mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
e127faa14cc137a4ae450619d7e1a542a18f3808
100
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Dotta
|
f173ee09fa |
ci: activate stale base handling (#12463)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - Pull request #12462 removed an unreliable stale API equality.
> - The public caller must pin an immutable trusted workflow commit.
> - This pull request changes only that pin.
> - The benefit is correct AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12462
## What Changed
- Pin the thin pull request caller to
|
||
|
Dotta
|
f9c32513b2 |
ci: ignore stale PR API base snapshots (#12462)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes. > - The trusted CI gate selects GitHub or AWS runners. > - GitHub can return an old pull request base SHA after the live base advances. > - The signed event, live Git ref, ancestry, and merge parents provide the required proof. > - The stale API field rejects a safe run even when those proofs pass. > - This pull request removes that unreliable equality. > - The benefit is correct AWS routing for trusted stacked pull requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12339 Refs #12459 ## What Changed - Stop treating pull request base.sha as a current-state signal. - Keep the signed event base SHA and live ref descendant check. - Keep the live base or synthetic base merge-parent proof. - Keep all numeric identity, repository, head SHA, and triggering actor checks. ## Verification - actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml - github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml - The corrected gate selected the Fleet label with the exact live event data from PR #12339 run 33201610330. ## Risks - The pull request API base SHA can be stale and is no longer compared. - Replaced ancestry, a changed head, a changed merge parent, and a changed merge tree still fail closed. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used with version and capability details - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have linked existing public pull requests - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket ID - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation in the operations repository - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
30ac5e116e |
ci: activate live stacked base validation (#12460)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes.
> - The trusted CI workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners.
> - Pull request #12459 fixed validation when a stacked base advances.
> - The public caller must use an immutable trusted workflow SHA.
> - This pull request changes only that SHA.
> - The benefit is automatic AWS routing for the affected trusted stack
runs.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12339
Refs #12459
## What Changed
- Pin the thin pull request caller to
|
||
|
Dotta
|
f929355fb9 |
ci: allow validated stacked base advances (#12459)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses pull request checks to protect changes. > - The trusted CI workflow selects GitHub or AWS runners. > - Stacked pull requests can advance their base branch while a gate waits. > - The gate already proves that the live base descends from the event base. > - An earlier exact base check rejects that safe state before the ancestry check runs. > - This pull request removes the conflicting check and verifies live API consistency. > - The benefit is automatic AWS routing for trusted stacked pull requests without weaker identity checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12339 Refs #12457 ## What Changed - Allow the live pull request base SHA to advance from the signed event base snapshot. - Require the pull request API base SHA to match the live Git ref during validation. - Keep the numeric author, sender, and triggering actor checks. - Keep descendant ancestry and synthetic merge validation. ## Verification - actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml - github-runners/tests/test-workflow.sh .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml - The routing suite covers a live stacked base advance and a base change during validation. ## Risks - A trusted stacked run can use a newer descendant base than its signed event snapshot. - Replaced ancestry still fails closed. - A live base change during gate validation still fails closed. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with reasoning and terminal tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked existing issues or described the issue in this pull request - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket ID - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation in the operations repository - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
c594811f3c |
ci: activate stacked merge validation (#12458)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI gate must validate both direct and stacked GitHub
merge shapes.
> - Pull request #12457 added that validation at an immutable master
SHA.
> - The active caller still pins the prior workflow version.
> - This pull request pins the caller to the newly authorized SHA.
> - The benefit is safe automatic AWS routing for trusted stacked pull
requests.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12457
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The active caller uses a gate that fails closed on GitHub synthetic
stacked merge parents.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request routing.
**Current behavior**
Trusted stacked pull requests run on GitHub-hosted runners after the
merge-parent check rejects the synthetic base merge.
**Proposed behavior**
The caller uses the authorized workflow SHA
|
||
|
Dotta
|
7b199fcafa |
fix(ci): validate stacked PR merge refs (#12457)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors. > - The trusted CI gate verifies signed event data against live GitHub state. > - GitHub gives a stacked pull request a synthetic merge commit for its base stack. > - The current validator expects the raw base SHA as the first merge parent. > - That assumption sends safe stacked pull requests to GitHub-hosted runners. > - This pull request validates the synthetic base merge and its ancestry explicitly. > - The benefit is safe automatic AWS routing for approved stacked pull requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12455 Refs #12456 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The trusted runner gate validates merge commits for master-based pull requests but rejects GitHub synthetic base merges for stacked pull requests. **Subsystem affected** GitHub Actions pull request identity and merge-state validation. **Current behavior** A trusted stacked pull request passes all numeric identity checks. The gate fails closed because the first event merge parent is a GitHub synthetic base merge instead of the raw base snapshot SHA. **Proposed behavior** The gate verifies the current base-ref tip, base-snapshot ancestry, identical event and live merge parents, the child head parent, the synthetic base merge parents, and identical event and live merge trees. **Reason and benefit** The change preserves fail-closed live-state validation while allowing approved stacked pull requests to use the isolated AWS Fleet. **Breaking changes** None for untrusted contributors. Trusted stacked pull requests can select AWS after the caller pins this workflow version. **Additional context** GitHub builds a stacked test merge in two steps. It first merges the stack base into its own current base. It then uses that synthetic commit as the first parent of the child test merge. ## What Changed - Fetch and validate the current base branch ref. - Require the event base snapshot to remain an ancestor of that ref. - Validate direct and synthetic base merge parent shapes. - Preserve the existing child-head, live-state, merge-tree, repository, and actor checks. ## Verification - Ran actionlint on the trusted workflow. - Ran the external routing suite. - Added positive coverage for the GitHub stacked merge shape. - Added fail-closed coverage for replaced base ancestry and a synthetic merge that omits the current base ref. - Replayed the checks against the live merge shape for pull request #12340. ## Risks The gate has more GitHub API reads. Its five-minute timeout and fail-closed behavior limit the effect of API errors. The accepted synthetic commit must be the same in the event and live merge, must include the current base branch as a direct parent, and must produce the same merge tree. > For core feature work, check 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 on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access, and local 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 linked existing public items and described the issue in-PR - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
e48e0bd3c2 |
ci: activate trusted stacked PR routing (#12456)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors.
> - The trusted CI workflow sends approved contributors to isolated AWS
runners.
> - Pull request #12455 added safe support for non-master base branches.
