named-agent OAuth and MCP provide inbound calls. Setup follows [Grok routines](https://cursor.com/help/grok-bot/routines) and [custom plugins](https://cursor.com/help/grok-bot/connect-plugins). The current desktop app needs its Bot-generated Webhook URL navigation link when routine-row clicks fail. The GitHub search found related Grok Build runtime work, but no existing Grok Bot agent provider. This extends the roadmap’s existing agent, Runner, governance and artifact foundations. ## What Changed - Add default-off Grok Bot participation through the shared real Rust external backend, preserving native provider identity guarantees and distinguishing session closure from remote termination. - Bind agent OAuth to company, agent, client, gateway and authorizer; recheck permissions and task-bound execution authority without manufacturing a native identity. - Persist routine configuration, dispatch intents, authenticated acknowledgement and recovery holds. Store URL/key together in encrypted secret storage, use guarded public egress, and never automatically replay ambiguous HTTP delivery. - Reuse native tools, durable waiting, completion assessment and review. Add task-bound file grants through existing artifact storage; suppress proactive echo dispatch and synchronous result wake loops. - Enforce the current native deliverable work-mode policy at file-ticket issuance and use. Add operator retries for confirmed rejected wakes, with retained receipts, stable retry intent and current-authority checks. Recovery locks bindings before routine rows. Thread Stop resolves the selected run and its agent. - Cancel queued and preparing Stop targets before assignment creation, restore saved setup after a failed request and successful retry, and publish the Grok provider descriptor schema. Advance the versioned Copilot source declaration for the shared schema change; its qualification remains pending. - Filter task summaries with the shared privacy policy, preserve feedback admission when wake delivery is blocked, reconcile settled delivery receipts without restoring work authority, and bind every Stop control to its displayed run. Recovery records distinguish dispatch uncertainty from a revoked session. - Add resumable guided setup, credential replacement, consent, management, observed work status and stop/recovery controls, plus an interactive Storybook journey using the production task thread, question form and report card. Grok’s own apps remain available; Paperclip workspace and third-party tools are deferred. ## Verification - Five focused protocol, authorization, person MCP and Runner files: 192 tests pass. The Grok assigned-work case executes the actual Rust Runner, saves a document, uploads/deduplicates a file and reaches ordinary finalization. - Proactive intake/deduplication and renewed-session recovery pass. These use scripted clients and synthetic storage; they are not real-provider acceptance. - Repository typecheck, production build, token gates, map checks and Storybook build/catalog checks pass. The local full-suite campaign was stopped after macOS shared-memory exhaustion repeatedly prevented embedded PostgreSQL startup. No local aggregate pass is claimed. The first clean-worker CI run identified avatar fixture/configuration, flag defaults, feature-card ordering and OpenAPI route-coverage gaps; all four focused regressions pass after correction. Those regressions pass. The latest clean-worker CI run also found a Copilot source-hash declaration mismatch after the shared descriptor update; the corrected declaration passes all 28 integrity tests. The next review corrections pass 144 rendered UI tests, 21 OpenAPI tests and 82 Runner contract/integrity/history tests. The latest database fixtures were blocked at startup by host shared-memory exhaustion; clean-worker CI must execute their new regressions. Full current-head CI now passes: 54 successful checks and four intentional skips. The database regression uses the PostgreSQL driver result shape; file-policy, rejected-feedback and lock-order cases pass on clean workers. Current-head Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved findings. - Rendered setup steps and outbound-only verification were walked through in Storybook. Simulation cannot enable Done without an authenticated-reply state. - Actual client OAuth, continued access, reconnect and one routine wake with an exact chat acknowledgement were observed separately. This candidate’s live authenticated challenge, assigned/proactive workflows, Linux managed artifact, restart and cleanup are not yet qualified. The provider stays disabled by default. - The separate Cloud ingress change forwards only exact task-bound upload/download paths and preserves host identity and header stripping. - Current Cloud policy reserves Test for pre-merge app/harness experiments; Staging accepts only master-derived revisions. Real-client qualification needs a supported, authorized deployment target and remains outstanding. ## Risks One append-only migration adds routine/dispatch state and extends shared bindings and file tickets. The unshipped migrations were regenerated after upstream consumed their original numbers. Rolling back code retains the durable rows; revoke grants and inspect unknown remote activity before resuming dispatch. Grok cannot confirm remote termination, stream its complete transcript or report spending. Plugins are account-wide and do not isolate credentials between Bots. Real-client managed acceptance remains required before enabling the experimental provider. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with reasoning, code execution and browser/native UI tools. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f6608f382f |
refactor(server): isolate GitHub task preparation and review containment (#16231)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves GitHub task prompts, review provenance, and shared guest containment behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 2/5. Depends on #16230. Base: `codex/chat-channel-inbound-policies`. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements GitHub task prompts, review provenance, and shared guest containment inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract GitHub task prompts, review provenance, and shared guest containment into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3970 to 3906 lines. ## Verification - The same 130 selected GitHub and low-trust integration cases passed before and after extraction. Existing transactions still own containment, authority receipts, and review rows. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3e8e1efb84 |
refactor(server): isolate inbound channel message policies (#16230)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves inbound message filtering, command rendering, reply metadata, and setup-reply settlement behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 1/5. Base: `master`. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements inbound message filtering, command rendering, reply metadata, and setup-reply settlement inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract inbound message filtering, command rendering, reply metadata, and setup-reply settlement into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 4082 to 3970 lines. ## Verification - The same 14 selected chat/Photon integration cases passed before and after extraction, including Telegram forum controls, guidance retries, Teams setup replies, and Photon conversation reuse. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1014.0-canary.2 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
450d93d49d |
fix(auth): deduplicate run history permission checks (#16242)
Share matching run-history permission checks within one list operation while preserving current authorization, redaction, and fresh checks on subsequent requests. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9fb42df8e5 |
perf(workspaces): bound parallel snapshot reads (#16239)
Bound workspace snapshot file reads in batches while preserving snapshot contents, ordering, confinement, and failure settlement. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5ea3f905cf |
fix: preserve workspace finalization during watchdog recovery (#16247)
Keep task completion separate from runtime and workspace settlement. Permit verified board file-only repair of successful legacy retained-source runs without authorizing replay. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
9cc979116e |
fix(server): stop reporting queries that outlive the database shutdown (#16243)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The server reports unexpected route errors to Sentry through the
shared error handler.
> - An orderly shutdown drains the HTTP listener, and then it ends the
database pool.
> - `server.close()` completes when the sockets close. A route handler
whose client disconnected, or whose socket the drain timeout closed, can
still run.
> - The next query of that handler fails with postgres.js
`CONNECTION_ENDED`, because this process ended the pool. The error
handler reports this as a 500 crash.
> - This pull request marks the pool as closing just before it ends. The
error handler then skips the error sinks for that one error code during
shutdown.
> - Public MCP calls run in their own internal Express app, so the flag
is also shared with that app.
> - The benefit is that a normal restart does not create false Sentry
crash reports. Real errors are still reported.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists. This is the bug description.
**What happened?**
A staging server restarted. During the restart, `GET
/api/companies/:companyId/heartbeat-runs` failed in the per-row run
privacy check (`canActorReadHeartbeatRun`). The error was `Failed query:
select "id" from "issues" ...`. Its cause was `write CONNECTION_ENDED
<host>:5432`. postgres.js raises this code only for a query that starts
after the process called `sql.end()`. The error handler sent the error
to Sentry as a crash.
**Expected behavior**
A query that runs after the shutdown ends the pool is an expected part
of the shutdown. The server must not report it as a crash. If the
response is still open, the server answers `503`. The server must
continue to report all other errors.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start the server, and send a slow request (for example, a large
heartbeat run list).
2. Close the client connection, or let the 5 second drain timeout close
it, while the handler still runs.
3. Send SIGTERM. The shutdown drains HTTP and ends the pool.
4. The handler's next query fails with `CONNECTION_ENDED`. Before this
change, the error goes to Sentry.
## What Changed
- `server/src/database-retry.ts`: Add `isEndedDbPoolError`. It finds the
postgres.js `CONNECTION_ENDED` code anywhere in the error `cause` chain.
`isTransientDbConnectionError` now uses the same chain walk. Its
behavior does not change.
- `server/src/index.ts`: The orderly shutdown sets
`app.locals.paperclipDatabaseClosing = true` immediately before it ends
the database pools.
- `server/src/middleware/error-handler.ts`: When the flag is set and the
error is `CONNECTION_ENDED`, the handler answers `503 { error: "Server
is shutting down" }`, or it ends the response if the headers are already
sent. It does not call Sentry or crash telemetry. This follows the
existing client-abort (`ECONNRESET`) case.
- `server/src/services/public-mcp/capabilities.ts` and
`server/src/app.ts`: `createMcpApiDispatch` takes the main app's locals.
Each per-call dispatch app reads `paperclipDatabaseClosing` through a
live getter, so a public MCP call that outlives the pool is handled the
same way (Greptile review finding).
- `server/src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts`: Add tests for the 503
path, the headers-sent path, `CONNECTION_ENDED` outside shutdown (still
reported), and `CONNECTION_CLOSED` during shutdown (still reported).
- `server/src/__tests__/public-mcp-dispatch-shutdown.test.ts`: Send an
ended-pool error through the real MCP dispatch, both during shutdown
(503, not reported) and outside shutdown (reported).
## Verification
- `cd server && vitest run
src/__tests__/public-mcp-dispatch-shutdown.test.ts
src/__tests__/error-handler.test.ts
src/__tests__/cloud-tenant-transient-db-retry.test.ts`: 25 tests pass.
- With only the error-handler change reverted, the two new error-handler
shutdown tests fail. With only the dispatch change reverted, the MCP
shutdown test fails. The negative-control tests pass in both cases.
- I could not run the full `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm test:run`, and
`pnpm build` locally, or `public-mcp.test.ts`, which needs built
workspace packages. The sandbox has a 4 GB memory limit. CI runs the
full gates.