> - The active caller still filters for master and uses the previous
immutable workflow SHA.
> - This pull request removes the base-branch trigger filter and pins
the caller to the authorized stack-aware SHA.
> - The benefit is that trusted stacked pull requests can use the AWS
fleet automatically.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #12455
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The active pull request caller only triggers for master and selects the
master-only trusted workflow version.
**Subsystem affected**
GitHub Actions pull request routing.
**Current behavior**
Trusted stacked pull requests either do not trigger the default caller
or use a branch-local older caller. Their heavy jobs remain in the
GitHub-hosted queue.
**Proposed behavior**
The caller triggers for every pull request base branch. It uses the
authorized stack-aware workflow at full SHA
|
||
|
Dotta
|
d6b33d6c16 |
fix(ci): route trusted stacked PRs to AWS (#12455)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Pull request checks protect the application and its contributors. > - The trusted CI workflow sends approved contributors to isolated AWS runners. > - The workflow currently limits AWS routing to pull requests that target master. > - Stacked pull requests target another branch and stay in the GitHub queue. > - This pull request keeps the identity checks and accepts a live nonempty base branch in the Paperclip repository. > - The benefit is that trusted stacked pull requests can use the AWS fleet automatically. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The trusted pull request runner gate currently sends only master-based pull requests to AWS. **Subsystem affected** GitHub Actions pull request routing. **Current behavior** A trusted contributor can pass all numeric identity checks. The gate still selects GitHub-hosted runners when the pull request targets another branch in a stack. **Proposed behavior** The gate accepts any nonempty base branch in the Paperclip base repository. It still verifies the live base ref, base SHA, head SHA, merge SHA, author ID, sender ID, and triggering actor ID. **Reason and benefit** Large pull request stacks currently add all heavy jobs to the limited GitHub-hosted queue. This change lets approved contributors use the isolated AWS fleet for those jobs. **Breaking changes** Trusted pull requests that target a non-master branch now use AWS instead of GitHub-hosted runners. Untrusted pull requests keep the current GitHub-hosted route. **Additional context** Pull request #12339 is the master-based first item in a stack. Its child pull requests show this queue pattern. ## What Changed - Replace the master-only route check with a nonempty base-ref check. Keep the existing base-repository and live-state checks. ## Verification - Ran actionlint on .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml. - Ran the external routing test suite. It passed the trusted stacked-base case and all fail-closed identity cases. ## Risks The AWS trust boundary now includes code from a non-master base branch when the current pull request author, sender, and triggering actor are all approved numeric GitHub IDs. An approved account can already submit arbitrary head code. The runner remains isolated and has no production access or repository secrets. > For core feature work, check 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 on GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, GitHub API access, and local 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 - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
8da49d6ea7 |
fix(ci): make runner image tests deterministic (#12452)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Pull request checks protect the runtime and authorization boundaries > - The same checks must produce the same result on GitHub and RunsOn Ubuntu images > - One runtime test assumed that a shell PID always owns the listening socket > - One watchdog test denied issue reads while it tried to test assignment denial > - These assumptions caused image-sensitive failures during the AWS runner canary > - This pull request tests the production contracts directly > - The benefit is a reliable CI result across both runner images ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12350 ## What Changed - Verify stale service ownership through the existing process-group ownership helper. - Allow normal issue reads in the watchdog reassignment fixture. - Assert that the watchdog reassignment reaches and denies the `tasks:assign` guard. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "does not reuse a stopped auto-port service port while another process owns it"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts -t "still enforces normal assignment guards for watchdog reassignment"` - Ran the complete issue agent mutation ownership suite six times. All 522 test executions passed. - Ran the runtime regression case eight times. All eight test executions passed. ## Risks - Low risk. This pull request changes test fixtures and assertions only. - The process-group assertion matches the ownership rule that the runtime already uses. - The watchdog fixture still denies `issue:mutate` and `tasks:assign`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.6 (`gpt-5.6-sol`). The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with Fixes, Closes, or Refs OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [x] I have run relevant tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes. No documentation change is required for this test-only fix. - [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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
66e1c0df8b |
ci: pin PR base snapshot validation (#12450)
## Summary - rotate the thin caller from `5ac66b3fdd5dc22c0c4e5fdb234ac063cf1d9ff8` to `c119c4bee6ebb9c81791d7a6994f1be06d7cc22b` - keep both exact SHAs authorized during rotation - keep AWS routing disabled until verification completes ## Validation - actionlint passes - workflow-contract tests pass - internal trust-routing harness passes |
||
|
Dotta
|
c119c4bee6 |
fix(ci): validate the PR base snapshot (#12449)
## Summary - validate the event base ref/SHA against the live PR state instead of requiring the moving `master` branch tip to remain unchanged while a hosted gate queues - retain exact event/live merge parent and tree validation, plus author/sender/rerun checks ## Canary finding A seven-minute hosted-gate queue allowed `master` to advance. Requiring the live branch tip to equal the event base snapshot would route otherwise valid trusted runs back to GitHub-hosted indefinitely on a busy repository. ## Validation - actionlint and workflow-contract tests pass - internal routing harness passes - replaced PR base snapshot, stale head, changed merge parent/tree, and untrusted actors all remain fail-closed - AWS routing remains disabled during rotation |
||
|
Dotta
|
5a9c06ab66 |
ci: pin workflow merge ref validation (#12448)
## Summary
- rotate the thin caller from `b88fadb0390d2113933d5d155f16b07cbd5dafee`
to `5ac66b3fdd5dc22c0c4e5fdb234ac063cf1d9ff8`
- keep both exact SHAs authorized during rotation
- keep AWS routing disabled until verification completes
## Validation
- actionlint passes
- e2e workflow-contract tests pass
- internal routing harness validates a single output and `${{ github.sha
}}` merge-ref source
|
||
|
Dotta
|
5ac66b3fdd |
fix(ci): validate the workflow merge ref (#12447)
## Summary
- use `${{ github.sha }}` as the event merge commit validated by the
trusted gate
- retain exact base/head parent and identical-tree comparison against
the current live merge ref
## Canary finding
GitHub leaves `pull_request.merge_commit_sha` empty on some `opened`
payloads even though the workflow runs against a valid merge ref. The
gate safely fell back to GitHub-hosted and no EC2 instance launched.
## Validation
- `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml`
- `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`
- internal routing harness passes and asserts `EVENT_MERGE_SHA` is
sourced from `${{ github.sha }}`
- AWS routing remains disabled during rotation
|
||
|
Dotta
|
c75507fd3f |
ci: pin single runner route output (#12445)
## Summary - rotate the thin PR caller from `3b295b05dc8c8dd82c12e4a9c6f721446c5cb2e8` to `b88fadb0390d2113933d5d155f16b07cbd5dafee` - keep both exact SHAs authorized during the rotation - keep AWS routing disabled until the caller and boundary verify ## Validation - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml` - `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` - internal routing harness requires exactly one runner output per gate execution |
||
|
Dotta
|
b88fadb039 |
fix(ci): emit one runner route (#12444)
## Summary - emit exactly one `runner` job output from the trusted gate - write `ubuntu-latest` only inside fail-closed paths - write the Fleet label only after every identity, PR-state, merge-equivalence, and rerun-actor check passes ## Canary finding The live gate reached the trusted success notice, but GitHub retained the first of two duplicate `runner=` outputs, so policy still requested `ubuntu-latest`. No EC2 instance launched. Routing was disabled immediately. ## Validation - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml` - `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` - internal routing harness passes and now requires exactly one runner output in all cases - AWS routing remains disabled during rotation |
||
|
Dotta
|
de00d78854 |
ci: pin equivalent merge validation (#12442)
## Summary - rotate the thin PR caller from `d9fc93d8383ece6fba721881a7aba638867f4996` to `3b295b05dc8c8dd82c12e4a9c6f721446c5cb2e8` - keep both exact workflow SHAs authorized in the runner group during the rotation - keep `AWS_CI_ENABLED=false` until this caller is merged and verified ## Validation - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr.yml .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml` - `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` - full AWS/GitHub boundary verification passes with zero active runners |
||
|
Dotta
|
3b295b05dc |
fix(ci): validate equivalent PR merge refs (#12441)
## Summary - validate the live master ref and event base SHA before AWS routing - accept GitHub synthetic merge commits only when the event and live commits have the exact expected base/head parents and identical tree - preserve fail-closed routing for malformed, stale, replaced, or untrusted events ## Canary finding A trusted reopened PR produced two synthetic merge SHAs with different timestamps but identical current base/head parents and tree. The former exact-SHA comparison safely fell back to GitHub-hosted runners, but could not route a valid event to AWS. ## Validation - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml .github/workflows/pr.yml` - `node --test ./scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs` - real-event gate simulation selects the Fleet label for equivalent merge commits - negative simulations keep an untrusted sender and replaced head on `ubuntu-latest` - AWS routing remains disabled during rotation |
||
|
Dotta
|
c916af0cc0 |
ci: call trusted PR workflow (#12439)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses pull request CI to validate each proposed change > - The existing workflow defines every heavy job in a PR-controlled file > - A trusted reusable workflow now contains the synchronized CI definition > - The caller must use an immutable default-branch SHA > - This pull request replaces the duplicate job list with that pinned caller > - The benefit is automatic secure runner selection without workflow drift ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12436 Refs #12438 **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves how the pull request workflow selects trusted CI capacity. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting CI automation. **Current behavior** The active workflow contains a duplicate list of all heavy jobs. It cannot use the administrator-controlled runner gate. **Proposed behavior** The active workflow calls the synchronized trusted workflow at an immutable SHA. The trusted workflow selects GitHub-hosted or isolated AWS capacity from the validated contributor identity. **Reason and benefit** The thin caller prevents pull request changes from replacing the external-runner security gate. It also keeps runner selection automatic. **Breaking changes** The check names gain the reusable workflow job prefix. AWS routing remains disabled until the canary starts. ## What Changed - Replaced the duplicated heavy CI job list with one reusable-workflow call. - Pinned the call to the reviewed default-branch commit. - Limited the caller token to actions, contents, and pull request read access. ## Verification - actionlint on both workflow files - Trusted-routing tests - Confirmed the pinned SHA contains the workflow and is an ancestor of master - Full AWS and GitHub runner-boundary verification with routing disabled ## Risks The check context names change when GitHub expands the reusable workflow. The rollout verifies the new aggregate contexts before branch rules change. The repository kill switch remains off during this pull request. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked a related public PR or described the issue with the matching template fields - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
d9fc93d838 |
ci: synchronize trusted PR policy (#12438)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses pull request CI to protect changes before merge > - The trusted reusable workflow will select isolated AWS capacity > - The active workflow changed while the reusable workflow waited for merge > - The reusable policy must contain every current CI policy step before activation > - This pull request synchronizes the migration-order check and shell validation > - The benefit is one reviewed workflow version with verified job parity ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12436 **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the pull request CI workflow synchronization before AWS runner activation. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting CI automation. **Current behavior** The active workflow validates migration order. The new reusable workflow does not yet contain that check. **Proposed behavior** Both workflow definitions contain the same heavy jobs and policy steps before the active workflow becomes a thin caller. **Reason and benefit** The synchronization prevents policy drift during the two-step secure rollout. **Breaking changes** None. AWS routing remains disabled. ## What Changed - Added the current migration-order validation to the trusted workflow. - Added the existing shellcheck intent annotation to the active workflow. - Verified normalized heavy-job parity between both definitions. ## Verification - actionlint on both workflow files - Local trusted-routing and normalized workflow-parity tests - git diff --check ## Risks Low risk. The migration check already runs in active CI. This change copies it into the inactive trusted definition. AWS routing stays disabled. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked a related public PR or described the issue with the matching template fields - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
07b6816829 |