## Risks
- Low risk. The skip applies only to `CONNECTION_ENDED`, and only after
the shutdown starts to end the pools. postgres.js raises that code only
for a pool that this process ended. Network and database failures
(`CONNECTION_CLOSED`, `CONNECTION_DESTROYED`, and others) are still
reported.
- `CONNECTION_ENDED` outside shutdown (for example, a dedicated client
used after it ended) is still reported as a crash.
- The MCP dispatch app gets only the shutdown flag from the main app's
locals. It does not get any other locals.
- No schema, API contract, or UI change.
## Model Used
Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool
use (repository inspection, shell, test execution) and the Sentry and
GitHub connectors.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
|
f987f95d6a |
fix(cli): guard service install against a missing managed shim (#13985)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The `paperclipai` CLI can run Paperclip as a background service
(launchd on macOS, a systemd user unit on Linux), and that service
definition always launches the managed-install shim
> - #12148 made onboarding create the managed install first
(`ensureServiceShim()`), or refuse with a repair path, when the shim
does not exist
> - The standalone `paperclipai service install` command never got that
guard: it calls `manager.install()` directly, reports `installed: true`,
and leaves the supervisor crash-looping on a missing binary (for example
after a global npm install)
> - This pull request runs the same onboarding guard in `service
install` before any service definition is written
> - The benefit is that `service install` either produces a service that
can start, or fails with the same repair instructions onboarding gives,
and never reports success for a service that cannot run
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Fixes: #13841
- Refs #12148 (the onboarding-path fix this extends), #11755 and #11620
(related global-npm / service issues, not addressed here)
## What Changed
- `cli/src/onboard-service.ts`: moved the existing onboarding shim
guard, unchanged, into an exported `ensureServiceShim()` so both entry
points share it. It takes an optional `installIfMissing` flag that
defaults to `true`, so onboarding behaves exactly as before. When only
the shim is missing (a managed install is recorded and its current
payload is still present), the guard now runs the installer's existing
`smokePayload()` check (the payload must run and report its recorded
version), then rewrites the shim in place with the existing
`writeManagedShim()` instead of reinstalling. A payload that fails the
check gets no new shim; the command stops with the repair hint. The
recorded version and update channel stay unchanged, with no download and
no payload pruning. Otherwise the existing onboarding fallback
(reinstall the recorded git revision, or install this CLI's release
version) is unchanged.
- `cli/src/commands/service.ts`: `service install` now calls
`ensureServiceShim()` after the service manager is resolved and before
`manager.install()`. If the shim cannot be made available, the command
throws `Background service not installed: <reason>. Run \`paperclipai
install\`, then \`paperclipai service install\`.` (exit code 1) and
writes no service definition.
- With `--json`, the command only checks for the shim and does not start
a managed install. `installCommand()` prints progress to stdout, which
would corrupt the machine-readable result. JSON callers get a clean
non-zero exit with the repair hint; interactive callers get the same
behavior as onboarding (create the managed install, then the service).
The JSON output shape and all existing flags are unchanged.
- Docs: no change needed. `doc/INSTALLING.md` already says the service
uses the managed-install shim; this makes the command enforce that.
- Tests: a new command-level test (`service-install-command.test.ts`)
and one `ensureServiceShim` case in `onboard-service.test.ts`.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
cli/src/__tests__/service-install-command.test.ts` on unmodified
`master` (
canary/v2026.1014.0-canary.1
|
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
b7f41ee51d |
perf(ci): warm the public-install npm cache during pnpm build (#16204)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Each pull request runs the Trusted PR CI. The `ci / Build` lane is the longest check, or close to the longest, in each green run. > - On 2026-10-13, `ci / Build` took 415-446s in runs 38426120144, 38432086560 and 38423713537. Of that, the public-install verifier took 226-241s. > - In the verifier, the consumer `npm install` took 119-129s. It downloads the full public registry graph into an empty npm cache. > - Source manifests set that graph. Thus CI can download it before `pnpm build` makes any tarball. > - This pull request fills the npm cache in the background while the Rust restore, Evalbook and `pnpm build` run. Then the verifier reads that cache. > - The benefit is a shorter `ci / Build` lane. The verifier keeps all its checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15213, #15849, #15868, #15888 (earlier changes that made this verifier faster). **Enhancement description** The `ci / Build` lane runs the public-install verifier after `pnpm build`. The verifier starts with an empty npm cache. Its consumer install then downloads the full public registry graph: 119-129s of a 226-241s step. **Proposed change** Download the same registry graph into an npm cache in the background, during the earlier part of the lane. Give that cache to the verifier. **Why it helps** The download moves off the critical path of the lane. A local test of the same 628-package install took 51s with a cold cache and 21s with a warm cache. ## What Changed - Add `scripts/public-install-closure.mjs`. It holds the one definition of the public package closure: `@paperclipai/server`, `paperclipai`, and each public workspace package that they reach through `workspace:` specs. It also gives the registry dependencies of that closure. - Add `scripts/warm-public-install-npm-cache.mjs`. It installs those registry dependencies into a temporary consumer, with scripts disabled, to fill `PAPERCLIP_PUBLIC_INSTALL_NPM_CACHE`. Then it removes the temporary consumer. - `scripts/verify-grok-npm-install.mjs` now gets its closure from the shared module. When `PAPERCLIP_PUBLIC_INSTALL_NPM_CACHE` is set, it uses that directory as the consumer npm cache. When the variable is not set, it uses a new empty cache, as before. `docker-runner-check.yml` and `release-smoke.yml` do not change. - `pr-trusted.yml` (Build job): a new step starts the warm-up in the background after `Install dependencies`. The verify step waits for the warm-up for a maximum of 180s and then gives the cache to the verifier. If the warm-up fails, the step writes a notice and the verifier continues as before. - Add `scripts/__tests__/public-install-closure.test.mjs` and add it to `test:release-registry`. Update the closure assertions in `grok-public-install-sandbox.test.mjs`. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/public-install-closure.test.mjs`: 4/4 pass. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/grok-public-install-sandbox.test.mjs`: 24/24 pass. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/runner-release-crate-cache.test.mjs`: all pass. - `release-verify-workflow.test.mjs`: the two "publisher lockfile" tests fail in my sandbox on clean master too, because they need pnpm. Two canary git-fixture tests timed out once under load. They pass when they run alone. - I ran the warm-up against current master: 62 direct dependencies, 628 packages, 51s cold. The same install with the warm cache took 21s. - Important: `pr.yml` calls `pr-trusted.yml@master`. Thus the CI of this pull request runs the refactored verifier on its default path (empty cache), but not the new warm-up steps. The warm-up steps start after merge. To measure them, compare the `consumer_install_ms` value in the `paperclip.public-npm-install.timing.v1` line of a Build job before and after merge. - Final review: all latest-head CI checks pass (54 successes, one neutral result, two intentional skips). Fresh Apex is 5/5 on `64d091b8b0c5359fa3dc0edb1fd7ef9d24294477` with no unresolved findings. The two relevant local script suites pass all 28 tests. Current master combines cleanly. ## Risks - Low risk. The verifier result does not change. npm checks each cached tarball against the integrity of its own resolution, and the consumer directory and lock start empty. - npm can use a cached registry packument that is a maximum of about 5 minutes old (registry `max-age`). This has the same effect as starting the verifier a few minutes earlier. - The warm-up runs at the same time as `pnpm build`. It uses network, disk and some CPU. In the measured runs, `pnpm build` took 76-96s. - If the warm-up is slow or fails, the verify step waits a maximum of 180s and then continues with what is in the cache. - The verifier receipt still reports `cleanNpmInstall: true`. The consumer install is clean. Only the download cache is shared. ## Expected time savings - `ci / Build`: an estimated 65-85s less, from 415-446s to about 340-370s. The consumer install goes from 119-129s to about 40-55s, from the local cold/warm ratio. - Full PR time: after this change, `ci / Build` is no longer the longest lane. The longest lanes become `General tests (server N/12)` and `Verify Paperclip Runner (vitest 1/2)` at about 405-496s. Thus the full PR time decreases only when Build is the critical path. That is approximately 0-30s in the runs above. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code execution in a Paperclip agent run. OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`) through Codex assisted the final repository review and targeted script validation. This session does not expose an exact 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1014.0-canary.0 |
||
|
|
e0f30a4c71 |
feat(apps): collapse provider connections behind an "N connections" toggle (#16097)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The Apps page shows one card for each provider. Each card lists the
connections for that provider.
> - Some providers have many connections. For example, a team can have
five OpenAI accounts.
> - Each connection uses a full row. Thus, the page becomes long and
cluttered.
> - This pull request puts the connection list behind a "N connections"
row with a chevron. The user clicks the row to show or hide the list.
> - The benefit is a shorter Apps page. Connections that need action
stay visible.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Subsystem affected**
UI: the Apps page (`ui/src/pages/apps/Browse.tsx`), the `ConnectorCard`
component.
**Problem or motivation**
A provider card shows every connection as a full row. When a provider
has many accounts, the card is very tall. The page is hard to scan.
**Proposed solution**
When a card has two or more connections, show a "N connections" row with
a chevron below the card header. A click on the row opens or closes the
list. The list is closed when all connections are healthy. The list is
open when a connection needs attention or setup. The row also shows the
count, for example "· 1 needs attention". The list is open while a
search is active. A card with one connection does not show the row.
**Alternatives considered**
- Always show the list. This is the current behavior, and it causes the
clutter.
- Show the toggle for one connection too. This adds a click and gives no
benefit.
- Always close the list. This can hide an account that needs
reconnection, so we did not use it.
## What Changed
- `ConnectorCard` counts native connections, gateway-managed accounts
(Composio, Arcade, Executor), and chat or bot endpoints.
- When the count is two or more, the card wraps the list in the existing
`Collapsible` component. The trigger row shows the count and a chevron
that turns when the list opens.
- The list opens by default when one or more connections need attention
or setup. The trigger row shows how many need attention.
- The `Browse` page sends `defaultExpanded` and the current trimmed
search query while a search is active. A new search opens the list
again, even after the user closed it.