ci: add trusted reusable PR workflow (#12436)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Pull request checks protect the quality of the control plane > - The current checks depend only on the shared GitHub-hosted runner limit > - Busy periods leave many pull request jobs queued even when external capacity is available > - Public pull request code must not select or directly access private runner infrastructure > - This pull request adds an inactive reusable workflow with a fail-closed identity gate > - A later pull request can pin this workflow by its full master commit SHA > - The benefit is automatic, controlled access to isolated runner capacity without changing current CI during bootstrap ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the pull request CI workflow. It prepares the existing checks to use an administrator-controlled runner selection. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting GitHub Actions CI configuration. **Current behavior** Every pull request job uses `ubuntu-latest`. Jobs wait when the GitHub-hosted concurrency limit is full. **Proposed behavior** Add a reusable copy of the current PR workflow. A GitHub-hosted gate validates durable numeric user IDs and current GitHub API state. The gate emits one runner label. The default and every validation failure use `ubuntu-latest`. The AWS label is possible only when an administrator enables it and every identity check passes. This bootstrap pull request does not change the active `.github/workflows/pr.yml` caller. A follow-up change will call this workflow by the full master commit SHA. **Reason and benefit** The split bootstrap creates an immutable trust boundary before external runners are reachable. It also keeps CI automatic for contributors. Contributors do not select a runner. **Breaking changes** None in this bootstrap pull request. The active PR workflow does not change. ## What Changed - Added an inactive `workflow_call` copy of the current PR checks. - Added a GitHub-hosted routing gate that checks the repository ID, pull request author ID, event sender ID, rerun actor ID, base branch, head SHA, merge SHA, and current pull request state. - Made every validation failure select `ubuntu-latest`. - Pinned every third-party action to a full commit SHA. - Disabled persistent checkout credentials for all jobs. - Limited the workflow token to Actions read, contents read, and pull request read access. ## Verification - `actionlint .github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml` - Ran the dedicated workflow routing test harness against `.github/workflows/pr-trusted.yml`. - Compared the job keys with `.github/workflows/pr.yml`. The new workflow contains every existing job plus the gate. - Verified each pinned action commit against its current GitHub major-version tag. ## Risks The gate could route a trusted pull request to the wrong runner if an identity check is incomplete. The gate checks durable numeric IDs from the event and current GitHub API state. It checks the rerun actor separately. It defaults to GitHub-hosted capacity before any validation runs. This file is inactive in this pull request. The follow-up caller and runner-group restriction must use the exact commit that reaches `master`. > 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-5. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this environment. The model used high-reasoning, terminal, GitHub API, browser, and web-research capabilities. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7b73b08250 |
ci: enforce migration order against PR target (#12433)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip applies database migrations in numeric order. > - Two branches can create the same migration number before either branch merges. > - The existing repository check can find duplicates only after both histories are present in one checkout. > - A pull request must compare its new migrations with the target branch before merge. > - This pull request adds that comparison to the existing PR policy job. > - The benefit is an early failure with exact renumbering instructions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The PR policy check for files in `packages/db/src/migrations`. **Current behavior** A stale branch can add the same migration number as the target branch. The existing check does not compare PR additions with the target branch migration tip. **Proposed behavior** The policy job fails when a new PR migration number is not greater than every migration on the target branch. The error names the conflict, the next safe number, and the related files to update. **Reason and benefit** This prevents duplicate or out-of-order migration numbers from reaching `master`. It also gives contributors and agents a direct repair procedure. **Breaking changes** None. The change rejects migration numbering that is already unsafe. ## What Changed - Added a dependency-free check that compares new PR migration files with the target branch tip. - Added the check to the existing PR policy job. - Added tests for no-op, valid, duplicate, and lower-number cases. ## Verification - `node --test '.github/scripts/tests/*.test.mjs'` passed 133 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm test:run` passed 4,889 tests and failed 24 unrelated macOS path and wildcard-listener tests that also affect the current `master` checkout. ## Risks - Low risk. The check reads Git history and does not modify migrations. - The check permits gaps. It only requires each new migration number to follow the target branch tip. - The existing migration check continues to validate duplicate numbers, snapshots, and journal entries inside the PR. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Reasoning, tool use, web access, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
67f9867bc6 |
fix(interactions): deliver question answers durably (#12307)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents can pause a task and ask the user structured questions. > - The answer is durable in the issue interaction, but delivery to the next run is not durable. > - A process restart can therefore leave an answered interaction without a continuation attempt. > - Native runners also need a provider-neutral question contract before the task page can consume native events safely. > - This pull request adds a content-free delivery outbox and an optional native steering seam. > - Direct adapters keep their existing heartbeat continuation path. > - The benefit is reliable answer delivery without changing runtime selection or task-page behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #12202. This pull request replaces the question-delivery foundation from that stale task-thread pull request. The task-thread projection will follow in a smaller pull request. **What happened?** Question answers were stored in the issue interaction. The server then made one in-memory continuation wake. A server stop between those operations could leave the answer stored but not delivered. The combined native task-thread pull request also made this behavior hard to review separately from UI changes. **Expected behavior** The answer and its delivery receipt must commit in one transaction. The server must retry pending receipts after a restart. Existing direct adapters must keep the current wake path. A native runtime may use the optional steering seam, but this pull request does not enable native steering in production. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an `ask_user_questions` interaction. 2. Answer the interaction. 3. Stop the server before the continuation wake completes. 4. Start the server again. 5. On current master, no durable record tells the server to retry the answer delivery. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` at `4d82f5eae`. ## What Changed - Add the `issue_question_response_deliveries` table and migration. - Store only routing state, a correlation ID, and a payload digest in the delivery row. The answer remains in the existing interaction result. - Commit an answered interaction and its pending delivery row in one transaction. - Add bounded claims, retry recovery, cumulative terminal state, and content-free activity records. - Keep every built-in direct adapter and external adapter on the existing heartbeat wake path. - Add an optional native steering seam. No production caller supplies that seam in this pull request. - Retain the provider-neutral `paperclip.question_set.v1` presentation on recovered interactions. - Run delivery immediately after an answer and sweep pending rows at startup and on the existing server interval. - Add focused database, service, route, startup, adapter-matrix, digest, and duplicate-delivery tests. ## Compatibility Boundary - This pull request does not change adapter selection. - This pull request does not start runnerd. - This pull request does not create native run records. - Direct adapters never call the native steering seam. - The existing interaction result stays authoritative for answer content. - The migration is additive and does not rewrite existing rows. - This pull request has no UI, dependency, workflow, package-manager, or lockfile changes. - The diff has 19 files. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/question-response-delivery.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/server-startup-feedback-export.test.ts` — 4 files and 120 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all applicable workspaces. This includes Cargo format and check, protocol drift checks, and migration safety. - `pnpm build` — passed. This includes the Rust release binary, server build, and UI production build. - `git diff --check` — passed. - Secret patterns were not present in the changed text files. - The repository token gates currently report violations from unchanged files on `master`. This pull request does not change those files. ## Risks The main risk is routing a direct-adapter answer into a native session. The service checks the persisted runtime mode, and the adapter matrix proves that all direct adapters use only the existing wake path. The new table is additive. It has foreign keys, unique correlation constraints, bounded attempts, and status checks. Activity records omit question and answer content. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The client does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes:` / `Closes:` / `Refs:` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket ID or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have documented the new contracts and compatibility boundary - [x] I have considered and documented compatibility and security risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