- The upstream account state logic moved into the `upstreamAccountState`
helper. The list render and the attention count use the same helper. The
behavior did not change.
- The attention count and Finish setup action share one predicate. A
verifying endpoint stays visible until setup is complete. Four
regression cases cover provider setup, identity linking, missing setup
metadata, and completed setup.
- New tests in `Browse.test.tsx` cover: open and close with the toggle,
search opens the list, one connection stays inline, and the list opens
when an account needs attention.
- New review story:
`ui/storybook/stories/connection-setup/apps-connection-count-toggle.stories.tsx`
("Apps, channels, and extensions / Connection setup / Connection count
toggle"). It includes production component fixtures for collapsed,
expanded, needs-attention, search-match, single-connection,
page-overview, and unfinished-chat-setup states. The original six story
IDs are retained; the unfinished chat setup fixture adds one ID.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/apps/Browse.test.tsx`: all 84 tests
pass. The new test closes an active search result, changes the query,
then returns to the first query. It fails before the search-reset fix
and passes after it.
- `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: passes (265 story files,
2,520 stories). Story annotations describe the production components,
fixture boundary, and covered capabilities.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passes.
- Full repository typecheck and build passed after the master merge. The
final UI typecheck passes after the setup fix. Final full build and
Storybook build pass on `d4c923d3ce0`. The built index retains all six
prior story IDs and adds the unfinished-chat-setup ID. Chromium checks
pass for all seven states, including the setup action and toggle
behavior. All 54 successful CI checks pass on this head, with two
intentional skips, including all general and serialized test shards,
E2E, typecheck, and build. The fresh Apex review is 5/5 on this head
with no unresolved findings. The separate, unsharded local `pnpm
test:run` invocation has not completed; complete suite verification
comes from CI.
- The stories use local account fixtures and stub navigation. They do
not prove a live provider connection or persistence.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is UI only, with no API or data change.
- Behavior change: users must click to see the connections on a healthy
card with two or more connections. Cards with a problem stay open, so a
broken connection is not hidden.
## Model Used
- Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used in Claude Code
with tool use (shell, file edit, test runs).
OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`) through Codex assisted conflict resolution,
regression tests, and repository verification. This session does not
expose an exact 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
|
ba4fac585d |
feat(agents): show who created an agent in shared companies (#16055)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - A company in Paperclip can have more than one human member, and each member can create agents > - The app does not record which person created an agent > - When two or more people share a company, members cannot see who added an agent or who to ask about it > - This pull request records the creator of each agent and shows the creator on the agent Overview tab > - The benefit is clear ownership of agents in shared companies, with no change for single-user companies ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists. This description follows `feature_request.yml`. **Subsystem affected** Agents: the agent data model, the agent create path on the server, and the agent Overview tab in the board UI. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip does not record which human user created an agent. When more than one human user works in a company, the agent page does not tell members who created the agent. **Proposed solution** Record the user ID of the creator when a human creates an agent. Show "Created by <name>" on the Identity card of the agent Overview tab. Show this row only when the company has two or more human members. Do not count the synthetic local Board principal as a human member. Do not show the local Board as a creator. **Alternatives considered** Count human users across the full instance. We did not do this. An instance-wide count tells a member of one company that other companies have users. The creator is always a member of the agent's company, so the company count is sufficient. **Roadmap alignment** `ROADMAP.md` has no item for agent ownership. This change is small and additive. ## What Changed - Add the nullable column `agents.created_by_user_id` (`packages/db/src/schema/agents.ts`, migration `0343_new_mentor.sql`). - Set the column in the single agent insert path (`server/src/modules/agent-lifecycle/adapters/records.ts`). The value comes from the authenticated user actor. The server ignores a creator value in the request body. Agents that agents or the system create keep `null`. - Backfill existing agents in the migration. The backfill uses the earliest `agent.created` or `agent.hire_created` activity row that a user actor wrote in the same company. - Add `createdByUserId` to the shared `Agent` type (`packages/shared/src/types/agent.ts`). - Add `ui/src/lib/agent-creator.ts`. It decides if the UI shows the creator row and it resolves the creator name. If the creator left the company, the row shows "Former member". - Add the "Created by" row to the Identity card in `ui/src/pages/AgentDetail.tsx`. If the company user directory request fails, the row shows "Could not load creator". The row does not disappear silently. - Add the Storybook story `Pages/Agent Detail → Shared Company Shows Creator`. - Document the column in `doc/SPEC-implementation.md` §7.2. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` passes. This includes the migration numbering and migration safety checks. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` passes. - `ui`: `tsc --noEmit` passes. - `server`: `vitest run src/modules/agent-lifecycle/__tests__/lifecycle.test.ts` passes (49/49). Two new tests: - The server records the creator from the actor and ignores a creator value in the request body. - The backfill takes the earliest user activity row. It skips agent actors and rows from other companies. - `server`: `vitest run src/__tests__/built-in-agents.test.ts` passes (40/40). A new test checks that a built-in agent enabled by a human records that human, and that automatic provisioning stays unattributed. The gated (pending-approval) provisioning test also asserts the creator. `src/__tests__/built-in-agent-routes.test.ts` also passes. - `ui`: `vitest run src/lib/agent-creator.test.ts src/pages/AgentOverview.test.tsx` passes (10/10). The tests cover these cases: the row shows with two or more humans, the row stays hidden with one human plus the Board, the UI never shows the Board as the creator, the row shows an error when the directory request fails, and the row stays hidden (no error) for agents with no creator or the Board as creator. The last case fails without the fix. - The current Storybook catalog uses source annotations and generated indexes. `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check` passes (264 story files, 2,514 stories). The merge keeps the authored catalog deletion from master. - `pnpm check:token-gates` is clean. - Screenshots from the Storybook story (fake data: two human members, Alice Admin and Bob Builder, plus the local Board). The red "Could not load public key" text is a Storybook artifact: the story has no fixture for the public key request. The existing `Dashboard` story shows the same text. **Two or more human members: the Identity card shows "Created by".**  **One human member plus the local Board: the row stays hidden.**  Full Overview tab: [overview-created-by.png](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/9b62bd2ea6cf984ce6745f08cc45f44ddf00fb51/pr-16055/overview-created-by.png). The images are on the separate branch `pr-assets/agent-created-by`. They are not in this PR and do not go to `master`. - Manual check: open Storybook at `Pages/Agent Detail → Shared Company Shows Creator`. The Identity card shows "Created by Alice Admin". The `Dashboard` story has one human, so it does not show the row. - Final focused verification on `5a02350cf16050a3cf3cb3f8dc061fe61758c60d`: all 99 tests pass across the two UI suites, built-in-agent suite, and lifecycle suite. The backfill test applies the complete migration twice. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` and preserves the company-scoped backfill. Migration numbering and token checks pass. - Full repository typecheck, build, and Storybook build pass. The generated creator story ID is present. A Chromium check renders the production agent page fixture and verifies the creator row and Alice Admin name. Map checks and their 21 tests pass. A fresh Apex review is 5/5 on the current head with no unresolved findings. All 54 successful CI checks pass on this head, with two intentional skips, including all general and serialized test shards, E2E, typecheck, and build. The workspaces-b job passed after rerunning a runner shutdown; no source change was needed. The separate, unsharded local `pnpm test:run` invocation has not completed; complete suite verification comes from CI. ## Risks - Migration: the migration adds one nullable column and runs one `UPDATE` on `agents` with a correlated subquery on `activity_log`. On an instance with a very large activity log, the backfill can take some time. The migration does not lock other tables and does not delete data. - Backfill accuracy: agents with no user-authored create activity row keep `null`. The UI then does not show a creator. This is the same as the current behavior. - Privacy: the row shows only names from the company user directory, and only to users who can already see that directory. - Low risk for single-user companies: the UI does not change for them. > 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 - Provider: Anthropic, Claude Opus 5.5 (model ID `claude-opus-5-5`), run as a coding agent through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edit, and test execution), standard context window. OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`) through Codex assisted conflict resolution, regression tests, and repository verification. This session does not expose an exact 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Amy (Opus) <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2238831ecd |
test(voice): qualify Speko task conversations and Storybook surfaces (#15729)
Third PR: depends on #15728 and #15727. The user has reviewed and authorized merging this experimental feature stack. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed connections. > - Chat connections already bind external conversations to those tasks. > - Speko handles voice and telephony, while the selected Paperclip agent does the work. > - A call needs durable session authority, ordered follow-ups, and safe result delivery. > - This PR adds repeatable qualification for the Speko voice task integration. > - This PR depends on #15728, which depends on #15727. Speko stays experimental. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Phone and browser voice conversations cannot use the chat connection task lifecycle. A separate voice runtime is needed to preserve task authority, retries, and reply history. **Proposed solution** Add company-scoped voice sessions, signed callbacks, durable replies, inbound intake, and an agent-facing outbound-call tool. Reuse existing tasks, queues, secrets, and publications. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the experimental chat connector entry points under Agent Chat and Connected Apps. The project owner requested this feature. Refs #11418 for the original provider catalog proposal. This implementation uses the newer chat connection infrastructure rather than an MCP catalog-only integration. Refs #15721 for remote OpenCode startup. ## What Changed - Add a real Paperclip server/database E2E fixture that stubs only external Speko transport and the execution provider. - Add authenticated multi-user and cross-company qualification journeys. - Add Storybook interaction, accessibility, responsive, and visual-suite integration. - Add an E01–E16 runbook, component-to-story inventory, and current redacted qualification report. - Keep historical private call traces out of the PR. Provider proof tools are opt-in. ## Verification - All 21 standalone proof tests and browser client/server syntax checks pass. They cover signatures, redaction, cleanup retry, final audio saves, bounded report transport and late server write ordering. No live calls were placed. - All 27 focused UI/controller regressions, UI typecheck, token gates, and 28 map/catalog structural tests pass. The shared connection cache test covers pause/resume invalidation during the 30-second fresh period. - Storybook builds 157 Speko production-component stories. The complete prior 156-story set passed all 624 checks on UI source |
||
|
|
a64969b288 |
fix(server): attribute legacy runs stopped by controller lease loss (#16084)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The heartbeat runner executes legacy agent runs. A controller lease watchdog keeps durable ownership of each legacy run. > - When the watchdog loses the lease, it aborts the adapter. The abort reason was a plain `Error`, and nothing recorded why the run stopped. > - Completion then saved the cancellation as source `unknown`. Sentry got an unexpected cancel that it could not tell apart from other unrecorded stops. > - We saw this on a sandboxed Grok run. The system cancelled it after about 22 minutes with `cancellationSource: unknown`. Workspace copy-back then failed. Every `cancelRun` path records a stop request, so an unrecorded stop this late points to the lease watchdog. > - This pull request records a lease loss as its own cancellation source, with a closed cause label. > - The benefit is that the next event shows whether the lease loss caused the stop, and which renewal failure caused it. That is the missing fact to fix the root cause. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15790 Refs #15920 **What happened?** A legacy sandbox run was stopped by the system while it was working. The run record and the Sentry diagnostics show `cancellationSource: unknown`, with no initiator. The controller lease watchdog aborts the adapter with a plain `Error("Legacy controller lease lost")`. Completion does not read the abort reason, so it records the stop as `unknown`. **Expected behavior** When the host stops its own adapter because it lost the controller lease, the run records that cause. Diagnostics name the cause with a closed label. A stop that a user or the control plane requested earlier keeps its recorded source. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a legacy run that has a controller lease. 2. Make lease renewal fail: the renewal query errors, the update matches no row, or the lease deadline passes. 3. Let the adapter return its cancelled result. 4. Read `resultJson.cancellation` on the run. Before this change, `source` is `unknown`. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core bug). We saw it with `grok_local` in a sandbox. **Additional context** This change adds diagnostics. It does not prevent the lease loss. #15920 retries a transient copy-back failure. It does not help here, because the stopped sandbox rejects every retry. ## What Changed - `legacy-controller-lease.ts`: The watchdog aborts with a new `LegacyControllerLeaseLostError`. The error carries a closed cause: `renewal_rejected`, `renewal_deadline`, or `renewal_error`. - `run-cancellation.ts`: Add the `controller_lease` cancellation source. Add `controllerLeaseLossCancellation()` and `readControllerLeaseLossCause()`. The reader accepts only the server-written reason text. - `heartbeat/run-completion.ts`: When the outcome is `cancelled` and the abort reason is a lease loss, record a `controller_lease` cancellation (`expected: false`). This covers both an adapter that returns a cancelled result (`completeRun`) and one that throws after the abort, for example through `signal.throwIfAborted()` (`failRun`). A stop request recorded earlier still takes precedence. - `run-failure-diagnostics.ts`: Add `controllerLeaseLossCause` to the execution diagnostics. Only the closed label goes to Sentry, never the reason text. - `heartbeat/run-state.ts`: preserve `controller_lease` in the bounded SQL projection when saved results exceed 64 KB. A database regression verifies the default run-detail read. - `canContinueCancelledRun` stays unchanged. It does not accept `controller_lease`, so a lease loss does not authorize automatic continuation. - `doc/run-log-events.md`: Document the new source and cause labels. - Tests: unit tests for the cause on each watchdog path, completion tests that record the source when the adapter returns and when it throws the abort reason (both fail without the change), tests that a recorded stop request takes precedence, and a test that the Sentry report contains the closed label and not the reason text. ## Verification - `cd server && npx vitest run src/services/run-cancellation.test.ts src/services/legacy-controller-lease.test.ts src/services/__tests__/run-failure-report.test.ts src/services/heartbeat/run-completion.test.ts`: 238 passed, including the embedded Postgres suites. - I reverted only `run-completion.ts` and ran the new completion test. It failed with `source: "unknown"`. With the change, it records `controller_lease`. - I removed only the `failRun` attribution and ran the new thrown-error test. It failed without the `controller_lease` record, and passes with it. - Final full repository `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass. - Final local regression verification: all 247 tests pass across run-state, cancellation, watchdog, failure reporting, and completion suites. The large-result test fails before the SQL allowlist change. All latest-head CI checks pass (54 successes and two intentional skips). Fresh Apex is 5/5 on `708856c568d07d7b446a4a4af2edc6d9eec7d155` with no unresolved findings. ## Risks - Low risk. The change adds a new source value to server-owned JSON. Old rows keep their values. The readers accept the new value, and no UI code switches on this field. - A lease-loss cancel stays `expected: false`, so it is still reported as unexpected, as before. Now it has a more specific source. - The Sentry payload gets one new closed label (`controllerLeaseLossCause`). It does not include reason text or IDs. > 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 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs). OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`) through Codex added the large-result regression and SQL projection fix, with shell, file-edit, and test tools. The exact context-window size is 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
edcfcaf3f6 |
fix(ui): leave hidden task source defaults to the server (#16220)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task dialog sends project and workspace choices to the control plane. > - Hidden workspace controls must leave automatic source choices to the server. > - The dialog still sent its computed source pointer while those controls were hidden. > - This bypassed the implicit default branch added in #16095 and saved an untyped source choice. > - This pull request omits that automatic pointer and preserves explicit launch context. > - The benefit is that fresh tasks can use the server's safe isolated default source path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16095. A search found no open duplicate for the hidden-selector payload bug. **What happened?** A fresh task created through the board with a project and hidden isolation controls failed setup with “Task workspace access is no longer available.” The dialog sent `projectWorkspaceId` even though the user had not selected a source. The saved task had no workspace-selection provenance. No provider turn started. **Expected behavior** Omit automatic or restored draft source pointers when the selector is hidden. Let the server select and record the project default. Preserve explicit source and execution-workspace context supplied by a launch action. **Steps to reproduce** Hide `workspaces.isolation` through the existing operator setting. Use a project with a default Git source and isolated workspace policy. Create a fresh task from the board. Inspect the creation payload: the hidden automatic source must be omitted. The server must then apply its existing default source contract. A restricted shared source must remain protected. **Paperclip version or commit** Observed on Core `c7f4b74111d16f0b57112fa6d0b6a59c2d63bfe8`, which includes #16095. **Deployment mode** Authenticated staging Cloud instance with a configured remote runner provider and operator-hidden workspace controls. ## What Changed - Omit the automatic `projectWorkspaceId` while isolation controls are hidden. - Keep explicit same-project launch source context, including reused workspaces and subtasks. - Add a fresh-default payload regression and strengthen stale-draft and explicit-context controls. - Keep server authorization, trust checks, source fallback rules, visible selectors, and stored old tasks unchanged. ## Verification - Before the repair, the hidden fresh/default and restored-source regressions failed: 2 failed, 3 passed, 79 other cases filtered. - Final rebased source: `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/project-workspace-defaults.test.ts` passed all 87 cases. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - Initial UI typecheck failed because this new checkout had not built the plugin SDK. Building that dependency and repeating the unchanged check passed. The failed attempt remains separate from the source regression. - Full repository typecheck, full repository tests, and full repository build have not been run locally for this two-file UI patch. Complete latest-head CI passed with 55 successful checks and two intentional skips. This includes the full repository typecheck, build, general/serialized tests and all eight browser shards. Fresh Apex is 5/5 on `f992823480311691469c6797d5cdff26d76899a2`, with no unresolved findings or recommendations. - No live recovery pass is claimed. The deployed baseline failed before provider startup. A fresh same-project task must pass after this patch is deployed. Existing tasks with untyped source pointers need a separate authorized recovery path. - The old Storybook maps were reviewed at the baseline, then master removed them. The rebase preserves that removal. The final Storybook structural check covers 262 files and 2,485 story IDs. No new Storybook browser, play, render, or visual proof is claimed. ## Risks - Hidden restored draft source choices are intentionally ignored. Explicit same-project launch defaults remain in the request and have controls for normal tasks and subtasks. - Visible workspace choices retain their existing behavior. - This patch fixes one creation path. It does not recover old tasks, relax private source restrictions, or establish a performance fix for slow historical runs. - No data model, endpoint, permission, runner, or Observability changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with code and browser tools. The exact served model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
22d05644f4 |
feat(ui): add Speko voice setup, task calls, and Storybook coverage (#15728)
Runtime #15727 is merged. This PR adds the UI. Qualification follows in
#15729.
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work through tasks and governed connections.
> - Chat connections already bind external conversations to those tasks.
> - Speko handles voice and telephony, while the selected Paperclip
agent does the work.
> - A call needs durable session authority, ordered follow-ups, and safe
result delivery.
> - This PR adds the Speko setup and call controls to the existing Apps
and task UI.
> - This PR depends on #15727. The qualification suite follows
separately. Speko stays experimental.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**Problem or motivation**
Phone and browser voice conversations cannot use the chat connection
task lifecycle. A separate voice runtime is needed to preserve task
authority, retries, and reply history.
**Proposed solution**
Add company-scoped voice sessions, signed callbacks, durable replies,
inbound intake, and an agent-facing outbound-call tool. Reuse existing
tasks, queues, secrets, and publications.
**Roadmap alignment**
This extends the experimental chat connector entry points under Agent
Chat and Connected Apps. The project owner requested this feature.
Refs #11418 for the original provider catalog proposal. This
implementation uses the newer chat connection infrastructure rather than
an MCP catalog-only integration. Refs #15721 for remote OpenCode
startup.
## What Changed
- Add the Speko Apps catalog entry, provider artwork, and browser SDK.
- Reuse existing agents in setup. Keep the optional Company Phone Agent
in the catalog, with connection instructions available to any assigned
agent.
- Add task voice controls, transcripts, phone callbacks, inbound-line
settings, and call Activity entries.
- Surface retryable connection and incoming-task inventory failures,
preserve active call controls and cached tasks, restore keyboard focus
after recovery, and bound notification polling so a stuck request cannot
hide later results.
- Put Save & exit and Connect Speko in the credential step’s shared
footer.
- Add deterministic production-component Storybook fixtures for setup,
lifecycle, failures, permissions, and phone surfaces.
- Include voice components in the design guide. Stories never request a
real microphone or place calls.