75b6d22aac |
fix(recovery): make silent-run detection UI-only (#12242)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The recovery service detects active runs that stop producing output. > - The dashboard already shows suspicious and critical silence to the board. > - The recovery scan also creates delegated evaluation work for the same signal. > - Output silence alone does not prove that the run or source task needs recovery. > - This pull request keeps the signal and removes automatic recovery artifacts. > - The benefit is a visible watchdog signal without assignment changes, wake requests, or issue noise. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #6596 - Refs #7036 - Refs #9475 - Refs #11544 - Refs #11839 - Refs #11961 ## What Changed - Keep the one-hour suspicious level and four-hour critical level in active-run API summaries. - Stop output silence from creating or changing issues, recovery actions, comments, relations, assignments, and wake requests. - Store snooze, continue, and false-positive decisions against the run without an evaluation issue. - Preserve terminal-source folding, orphan cleanup, and open legacy evaluation links. - Show informational watchdog copy and board controls without requiring an evaluation-task link. - Document the UI-only watchdog contract. - Add focused server and UI coverage for artifact-free scans and board decisions. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` (32 tests passed) - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` - `pnpm test:run` completed locally with 4,772 passing tests. It found 30 unrelated macOS test-harness failures in eight workspace, skill, listener, and runtime exposure files. The failures use `/tmp` and `/private/tmp` as different paths, require Linux `/proc` listener data, or derive invalid HMR ports from the macOS ephemeral range. - The full Linux CI matrix passed on the latest commit. It includes build, typecheck, server tests, worker tests, serialization tests, canary, and e2e tests. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. ## Risks - The recovery scan keeps its existing result shape, but its created and escalated counts remain zero for output silence. - A false-positive decision now suppresses the signal for the full life of that run. - Open legacy evaluation issues remain visible and manually resolvable. The scan does not refresh or reprioritize them. - There is no database migration and no API schema change. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change corrects existing watchdog behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with extended reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and the focused tests and non-platform gates 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
|
a9d0927fe8 |
fix(adapters): restore Paperclip skill for legacy runners (#12225)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Legacy local adapters run agents that use the Paperclip skill for the control-plane workflow. > - PR #7029 removed the required-skill fallback and made runtime skill selection depend only on stored preferences. > - No migration or runtime fallback replaced that behavior for existing agents or non-CEO agents. > - PR #12138 added core skills to new CEOs, and PR #12147 added Claude skill discovery. These changes did not mount the operational skill for all legacy agents. > - This pull request makes the operational skill a legacy adapter runtime invariant. It keeps all other skills configurable. > - The native runner stays unchanged because its protocol supplies the control-plane contract. > - The benefit is that new and existing legacy agents can always operate through Paperclip. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7029 Refs #12138 Refs #12147 **What happened?** A skill-capable legacy local agent could start without `paperclipai/paperclip/paperclip`. This happened when the agent had no stored skill preference. An explicit empty preference also removed the skill. The agent then reported that the Paperclip skill was not available. **Expected behavior** Every skill-capable legacy local adapter must mount the Paperclip operational skill when the runtime inventory contains it. Optional skills must remain configurable. The native runner must keep its current protocol-based behavior. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a non-CEO `codex_local` agent without `paperclipSkillSync` preferences. 2. Start a legacy heartbeat. 3. Inspect the managed `CODEX_HOME/skills` directory. 4. Observe that the Paperclip skill is absent before this change. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem reproduces on `master` before this pull request. PR #7029 introduced the configured-only selection behavior. **Deployment mode** Local development and self-hosted legacy local adapters. ## What Changed - Added a shared legacy skill resolver that always selects the canonical Paperclip operational skill when it is available. - Applied the resolver to direct adapter execution, ACPX execution, skill snapshots, and persistent skill sync. - Added Hermes skill materialization at sync and run boundaries. - Aligned Cursor, Gemini, and OpenCode execution-time injection with the configured child `HOME`. - Made Hermes stop execution when another installation blocks the required operational skill. - Kept optional skills controlled by `paperclipSkillSync.desiredSkills`. - Kept `paperclip_runner` on the configurable-only resolver. - Added regression coverage for missing preferences, empty preferences, each skill-capable legacy adapter, ACPX, Hermes, and native runner isolation. - Documented the legacy runtime invariant. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the pushed commit. - `pnpm build` passed on the pushed commit. - The adapter utility regression suites passed: 236 tests. - The changed server adapter suites passed: 48 tests across 12 files. - The OpenCode adapter suite passed: 8 tests. - The Hermes adapter suite passed: 7 tests. - `git diff --check` passed. - `pnpm test:run` is not clean on this macOS host. The command reported failures in unchanged workspace and filesystem suites. An isolated rerun of `company-skills.test.ts` and `company-skills-service.test.ts` reproduced 11 failures because macOS resolved `/var/...` paths as `/private/var/...`. The changed adapter suites pass independently. ## Risks - This change deliberately makes the operational skill non-removable for skill-capable legacy local adapters. - Existing agents receive the skill on their next list, sync, or run boundary. No database migration is required. - The resolver does not create a skill when the runtime inventory does not contain the canonical entry. - Hermes aborts a run if another installation occupies the required operational skill target. - Hermes removes only an undesired Paperclip-owned symlink that still points to the known Paperclip source. - The native runner does not receive the legacy default. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The exact serving model ID and context window were not exposed. The agent used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (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
|
6524d2b67f |