## Verification
- All 27 focused UI/controller regressions, UI typecheck, token gates,
and 28 map/catalog structural tests pass. The shared connection cache
test covers pause/resume invalidation during the 30-second fresh period.
- Storybook builds 157 Speko production-component stories. The complete
prior 156-story set passed all 624 checks on UI source
|
||
|
Harjoth KharaandClaude Opus 5
|
be3e614d61 |
fix(workspace-runtime): keep the real readiness failure when the deadline-clamped probe aborts (#11575)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and the services they use for work. > - An agent can wait for a workspace service to become ready. > - Each readiness probe has a time limit. > - A final probe can expire and hide an earlier HTTP failure. > - This pull request keeps that observed failure in the reported error. > - Operators can then see why the service was not ready. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11525. Related: #11494. **What happened?** A deadline-limited final readiness probe replaced an observed HTTP 503 with an abort message. **Expected behavior** Keep an earlier service failure when only the readiness deadline aborts the last probe. Report normal connection failures and probe timeouts as before. **Steps to reproduce** Return HTTP 503 from the first probe. Leave one millisecond in the readiness budget. Abort the last probe. The reported error must still contain HTTP 503. ## What Changed - Track whether a readiness probe observed a service failure. - Preserve that observation when the final probe expires at the readiness deadline. - Add a deterministic regression with an injected clock. - Keep probe scheduling, request count and timeout limits unchanged. ## Verification - Author verification: the readiness suite passed all nine tests; server typecheck passed. The regression failed before the fix and passed after it. - The later task review recorded 172 passing workspace tests and seven additional readiness checks. Historical author baseline failures are not claimed as passing local runs. - Latest head `936a374a08d0e74d87d588ba034f674388e8d508`: CI passed with 54 successful checks and two intentional skips. Fresh Apex review is 5/5 with no unresolved findings or recommendations. - A test merge with current master is clean. ## Risks - Error text changes when a service first fails and then hangs. The earlier observed failure is retained. - A hang without a prior service failure still reports the abort. - No data model, API or permission change. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`) authored the fix through Claude Code with reasoning, file editing and test tools. OpenAI GPT-5.6 assisted the original diagnosis. OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`) through Codex assisted this final review and PR preparation with repository and terminal tools. This session does not expose an exact 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: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.16 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
473c80d13f |
Automatically import and update project repository skills (#16066)
Automatically import skills from new GitHub project repositories and update enabled sources in the background. Preserve project-derived access, saved selections, immutable execution versions and explicit pins; add legacy adoption, refresh and connection repair in Sources. Include durable scheduling and bounded work credits, production Storybook journeys, real GitHub-to-routine acceptance receipts and final-head CI/security/Greptile qualification. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
de335b42d4 |
Expose signed routine wake deadlines during idle sleep checks
Expose signed routine wake deadlines during idle sleep checks Report the earliest eligible routine deadline to an authenticated host scheduler, while preserving local execution, owned sleep leases and conservative blocking for unsupported work. Verified with focused tests, typecheck, build, all required CI checks and Apex 5/5. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7eea9d8214 |
fix(github): use bot names in review summaries (#16212)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A GitHub bot can send a pull request to an agent and publish its review. > - Each bot has its own GitHub App identity, but every summary currently starts with "Paperclip Review". > - A generic heading makes it harder to identify reviewers when several bots review the same pull request. > - This pull request uses the bot display name in review summary headings. > - Users can identify each reviewer while required checks keep their existing name. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heading of a GitHub bot's published pull request review summary. **Current behavior** Every summary uses "Paperclip Review", regardless of the bot's name. The check also uses "Paperclip Review" and must keep that name for existing branch rules. **Proposed behavior** Complete and incomplete review summary headings use the GitHub bot display name. The heading falls back to the bot login, then the assigned agent name, when old connections have no display name. Separate GitHub Apps keep independent checks with the same name. **Reason and benefit** Readers can identify each bot's review. A regression test confirms that publishing a review does not update a check owned by another App or endpoint. **Breaking changes** The summary heading changes. Consumers that parse the old heading must accept bot names. No API, prompt configuration, database schema, or check name changes are included. No duplicate PR was found in the GitHub bot title search. ROADMAP.md does not contain a duplicate of this change. ## What Changed - Use the bot display name in complete and incomplete review headings. - Escape Markdown in names and fall back to the bot login or agent name. - Verify the heading through the publication workflow and keep check updates scoped to the App and endpoint. - Document bot-named summaries and independent checks. Update both access maps. ## Verification - Focused policy, heading, and existing UI tests: 67 passed. - Database-backed regression cases: 2 passed, including bot-name publication and independent checks. - Map checks, token gates, and git diff --check passed. - Typecheck and build passed on the final rebased branch. The final focused run passed 44 tests; the two database-backed regression cases also passed in a separate run. All final-head CI checks passed, including full test suites, build, typecheck, E2E, and security scans. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks - Consumers that parse the old summary heading must accept bot names. - The GitHub check remains Paperclip Review. Multiple-bot check isolation was tested with provider fixtures; a live two-bot GitHub test was not run for this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
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>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.15 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
c7f4b74111 |
fix: isolate fresh task sources from restricted project workspaces (#16095)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Each task must have an isolated workspace that its agent can read. > - Older project checkouts can contain worktrees for restricted tasks. > - The source access check correctly rejects these shared checkouts. > - A fresh task then fails even when its agent can clone the project remote. > - This pull request gives fresh default tasks a separate clone of the same remote. > - The task can start while the restricted task files remain protected. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Fresh tasks fail with `Task workspace access is no longer available` when their default project checkout contains a restricted task worktree. The caller has access to the new task and its remote repository. The shared local Git source is unsafe to copy. **Expected behavior** Use a separate clone of the same authorized remote for a fresh default task. Keep source access checks and responsible-user Git credentials in force. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put a restricted task worktree inside a project checkout. 2. Assign a new default task to an agent that cannot read the restricted task. 3. Start the new task. The current source check fails before workspace creation. 4. With this fix, the task uses a separate remote source. The restricted files are absent. Later runs reuse the same owned source. Related work: Refs #15749, Refs #15528. This change keeps their source retention and workspace ownership checks. ## What Changed - Add a remote source path scoped to the company and task. - Clone through the run’s Git connection after the shared source fails its access check. - Reject reused workspaces, explicit selections, pinned branches, local sources, credential-bearing URLs, and symlink paths. - Check source access again before publishing the workspace. - Resolve later runs from the verified recorded source. Ignore leftover clones that the saved workspace does not own. - Record provenance for new implicit Git defaults. Read the current task binding before fallback. Preserve explicit, inherited and ambiguous legacy checkout choices. - Keep the effective task strategy during startup validation of matching implicit defaults. Preserve the existing explicit-selection write check. - Add regression coverage and document the fallback. ## Verification - Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index conflicts. All upstream suites, classifications, source references and story IDs are preserved. Both fix branches combine cleanly in either merge order, with no catalog fingerprint drift. - Passed locally: 313 focused source-isolation, preparation, task-creation, binding and trust tests before the final startup fix. The final fix passes all 100 source-trust, task-binding and environment-selection tests. Earlier workspace-resolution and persisted-source suites also passed. - Real-Git regressions cover all three review findings. Reconstruction ignores an unrecorded clone and preserves unpublished commits/files. Explicit and parent-inherited checkout IDs without typed selections retain their denial and branch tips without cloning or acquiring an environment. A protected-project heartbeat completes and resumes using the task’s Git strategy with read access. Explicit selection still requires writes, and a mismatched default is rejected. - Passed: the complete Storybook catalog check with no drift errors, feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17 catalog/index script tests. The generated index counts match the merged catalog. The current upstream verification-route inventory remains unchanged. The catalog contains all 262 authored suites and 2,481 story IDs. - Passed: full workspace typecheck and build after the final guard changes, on latest head `79d2adadcb6d3d7a04b9943a91bdb8b0b6abea6d`. - Latest head `79d2adadcb6d3d7a04b9943a91bdb8b0b6abea6d`: complete CI passed (54 successful checks, two intentional skips), including the full general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards. Fresh Greptile Apex review is 5/5 on this same commit, with no unresolved findings or recommendations. The full local test command was attempted earlier without a complete aggregate result; the complete suite result is from CI. - Manual check: configure a shared project checkout with a restricted task worktree. Admit a fresh default task using the authorized remote. Confirm separate Git storage and no restricted local branch or file. Reuse, close and reopen the task workspace. Confirm that explicit, literal branch and low-trust selections retain the denied source. ## Risks - A clean remote clone excludes unpublished local work. The fallback applies only to fresh default tasks and rejects existing workspace or branch selections. - A private remote can fail to clone when the responsible user lacks Git credentials. The run then reports the failure; access checks are not bypassed. - Older untyped checkout bindings cannot prove default provenance. They keep the source denial instead of silently dropping unpublished work. - New implicit Git defaults use the existing workspace-intent contract. The source directory uses existing instance storage. No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, model ID `gpt-6`, through Codex. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, terminal tools, and test execution. The API session does not expose an exact 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>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.14 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
393d1c4108 |