fix(dev): honor --data-dir isolation (#12193)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The development runner starts the local API, UI, and embedded PostgreSQL services. > - Developers need separate data roots when they run more than one local checkout. > - The runner forwarded `--data-dir` to a child process that did not use it. > - The migration check and server therefore continued to use the default Paperclip home. > - This pull request applies the data root before worktree setup and migration checks. > - The benefit is an isolated database and state root for each requested development run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7466 ## What Changed - Parse and consume `--data-dir`, `--data-dir=<path>`, and `-d` in the development runner. - Set isolated default home, config, and context paths before worktree setup and migration checks. - Keep explicit config and context paths unchanged. - Include the normalized data root in the local service identity. - Let `dev:list` and `dev:stop` select the matching isolated service registry. - Keep explicit option environments independent of ambient process instance values. - Add regression tests and development documentation. ## Verification - `PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID=ambient-test-instance pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/dev-runner-options.test.ts` passes with 8 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils build` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm dev:list --data-dir ./tmp/dev-service-review-fixture` selects the isolated registry. - A live run of `pnpm dev --data-dir ./tmp/data-dir-pr-smoke` became healthy on port 3101 while another checkout used port 3100. - The live run used `./tmp/data-dir-pr-smoke/instances/default/db` on a separate PostgreSQL port. - The latest-head Linux CI matrix passes, including build, typecheck, canary, all general and serialized test shards, and all e2e shards. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted on macOS. Current `master` has unrelated workspace path failures because `/tmp` resolves to `/private/tmp`. The focused regression suite passes, and the full Linux matrix is green. ## Risks - Risk is low. The change only affects development runs that pass `--data-dir` and matching service-management commands. - Explicit `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG` and `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT` values still take priority. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol` produced this change. The run used tool-enabled reasoning and code execution. The runtime did not expose its context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
397de98193 |
feat(runner): add flagged Codex execution adapter (#12188)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Paperclip Runner now has protocol, provider, tool, package, persistence, and hidden server boundaries. > - The server still cannot select that path for a real agent heartbeat. > - A new runtime must not change any existing direct adapter. > - An experimental runtime must fail closed when its rollout flag is off. > - This pull request adds one guarded Codex vertical slice through runnerd. > - The benefit is a production-built runner path that users cannot start by default. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 Refs #12111 Refs #12169 Refs #12176 **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. The change affects the runner package, server orchestration, shared settings, and adapter configuration UI. **Problem or motivation** The hidden PRP coordinator cannot execute a real heartbeat. The application also needs an explicit rollout boundary before it can expose the experimental runner. Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and finalization behavior. **Proposed solution** Add `paperclip_runner` as a Codex-only adapter behind the default-off `enableNativeRunner` instance flag. Select the native runtime only for that adapter. Persist the run binding before runnerd starts. Wait for the durable PRP result and terminal event. Resume the real Codex provider thread on later heartbeats. Keep persisted native runs readable and recoverable after the flag changes. **Alternatives considered** The server could route `codex_local` through runnerd. That option would change an existing adapter and weaken rollback safety. The server could expose all providers now. That option would add unreviewed provider behavior. The build could depend on a prebuilt runner binary. That option would make source builds architecture-dependent and difficult to verify. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the shipped enforced-outcomes, governed-tool, and self-healing-run milestones. It does not add a new roadmap surface. It is the guarded execution step after the merged hidden runner boundaries. **Additional context** This is the next replacement for the closed large runner pull request. Task-thread presentation remains a separate follow-up so this change can preserve the current direct-adapter UI. ## What Changed - Add `paperclip_runner` as an explicit Codex-only adapter. - Add the default-off `enableNativeRunner` instance flag. - Reject fresh create, hire, import, switch, and execution requests while the flag is off. - Allow edits to persisted runner agents while the flag is off. - Recover an already persisted native run even after the flag is disabled. - Keep every built-in direct adapter on its existing runtime path. - Persist an immutable native run binding and revisioned completion contract before runnerd starts. - Execute server to PRP to runnerd to Codex to server through the hidden coordinator. - Validate the durable result against the terminal event and exact completion criteria before finalization. - Preserve the Codex provider thread ID and use `thread/resume` on the next heartbeat. - Strip unsupported Codex configuration fields from the experimental adapter. - Build a target-native release runner binary from source and vendor it into the server distribution. - Install Rust only in the Docker build stage. Do not add a workflow or lockfile change. - Stop the runner process group on completion, cancellation, and forced shutdown. ## Verification - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all`. All 69 TypeScript tests and 58 Rust tests pass. Protocol, conformance, replay, formatting, and generated-file checks pass. - Run the 12 focused adapter, settings, runtime-selection, coordinator, direct-isolation, and real Codex integration test files. All 186 tests pass. - The real integration test uses PostgreSQL, HTTP, WebSocket, runnerd, and a fake Codex app server. It proves one `thread/start` followed by one `thread/resume`. - Run `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Run `pnpm build`. - Run `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Build the Docker `build` target from a clean context. Confirm that the server distribution contains an executable `paperclip-runnerd` built with Debian Rust 1.85. - Start the server through the source-mode tsx entry point with the package `dist` directory absent. Confirm the vendor shim resolves source exports and the server boots. - Run `pnpm test:run` twice. On this macOS host, 405 files pass and 1 file skips. Eight untouched workspace and loopback tests fail because macOS resolves `/tmp` and `/var` through `/private` and because PID-derived test ports exceed 65535. Linux CI must pass the full suite. - Confirm that the diff contains 52 files. Confirm that it contains no `.github` or `pnpm-lock.yaml` change. ## Risks - The feature flag is off by default. A fresh native start fails with a stable error while the flag is off. - A persisted native run remains recoverable after the flag changes. This prevents rollout changes from corrupting recorded work. - Only local Codex execution is accepted. Other providers and remote work modes fail closed. - Existing direct adapters do not start runnerd, create native rows, use native status arbitration, or enter native finalization. - The runner receives its one-use bootstrap ticket through the child environment. The server does not put the ticket in command arguments or logs. - The server validates the company, task, agent, run, runner, session, completion contract, result, and terminal binding before it accepts completion. - The build compiles a target-native Rust binary. Cross-platform release packaging remains a later concern. Source builds and Docker builds compile for their current target. - Docker needs enough build memory for the existing server TypeScript compile. The Docker build stage sets a 4 GB V8 heap limit. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and applicable tests 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
9964b034bb |