docs(skills): add standalone test-audit workflow (#16211)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Repository skills guide agents through engineering work. > - Test gardening must preserve useful regression coverage while reducing repeated work. > - Contributors need a local procedure for evidence, validation, and delivery. > - This pull request adds a standalone test-audit skill with a short entry point and focused guides. > - The procedure supports focused cleanups and coordinated audits without requiring an external skill checkout. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The repository has no standalone `.agents/skills/test-audit/` procedure on master. **What's wrong?** Test audits need consistent rules for retaining contracts, proving removal safety, recording cost evidence, and tracking stacked delivery. **Suggested fix** Add a self-contained skill with candidate evidence, validation, campaign, and Paperclip delivery guides. Preserve upstream attribution. Related audit work: Refs #15978, Refs #16022, Refs #16197. The duplicate search found no standalone skill PR. This docs change does not duplicate planned core features in ROADMAP.md. ## What Changed - Add a short test-audit entry point and agent metadata. - Require contract and keeper evidence before removing tests. Apply an authoring gate to added or changed tests. - Define targeted and exhaustive campaign modes, a second review of redundant layers, and full keeper dependency checks. - Document matched baselines, intended-failure controls, selection checks, honest cost claims, and current-head delivery gates. - Add Paperclip commands and invariants. Retain OpenClaw attribution and its MIT notice. ## Verification - The skill frontmatter validator passed with cached PyYAML. - Agent metadata YAML parsed. The default prompt names `$test-audit`. - All eight relative Markdown links resolve. All seven delivery files matched the reviewed source. - `git diff --check` passed. The PR contains only seven Markdown/YAML skill files. - An independent scenario review checked the campaign completion and coverage rules. - Local application typecheck, full Vitest, and build were not run for this documentation-only change. Fresh current-head CI passed: 55 successful checks and two expected skips on `1a9af8ffacd532882f0a01bac8ab3f5063ab9cd9`. - E2E shard 8/8 was interrupted after its assertions passed. A single same-head job retry passed. The interruption cause was not exposed. - Greptile reviewed the current head at 5/5 with no actionable findings. There are no review threads. The PR has no merge conflicts and remains open as requested. ## Risks - Low runtime risk. This PR changes contributor instructions only. - Agents can misapply audit evidence. The skill requires valid keepers and preservation proof, rejects keeper cycles, and makes incomplete audits explicit. - CI routing can change. The guide requires readers to inspect current repository 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 based on GPT-6 wrote and tightened the skill. Its exact deployment model ID and context-window size are unavailable. Independent scenario review and PR delivery used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning, repository inspection, and tool execution. The context-window size was not exposed. ## 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
|
db65a0863e |
Deliver durable resource lifecycle events to plugins without polling (#16203)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Plugins keep external resources aligned with Paperclip projects and agents. > - The durable resource journal stores changes, but its plugin interface requires polling. > - Project deletion has no journal entry, so consumers must scan for missing projects. > - This PR delivers committed journal events through a native plugin callback and records deletion. > - Plugins can recover unfinished work without periodic change scans. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #15343 introduced the durable inbox. #15631 added required agent lifecycle participation. This change keeps both contracts and adds automatic delivery for the resource inbox. **What happened?** Plugins must schedule reads of the durable inbox. A deleted project has no durable deletion event. Consumers must scan saved bindings to detect its removal. **Expected behavior** Core should deliver committed resource events and replay unfinished work. Empty queues should have no polling timer. Project removal should leave a durable event. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install a plugin that consumes project lifecycle events. 2. Create or update a project. The plugin must call `listLifecycle` to discover it. 3. Delete the project. The journal has no deletion entry. ## What Changed - Add `resourceLifecycle` to the manifest and `onResourceLifecycle` to the SDK. Require `events.subscribe` and a configured, enabled company scope. - Reuse transaction-aware work signals and the delivery coordinator. Wake after commit, on startup and plugin activation, and after configuration changes. - Acknowledge only a matching successful result. Retry unfinished or interrupted work. Retain deferred events without an idle retry timer. - Wake again after successful worker configuration application, and retain failed scans through idle drain (both Apex findings fixed). - Keep ordering per resource and deliver past failed or deferred resources. Keep the manual inbox methods for existing consumers. - Record project deletion in the removal transaction. Extend the journal constraint with a generated migration. ## Verification - Apex follow-up: 129 focused worker, delivery, coordinator, and application tests passed; server typecheck passed. Regression coverage verifies configuration-application races and failed scans across idle drain. - Focused lifecycle, transaction coordinator, manifest, and SDK dispatch suites: 105 tests passed, including single-connection saves, redacted failure diagnostics, wakeups retained during idle drain, and per-event retry deadlines. - Complete SDK suite plus delivery database tests: 128 tests passed. - Shared, database, and SDK typechecks passed. Direct server `tsc --noEmit` passed against rebuilt SDK declarations. - Full local `pnpm test:run` finished with 19,491 passed, 148 skipped, and 6 failed tests across 5 files (plus two suite setup errors). This run overlapped branch updates and is not final-head evidence: failures included missing Cargo, local Git default-branch assumptions, and stale in-process lifecycle modules. Final Apex-fix commit `75d028788` passed all CI gates, including the full test shards, and received Apex 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` were attempted. Both stopped because Cargo is unavailable locally. CI supplies the Rust toolchain. - Local installation used the repository's documented lockfile fallback because master has dependencies missing from its lockfile. No dependency changes are included here. ## Risks - Delivery is at least once. Plugins must re-read current state and make external effects idempotent. - Signals are process-local, like the other delivery queues. Startup recovers committed rows. Independent database writers or multiple active server processes require an explicit ownership and wake protocol. - Apply migration `0340_open_warlock.sql` before running code that records project deletion. Earlier deletions cannot be reconstructed. - Automatic delivery selects plugins with company configuration rows. `deferred` waits for a later startup, configuration change, or other work notification. - This does not replace required agent lifecycle participation or establish that external mounts are unused. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with tool-assisted code editing, code inspection, 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 - [ ] 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>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.13 |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5a6d0d08a7 |
fix: record verified workspace file recovery from tasks (#16104)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Recovery must preserve files and show the next operator action. > - A stopped run can leave a file repair hold after its recovery action is resolved. > - The task notice shows that hold but has no form to record verified file recovery. > - A chat connection can also replace the file repair instruction with a chat retry instruction. > - This pull request adds a file recovery form and preserves the file repair instruction. > - The form records evidence for the original run and keeps the current task status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A retained workspace file hold can block a task after its recovery action is resolved. The task page offers no file recovery form. A chat binding can hide the required file repair instruction. **Expected behavior** An authorized board member can record verified recovery of the original files. The server checks the original stop proof. The task keeps its current status and does not start another run. Chat instructions must not replace file repair instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a stopped legacy run with a retained workspace recovery marker and a resolved recovery action. 2. Open its task page, including a task with a chat connection. 3. Observe that the file hold has no supported form to record verified recovery. Refs: #15857, #15824, #16095. Those PRs address shutdown export, native finalization and workspace source isolation. This PR uses the existing file repair API. ## What Changed - Add a board-only file recovery form with evidence and an explicit file verification confirmation. - Preserve the current task status when recording file recovery. - Project whether the original recovery marker supports file recording. - Keep file repair instructions when a task has a chat binding. - Add UI, route and Storybook examples for success, denial and chat-connected file holds. - Document the recovery flow and update the affected Storybook catalog entries. ## Verification - Merged master `c8efdbfba43` and resolved both rounds of catalog/index conflicts. Upstream review notes and classifications are preserved, together with all four retained-file recovery examples and their stable story IDs. Both fix branches also combine without merge conflicts or catalog fingerprint drift. - Passed locally after conflict resolution: 47 tests covering the file recovery UI, execution blocker notice and retained workspace repair route. The earlier ownership-route pass also covered 196 tests. - Passed: UI token gates, the complete Storybook catalog check with no drift errors, feature and agent map structure checks, and all 17 catalog/index script tests. Verification inventory counts match all 262 authored suites and 2,485 story IDs. The upstream production verification obligations remain intact. - Passed: full workspace typecheck, build and Storybook build on latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48`. The built index retains all four file-recovery story IDs. - Latest head `10ac22b35d0a4fe469cf620914845c509046da48` has 54 successful checks and two intentionally skipped Storybook checks. Apex is 5/5 on that exact commit, with no unresolved findings. The full general/serialized suites and all eight browser shards passed in CI. Local tests use the focused suites above. Storybook browser interactions have not been executed locally. - Manual check: open a task with a retained file hold. Verify that evidence and confirmation are required. Record verified file recovery. Confirm that its status stays unchanged and no run starts. Repeat without board runtime access and with an unverified stop receipt. ## Risks - The form records an operator attestation. It does not recover files itself or prove external action outcomes. - A stale source or missing stop proof must remain rejected by the existing server route. - No database migration or automatic task retry is added. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (`gpt-6`), used through Codex with reasoning, repository tools, code editing and test execution. The exact context window size is not exposed by 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 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
|
c8efdbfba4 |
test(storybook): add production examples for feature map UI gaps (#16196)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The feature map records the user-facing capabilities. > - Storybook uses the same feature index. > - Step 2 found 49 UI capabilities with no authored examples. > - This pull request adds shipped-component examples with isolated fixtures. > - The catalog records each example's states and remaining production checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16167. The verification inventory is merged; this follow-up now targets master. ## What Changed - Add 37 suites and 257 scenarios for all 49 UI capabilities from the step-2 inventory. Keep existing stories and IDs. - Use shipped pages and components. Simulate API replies, sockets, props, and callbacks at their boundaries. - Activate story API fixtures before the application providers read data. Block unregistered API mutations and restore owned storage/fetch state. - Add browser checks for rendering, declared play assertions, fixture reset, and selected mobile/theme states. Update the catalog and verification inventory. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - UI Vitest suite: 730 files and 8,208 tests passed. Fixture boundary tests: 4 passed. - Map/catalog checks, 27 generator/map tests, and token gates: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. All 2,248 previous built entry IDs remain present. - Pre-reconciliation static browser suite: 260 checks passed (257 scenarios, token fixture reset, and two mobile/theme cases). All non-play stories assert an explicit subject state; 129 play functions passed. - `pnpm test:run` could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL exhausted host shared-memory allocation. The run also reported native-runner test timeouts. Only this task's verified runner was stopped; other jobs and host settings were preserved. - Reconciled onto merged master `252d9b5077`. The six draft stories and new same-browser reset regression passed (7 checks); 16 draft-persistence tests and UI typecheck passed. Static merge verification: 32 affected-subject/draft checks passed, including same-browser reset. Rebuilt Storybook retains all 2,248 original IDs in its 2,517-entry index. Four additional play-result checks passed: visible onboarding reset, pending probe, filtered-empty runs, and optimistic queued-response removal. UI typecheck and 27 catalog/map tests also passed. Final static browser suite on `3fab35df8d912935fa86ce0de7d32d07e2b5f4c3`: all 261 checks passed (257 scenarios plus fixture-reset and mobile checks). Latest head `3fab35df8d912935fa86ce0de7d32d07e2b5f4c3`: all 55 CI/status checks passed; the two optional Storybook workflow jobs were skipped. Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - No pinned Linux visual-baseline comparison or real provider journey is claimed. ## Risks Fixtures can drift from production contracts. The catalog records inspected sources and their fingerprints. Capability links provide initial isolated UI coverage; they do not certify every recipe variant, real permissions, persistence, or provider behavior. The new examples expose existing UI limits. Plugin discovery failure stays on Loading. Document and environment-list reads lack dedicated failure feedback; Cases and Inbox fall back to empty views after errors. Goal alignment has display views but no assignment control. These findings remain visible in the inventory. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. The exact runtime deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used code generation, shell execution, and browser 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 - [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
|
252d9b5077 |
docs(storybook): record verification routes for missing examples (#16167)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product capabilities and verification journeys. > - The Storybook catalog links existing examples to those capabilities. > - A capability without a story can need UI examples, CLI checks, or browser checks. > - This pull request records the required verification surface for all 60 current gaps. > - The next Storybook pass can add useful examples without claiming backend proof from mocks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16154. Reconciles the new task-notification capability from #16153. The related PR search found no duplicate of this classification pass. This change follows the merged association corrections. It does not add product behavior or duplicate a roadmap feature. ## What Changed - Add `maps/storybook-map/VERIFICATION.md` with all 60 unassociated capabilities: 49 UI example gaps, eight CLI/operator operations, and three browser verification boundaries. - Record required UI states, separate production checks, source links, and existing test starting points. Keep execution marked not run. - Link the record from the catalog contract. Tell the maintenance skill to keep its rows, counts, and source revision current. - Regenerate the feature index for personal task notifications. Refresh only the inspected recipe/index-dependent review fingerprints. Retain all 223 suites, 2,212 authored IDs, associations, and classifications. - Record the targeted association revisit. It found no additional justified links. ## Verification - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs` and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - All 27 catalog, feature-index, and map structural tests passed. - The maintenance skill validator passed. - A source check confirmed that the 60 unique rows match all non-guide association gaps. All report, contract, and skill file links exist. - `git diff --check` passed. - Inspect the eight CLI/operator rows and three browser rows. UI/API capabilities retain both obligations. - Full repository typecheck, tests, build, Storybook build, and live product journeys were not run locally for this documentation and generated-data change. No live proof is claimed. - Final head `a9ef9e8ebc1f41bb7047142704655d08b3e47be7`: all 57 checks/statuses are green (55 successful, two Storybook jobs skipped). Greptile approved this head at 5/5. The review finding is resolved and the PR is mergeable. ## Risks - This source inventory can become stale as capabilities or associations change. The maintenance skill requires refreshing its rows and source revision. - Existing test links identify starting points. They do not certify complete or passing production coverage. - There is no migration, permission change, product behavior change, story removal, or new visual baseline. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-6 assisted with source review, documentation, and checks. It used shell tools and read-only area agents. The runtime did not expose an exact backend model revision or 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>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.12 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ccdc6754b2 |
fix: retain background preparation traces from unsampled requests (#16205)
Start preparation phase root traces independently of request sampling and link each phase to its trigger. Preserve operator root sampling, concurrent child context, and silent unconfigured behavior. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
da9af67415 |
Persist agent-owned instance secrets through lifecycle results (#16191)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agents and controls when they can run. > - Lifecycle plugins prepare and remove resources for each agent. > - Those resources can require private connection credentials. > - The current SDK can resolve configured secrets but cannot save these credentials securely. > - Ordinary company secrets can be bound to agents and do not provide the required server-only boundary. > - This change saves agent-owned instance secrets through the existing local lifecycle result and native secret service. > - The tenant can retain runtime credentials through restarts without a separate encryption system or remote API. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Agent lifecycle, plugin contract, and native secret storage. **Problem or motivation** Lifecycle plugins need to save private runtime connection details for the owning agent. Worker memory loses these details on restart. Plugin state and company secrets do not provide a private runtime-only boundary. **Proposed solution** Add optional instance-secret changes to lifecycle results. Save them through the existing secret service and local encrypted provider before accepting the result. Require company, agent, plugin, phase, operation, revision, and current unexpired attempt ownership. Supply saved values through the existing local preparation/resume request. **Alternatives considered** A separate encrypted store duplicates the native secret system. Generic plugin company-secret writes proposed by #5007 do not supply agent ownership or a server-only secret scope. This change does not add that general write API. **Roadmap alignment** Extends the existing lifecycle contract from #15631. It does not add a resource provider or select an execution backend. ## What Changed - Add an instance scope to native secrets with mandatory agent/plugin ownership, a company-qualified agent foreign key, and key uniqueness per owner. Existing company and user scopes retain their constraints. - Reuse native creation, rotation, deletion, secret versions, access audit, and the local encrypted provider. Keep values out of company catalogs, normal bindings, agent access, and public agent records. - Accept local secret patches only after locking and checking the current lifecycle operation and required plugin selection. Storage failure or a stale reply cannot complete setup. Expired or replaced attempt owners cannot overwrite a successor's credentials. - Keep vault-import conflicts company-scoped. Protect instance-owned account-home paths during failed device-login cleanup with a private, fail-closed scan. - Skip decryption on stop and cleanup so a lost key cannot block removal. Cascade secret records when their agent or plugin is deleted. - Log fixed provider diagnostics without raw errors that can contain credentials. Document the local contract, runtime resolver, and access-map exclusions. Retain the five latest migration snapshots through the normal generator pruning. ## Verification - 239 focused tests passed across agent-instance-secrets, lifecycle, secrets-service, secrets-routes, plugin-secrets-handler, and agent-device-login-routes. Used disposable PostgreSQL 18 clusters through the existing test constructor seam because the bundled binary cannot start on this macOS host. The temporary harness is outside git. - Regression tests reproduced the vault-import conflict and missed cleanup claimant before the fixes; both pass after the fixes. - New coverage includes encrypted native versions, rotation, restart recovery, company/agent/plugin isolation, ordinary-read and binding denial, stale replies, storage failure, safe logging, cleanup without the master key, and same-name secret isolation, native account-home mutation guards, lease takeover/expiry, and live agent/plugin deletion cascades. - Direct server TypeScript check, DB/shared typechecks, migration numbering/safety checks, module boundaries, and git diff check passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build were attempted; both stop at the missing local cargo toolchain. The full test command was started and stopped after failures in unchanged native-runtime/workspace suites plus bundled-PostgreSQL skips; it did not complete. CI must verify the full toolchain paths. - Current head `c0f8bfd12477ad509252ecd40e168a6c84dbeb36`: all 55 CI checks passed, including the previously canceled e2e shard. Greptile Apex reviewed this exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved threads. GitHub reports the branch mergeable and clean. - No live provider probe, production data access, or deployment. Reviewed the diff for credentials, private references, and run artifacts. ## Risks Apply migration 0339_luxuriant_iron_monger.sql before deploying tenant code. It adds nullable ownership columns, a partial unique index, foreign keys, and a stricter scope constraint. Existing rows remain valid. Keep the schema on application rollback. Preserve the existing secrets master key through deployments and backup restoration. The lifecycle request/result now has a sensitive, server-only field. Plugins must never log it or return it to an agent or browser. Values stay in the tenant database through the existing encryption provider. Trusted runtime consumers must apply normal execution admission before resolving them. Older hosts omit instanceSecrets; plugins that require durable storage must reject those hosts. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and local test execution. The exact serving model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.11 |
||
|
|
2a56e5c734 |
fix(ui): show soft budget incidents as warnings, not hard stops (#16201)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Budget policies limit what an agent, a project, or the organization can spend. > - At the warning threshold (80% by default), the server opens a soft incident. It does not pause the scope. At 100%, it opens a hard incident and pauses the scope. > - The budget incident card always shows the hard-stop design. A soft incident shows "agent hard stop", "This scope is paused", and a "Keep paused" button. > - Operators read this as a paused agent. The policy card and the "Paused agents" counter for the same agent say something different. > - This pull request shows soft incidents as warnings. Hard stops do not change. > - The benefit is that the Costs and Budgets pages give one consistent and correct state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description I searched open and closed issues and pull requests for "budget incident", "hard stop", "soft incident", and "BudgetIncidentCard". I found no issue for this bug. Refs #14306: that open PR also changes `BudgetIncidentCard`, for failed-action feedback. It does not change the soft and hard labels. The two PRs can conflict in this file. **What happened?** An agent budget policy reached its warning threshold. The Audit → Budgets page and the Audit → Costs overview showed the soft incident as "AGENT HARD STOP" with the banner "This scope is paused. New heartbeats will not start until you resolve the budget incident." The card showed "Raise budget & resume" and "Keep paused". The agent was not paused. Its policy card showed "Warning", and the "Paused agents" counter did not count it. **Expected behavior** A soft incident looks like a warning. It says that work continues. Its actions are "Raise budget" and "Dismiss warning". A hard incident keeps the current design and actions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an agent budget policy with a $1,000 monthly limit and the default 80% warning threshold. 2. Record $800 of cost for that agent. 3. Open Audit → Budgets. 4. Look at the active incident for that agent. It says "agent hard stop" and "This scope is paused". **Paperclip version or commit** Seen on v2026.1012.0 (`bba6a45`). The same code is on `master` at `721e87ac0`. **Deployment mode** local_trusted (not deployment-specific). ## What Changed - `BudgetIncidentCard` reads `incident.thresholdType`. A `soft` incident shows: - The heading "<scope> budget warning", with amber styling and a warning icon. - The banner "Spending crossed the warning threshold. This warning does not pause work." - The actions "Raise budget" and "Dismiss warning". They call the same handlers as before (`raise_budget_and_resume` and `keep_paused`). For a soft incident, the server dismisses the incident for `keep_paused`, and the resume step has no effect because the scope is not paused. - A new-budget prefill of the current limit plus $10. Before, the prefill was equal to the current limit, so "Raise budget" did not change the limit. - A `hard` incident does not change: the same heading, banner, styling, prefill, and actions. - The "Active incidents" description on the Costs page now covers warnings and hard stops. - New tests in `BudgetIncidentCard.test.tsx` cover a hard stop, a soft warning, and a project hard stop. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/BudgetIncidentCard.test.tsx`: 3 tests pass. Before the fix, the soft-warning test failed with `expected 'agent hard stopOpen…' to contain 'agent budget warning'`. - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Costs src/components/Budget`: 31 tests pass. - Manual check in a running instance (v2026.1012.0 with this patch, seeded with an agent at 100% and an agent at 80% of a $1,000 budget), in light and dark themes: - The 100% agent shows the red "Agent hard stop", "This scope is paused", "Raise budget & resume", and "Keep paused". - The 80% agent shows the amber "Agent budget warning", the warning banner, a $1,010.00 prefill, "Raise budget", and "Dismiss warning". - "Paused agents: 1" agrees with the cards. - `ui` typecheck: no errors in the changed files. The local run had unrelated errors in `PluginOrganizationSwitcher` because the plugin SDK was not built. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is UI-only. Hard-stop rendering and behavior do not change. No API, server, or data changes. - The soft card now prefills a value above the current limit. Before, it prefilled the current limit. - PR #14306 changes the same component. One of the two PRs can need a small rebase. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs, Playwright screenshot capture). A human requested and reviewed the change. ## 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 `doc/` page describes this card, so no change was needed) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Aron Prins <aronprins@icloud.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e43af9770a |