feat(runner): add hidden server PRP coordinator (#12176)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Paperclip Runner needs a narrow server trust boundary before an adapter can start it. > - The package has durable runner transport, but the server does not host or authorize that transport. > - Native persistence exists, but no writer connects PRP events to those records. > - A direct adapter must not enter this path by accident. > - This pull request adds a hidden, run-bound PRP server coordinator. > - The benefit is a recoverable server boundary that remains unavailable to normal execution. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 Refs #12129 Refs #12169 **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. The change affects the runner package and server orchestration. **Problem or motivation** The server cannot authenticate runnerd, commit PRP events before ACK, authorize semantic tools, or enter native finalization from a durable runner result. The application must have this hidden boundary before a guarded adapter can use the runner. **Proposed solution** Add an authenticated PRP WebSocket authority and register it only for one exact persisted native Codex run. Bind each connection and event to the company, issue, agent, run, runner, session, turn, item, and verified runner identity. Commit each event before its cumulative ACK. Project only authorized same-task read tools. Rebuild the accepted result and finalization record from durable result and terminal events. **Alternatives considered** The server could expose a broad runner API key or route semantic calls through existing adapter endpoints. Those options grant too much authority and weaken replay recovery. The server could also add the user-facing adapter in this pull request. That option would mix rollout selection with the transport trust boundary and make legacy compatibility harder to review. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the shipped enforced-outcomes, governed-tool, and self-healing-run milestones. It does not add a new roadmap surface. ## What Changed - Add the durable PRP server authority with one-use bootstrap tickets, reconnect leases, encrypted frames, bounded state, cumulative ACKs, and idempotent commands. - Add `/api/runner/v1/connect/:runId`. Derive its `ws://` or `wss://` URL from the configured Paperclip API URL. - Register one authority only after the coordinator verifies the complete native Codex run binding. - Commit validated PRP events to `heartbeat_run_events` before ACK. Reject source gaps and conflicting replays. - Rebuild accepted results and finalization records from durable result and terminal events. Enforce finalization owner leases and retry times. - Project five same-task read operations. Recheck run, agent, task, and company authority for each call. - Keep the route hidden. No adapter selects this coordinator, and no code starts runnerd. - Vendor the compiled runner TypeScript runtime into the server package while keeping the workspace package development-only for the server. - Document the package, database writer, run-log payload, and credential exclusions. ## Verification - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all`. All TypeScript protocol checks and 69 Vitest tests pass, including commit-before-ACK crash recovery. All 43 Rust unit tests and 13 Rust integration tests pass. Conformance and replay parity pass. - Run the focused server WebSocket, coordinator, package-build, and startup-wiring suites. All 26 tests pass, including a clean-checkout reproduction with the runner `dist` directory absent. - Run `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Run `pnpm test:run`. - Run `pnpm build`. - Confirm that the diff contains 19 files. Confirm that it contains no workflow or `pnpm-lock.yaml` change. ## Risks - The server installs the WebSocket route at startup. An unregistered or malformed run path fails closed and creates no native record. - Bootstrap tickets are one use. The private state directory uses mode `0700`, and the state file uses mode `0600`. The file stores derived authentication verifiers and never stores raw tickets or lease tokens. - The journal has explicit frame, command, event-window, and file-size bounds. A bound violation closes the runner connection or rejects the command. - A runner event reaches the database before its ACK. A crash between event commit and ACK causes a byte-equivalent replay, not a second logical effect. - The coordinator accepts only an existing queued or running native Codex row with exact company, task, agent, runner, session, and completion-contract ownership. - Existing direct adapters do not call this service. They keep their current execution, transcript, result, and finalization paths. - The server has no production dependency on the private runner package. Its build copies the compiled runtime into `server/dist`; the workspace link is development-only. This adds no external package and does not change the lockfile. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4d2af732ae |
feat(runner): add native persistence contracts (#12169)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs need durable records so Paperclip can explain results and final status changes. > - The current heartbeat tables support direct adapters, but they do not model native runner evidence. > - The runner transport and server coordinator must share a strict finalization contract before they write production data. > - This pull request adds that contract and its additive database boundary. > - It does not select the Paperclip Runner or change any existing adapter execution path. > - The benefit is a reviewable persistence layer that preserves all current behavior and supports later guarded integration. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 Refs #12129 ## What Changed - Add native run result, finalization, completion, assessment, status decision, and status effect tables. - Add inert native metadata to heartbeat runs and events. Keep `legacy` as the default runtime mode. - Bind each evidence relationship to one company, issue, run, contract, result, assessment, and decision with composite constraints. - Add a strict `paperclip.native_finalization.v1` shared type and validator. - Preserve database functions, triggers, and the unique indexes required by foreign keys in JavaScript backups. - Add migration, backup, mixed-owner denial, validator, and direct-adapter compatibility tests. - Document the new records and their ownership rules. ## Verification - Run `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Run `pnpm build`. - Run `pnpm db:generate`. The schema output and migration safety checks remain current. - Run `PAPERCLIP_PSQL_PATH=/Applications/Postgres.app/Contents/Versions/latest/bin/psql pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/native-finalization.test.ts packages/db/src/client.test.ts packages/db/src/backup-lib.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-busy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`. All 52 tests pass. - The full local `pnpm test:run` run completed 4,688 tests. It found 30 existing macOS test-environment failures. A serial rerun with the canonical `/private/tmp` path reduced those failures to six existing listener-diagnostics and skill-browser cases. None of those suites use files in this change. - The full Linux GitHub Actions matrix passes. This includes all general-server, serialized-server, workspace, browser, build, typecheck, canary, and aggregate verification jobs. - Greptile passes at 5/5. Contributor trust, Superagent, Socket, and Snyk pass with no finding from this change. - Storybook visual regression skips by path because this pull request has no UI or Storybook change. - Confirm that the diff contains 25 files. Confirm that it contains no workflow or `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes. ## Risks - The migration adds tables, columns, indexes, a function, a trigger, and ownership constraints. It does not remove or rename existing data. - Composite foreign keys reject mixed-company, mixed-issue, and mixed-run evidence even when each ID exists. - The status-version trigger runs only when an issue status changes. Backup tests confirm that restore retains this trigger and its dependencies. - Native source identifiers are unique when present. Legacy event rows remain unchanged. - This change does not add a unique run sequence constraint. The later native writer must allocate its sequence atomically before that invariant can be safe. - Existing adapters keep their current execution and finalization paths. New heartbeat runs default to `legacy` mode. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0f0e544317 |