refactor(server): isolate publication recovery and Board sends (#16192)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip publishes task messages through several chat providers. > - Operator recovery must keep durable receipts and task authority consistent. > - The service combines shared publication transactions with provider recovery details. > - Provider-specific recovery belongs beside its transport implementation. > - This pull request extracts publication requests and resolution workflows. > - Shared workflows keep transaction ownership and delegate provider operations. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16187. Refs #16185, #16183, and #16180. Review against the parent branch. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The structure of publication requests, Board sends, and operator recovery. **Current behavior** Six public publication methods live in the main service and include provider-specific transfer and receipt operations. **Proposed behavior** Move shared requests and resolution to publications modules. Move Teams file resolution and Board preparation, Slack file receipts and Board staging, and Photon retry records to their provider folders. **Reason and benefit** Provider recovery is easier to locate without moving transaction and idempotency ownership into providers. ## What Changed - Extract six public publication methods into two shared workflow factories (629 and 467 lines). - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 5,337 to 4,078 lines. The full stack reduces it from 7,919 lines. - Extract Teams transfer resolution and cold-runtime Board preparation. - Extract Slack upload receipt resolution and Board send staging. - Extract Photon operator retry records. - Preserve the same public service API and keep provider operations in the original transactions. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh local integration and wiring checks passed (1,318 tests). The dedicated Photon suite passed 18 before and 18 after the conflict resolution. This final slice was replayed onto merged #16187 with all chat-channel source unchanged. Current-head CI and review are running. Earlier verification below describes previous stack commits. - Publication, attachment, Board send, and operator recovery baseline: 261 passed before and 261 passed after; 1,034 other cases excluded. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax audit reconstructs all six public method bodies from the provider helpers and matches the original AST. Unrelated service functions and the public API match too. - Final repository typecheck passed. Build passed. The broad local test run encountered heartbeat fixture setup failures under the macOS PostgreSQL shared-memory limit and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130). Four confirmed abandoned guard slots were reclaimed without stopping active databases. The complete chat integration suite and source-wiring checks passed separately (1,309 tests). - Greptile rates current head 55417debfe 5/5 with zero inline findings. All 55 CI checks pass on that head. Tests use local PostgreSQL and fixture transports, not live provider execution. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Operator recovery can duplicate a send if receipt updates move out of their transaction. The extracted helpers use the caller transaction. Teams preparation remains outside Board locks, and repeated send identities retain their existing receipt. Public method names and return values stay the same. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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
|
f18247b7e7 |
refactor(server): isolate durable chat wakeup workflows (#16187)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip accepts chat messages as durable task input. > - Wakeups must preserve current company, identity, and task permissions. > - The main service mixes those shared checks with provider message rules. > - Shared wakeup workflows should own persistence and queue ordering. > - This pull request extracts wakeup authorization, processing, and notices. > - Slack and GitHub rules move into their provider folders. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16185. Refs #16183 and #16180. Review against the parent branch. Related open #13620 covers durable chat wakeup feature work; this PR only moves existing behavior. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The structure of durable inbound wakeup processing. **Current behavior** The service contains authorization, durable wake receipts, queue notices, and provider authority details. **Proposed behavior** Use three cohesive inbound modules and provider-owned authority functions. **Reason and benefit** The shared transaction and company checks stay together while provider rules have a clear home. ## What Changed - Move wakeup authorization, processing, and notices into inbound modules (245, 418, and 377 lines). - Move Slack mention checks and GitHub automatic-event admission and acknowledgements into provider folders. - Preserve lock order, durable receipt ordering, notice cursor lifetime, and the live heartbeat dependency. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 6,340 to 5,337 lines, including blank-gap cleanup. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh local integration and wiring checks passed (1,318 tests). The dedicated Photon suite passed 18 before and 18 after the conflict resolution. This slice was replayed onto merged #16185 with its chat-channel source unchanged. Current-head CI and review are running. Earlier verification below describes previous stack commits. - Existing wakeup, queue, retry, and authorization integration cases: 212 passed before and 212 passed after; 1,083 other cases excluded. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax-tree audit compares all 12 moved functions, cursor state, retained service functions, and public API after explicit provider delegations. - The first three stack PRs have 55 passing CI checks and current-head 5/5 reviews. - Final stack checks are recorded below. The first broad local run encountered a PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture limit and was interrupted after that failure. - Greptile rates current head 1462819f53 5/5 with zero inline findings. All 55 CI checks now pass. Initial CI failures: the first workspace job hit EADDRINUSE in sandbox-callback-bridge.test.ts, and cloud-auth.spec.ts hit a disposed Playwright response. Both jobs passed on retry without source changes. Integration uses local PostgreSQL and fixture provider transports, not live providers. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Authorization and wakeups must retain the same locks and transaction scope. Factories receive narrow dependencies and initialize before their consumers. The notice cursor stays per service. Shutdown and heartbeat reads remain live. Provider helpers do not own transactions. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>canary/v2026.1013.0-canary.10 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
721e87ac02 |
refactor(server): separate receiver ownership and provider callbacks (#16185)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip accepts provider callbacks as durable task input. > - Runtime ownership prevents two servers from accepting the same receiver stream. > - Discord and Photon share the lease machinery but have different callback details. > - Moving that shared machinery into Discord would create the wrong platform dependency. > - This pull request extracts common receiver ownership and puts provider callbacks in their own folders. > - The service keeps startup and shutdown coordination. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16183; review against the parent branch. Refs #16180 and #16080. Related open work: #15532 changes Discord command reconciliation scheduling. This extraction preserves existing scheduling. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The structure of shared receiver ownership and Discord/Photon runtime callbacks. **Current behavior** The shared entry point mixes lease acquisition, renewal, provider capability checks, and Photon checkpoint transactions. **Proposed behavior** Put the common lease operations in runtime/ownership.ts and the protocol details in the provider folders. **Reason and benefit** The ownership lifetime stays explicit without making Photon depend on Discord implementation code. ## What Changed - Extract 11 receiver-ownership helpers into runtime/ownership.ts (397 lines). Expose only the operations used by the service. - Extract Photon ownership checks and checkpoint callbacks (44 lines). Retain the same runtime context object. - Extract Discord command and capability reconciliation (112 lines). - Keep the original service-owned lease map, runtime versions, stop tasks, and shutdown sequence. Read shutdown and test overrides through live accessors. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 6,880 to 6,340 lines, including removal of blank gaps left by extractions. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh local integration and wiring checks passed (1,318 tests). The dedicated Photon suite passed 18 before and 18 after the conflict resolution. Current head is 6d52aba35f; CI and review are running. Earlier verification below describes the previous stack commits. - Existing Discord, Photon, and runtime integration cases: 110 passed before and 110 passed after; 1,185 other cases excluded. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax-tree comparison: 11 ownership helpers, two Photon callback bodies, Discord reconciliation, unrelated service functions, and the full public API/shutdown return expression preserve structure. Intentional binding changes are audited. - Both preceding PRs have 55 passing CI checks and current-head 5/5 reviews. - Repository typecheck and build passed earlier in this stack. Final stack checks are recorded below. The first broad local run hit a macOS PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture limit and was interrupted after that failure. - All 55 CI checks pass on df15f9dd9c. Greptile rates that head 5/5 with no inline findings. Tests use real local persistence with fixture runtimes; they do not prove live Discord or Photon execution. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Lease loss and partial startup can create overlapping receivers if cleanup order changes. The service retains the same map objects and shutdown ordering. The ownership module reads current shutdown state, and Photon callbacks retain the exact mutable runtime context reference. No new worker or timer starts during module initialization. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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
|
c4e80ccdc8 |
chore(db): prune obsolete migration snapshots and document retention (#16194)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses versioned PostgreSQL migrations to preserve application data. > - Drizzle uses schema snapshots to generate future migrations. > - The database package already prunes snapshots to the five newest files. > - PR #15749 added three snapshots but left eight in the resulting tree. > - This PR removes the three excess files and documents the retention requirements. > - Coding agents and Greptile receive the same scoped rule for future migration changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15749. Related: #16191 includes overlapping snapshot cleanup with its new migration. This PR isolates the existing excess and the repository rule; it has no dependency on that feature. **What happened?** The migration metadata directory contains snapshots 0331–0338. The existing pruning script retains only the newest five, but the older three were left in master. **Expected behavior** Keep snapshots 0334–0338. Commit snapshot pruning alongside additions and recheck the combined tree after rebases or merges. Preserve all SQL migrations and journal entries. **Steps to reproduce** At master commit |