fix(cli): open dashboard after onboarding service starts (#12164)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The CLI can install and start Paperclip as a managed user service during onboarding. > - Recent fixes now install the service shim and remove the redundant foreground start prompt. > - The service path still ends without a dashboard URL or an open browser. > - The server can also move to a free port when the configured port is busy. > - This pull request adds a health-aware handoff to the managed service's actual endpoint. > - The benefit is that new users can reach Paperclip without starting a second process. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** After interactive onboarding installs and starts the managed service, the command ends without printing the dashboard URL or opening the browser. If the configured port is busy, the service can use a fallback port that the onboarding process does not know. **Expected behavior** Onboarding must print the dashboard URL that belongs to the managed service. An interactive terminal should open the URL after the local health check succeeds. A non-interactive terminal should only print the URL. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start from a host without an installed Paperclip service. 2. Run another process on the configured Paperclip port. 3. Run `npx paperclipai@<version> onboard` in an interactive terminal. 4. Accept the managed service installation. 5. Observe that the service starts on a fallback port, but onboarding does not provide or open that dashboard URL. **Paperclip version or commit** `b6854e61c` on `master`, after #12148, #12151, and #12153. **Deployment mode** Local managed user service on macOS or Linux. **Installation method** `npx paperclipai@<version> onboard`. The same onboarding path can also run after `install.sh`. Related public pull requests: #12148, #12151, and #12153. ## What Changed - Record each running CLI server's PID, selected port, and dashboard URL in atomic per-instance runtime metadata. - Accept runtime metadata only when its PID matches the active managed service. - Wait for the selected runtime endpoint to report healthy before printing its URL. - Open the URL in interactive terminals and keep headless runs browser-free. - Keep the printed configured URL as a fallback when runtime discovery fails. - Use browser-launch wording that only claims the URL was sent to the opener. - Add runtime metadata, fallback-port, health handoff, headless, and failure-path tests. - Document the managed service dashboard handoff. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/onboard-service.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/runtime-info.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/open-url.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/service-health-check.test.ts` — 44 tests passed. - `node --test scripts/service-onboard-smoke.test.mjs` — 4 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed on head `82920596a`. - `pnpm build` — passed on head `82920596a`. - `pnpm test:run` — 4,685 tests passed. The command also reported 31 failures in nine server test files outside this change. This machine generated invalid test ports above 65,535, and some project-skill fixtures resolved outside the worktree. ## Risks - Risk is low because the new handoff runs only after a successful service installation. - Onboarding can wait up to 60 seconds when runtime metadata or the health check does not become ready. - Runtime metadata is matched to the supervisor PID, so stale or foreground-process metadata is ignored. - A non-interactive terminal does not open a browser. - A failed health check or browser launch does not fail onboarding. The CLI keeps a manual URL visible. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The runtime did not expose the exact model ID or context window. The model used reasoning, repository tools, GitHub access, 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
|
ffff1fe6e3 |
feat(runner): define package API and verification boundary (#12129)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package now has protocol, transport, provider, catalog, and authorization foundations. > - Its first upstream package boundary should expose only the implemented runtime and test-helper surfaces. > - Rust correctness belongs in the repository existing build verification, without introducing a parallel release process. > - Direct package creation must build the files declared by the package manifest. > - This pull request defines the minimal package API and verifies the optimized runner binaries in the existing PR and release Build jobs. > - The benefit is a production-ready runner package boundary with minimal build-process change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 This pull request replaces one bounded part of the archived large runner change. It follows the package-local authorization change in #12126. ## What Changed - Export only `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner` and `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner/testing`. - Keep Node-only fixture loading and semantic conformance helpers out of the runtime root. - Add a provider-neutral semantic conformance kit with stable JSON comparison and fail-closed input checks. - Keep deferred SDK, eval, browser, React, lab, and command surfaces private. - Pin the runner Rust toolchain to 1.97.1 with the minimal profile and `rustfmt`. - Run the Rust workspace tests in release mode. - Launch the optimized `paperclip-runnerd` and fake-harness binaries in process-level integration coverage. - Add one `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` step to each existing PR and release Build job. - Make the existing server `prepack` lifecycle run its existing build after it prepares UI assets. - Document that no production adapter starts runnerd yet. This revision adds no standalone GitHub Actions job. It adds no server runner dependency or runner vendoring. It adds no Docker bootstrap or clean-consumer harness. It does not change `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` - 66 TypeScript tests - 8 protocol contract tests - 56 Rust unit and integration tests - Release-mode integration coverage launches the optimized runnerd and fake-harness binaries. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts` (2 tests) - Clean `pnpm pack` from `server/` rebuilt the server and produced both `package/dist/index.js` and `package/dist/index.d.ts`. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` (8 tests) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `git diff --check` - No `pnpm-lock.yaml` diff. - The diff changes 12 files. ## Risks The runner adds Rust work to the existing Build jobs. These jobs can take longer on a cold cache. The pinned toolchain makes contributor and CI behavior reproducible. Cargo tests use `--release` to verify optimized executables. The server prepack lifecycle now performs the build that its published entry points require. This can make direct server packing slower. This pull request does not wire runnerd into the server. It does not select runnerd for any adapter. Existing application execution and finalization paths remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. Agentic coding mode used repository tools, code execution, and automated tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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
|
42b8f7ab2f |
feat(runner): authorize semantic tool dispatch (#12126)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package defines a provider-neutral protocol and semantic action catalog. > - Catalog membership alone must not grant access to an action. > - Each run needs current company, actor, task, claim, mode, and application-binding authority. > - Mutating actions also need safe retry behavior and durable receipts. > - This pull request adds a package-local authority and dispatch layer. > - The benefit is a small and testable trust boundary before server integration lands. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11962 This pull request replaces one bounded part of the archived large runner change. ## What Changed - Add run-scoped tool projection and optional tool discovery. - Require an explicit application binding before an action is visible. - Intersect actor claims with claims delegated to the run. - Recheck company, actor, task, mode, state, role, claim, and policy authority before each call. - Validate action input and output with the canonical catalog schemas. - Redact protected values and keep raw tool content out of semantic receipts. - Require atomic idempotency claims for mutating actions. - Replay exact completed retries and reject changed or concurrent retries. - Recover a durable completed receipt if the primary receipt commit fails, without re-executing the mutation. - Add bounded authorization records and PRP semantic input and result receipts. - Document that this change adds no server binding or production tool installation. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build` - 60 package TypeScript tests pass. - 56 Rust unit and integration tests pass. - Protocol, replay, and cross-language conformance checks pass. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,684 passing and 19 skipped tests. It reproduced 32 local baseline failures across 9 unchanged server files; all corresponding hosted test shards pass. - Every applicable GitHub Actions gate passes. The Storybook job skipped because this PR has no UI changes. - Socket and Snyk pass with no findings. Superagent completed neutral with zero annotations because its external sandbox did not start within 120 seconds. - Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved actionable comments. - The diff changes 11 files. ## Risks The main risk is an authorization or idempotency error at the tool boundary. The dispatcher fails closed for malformed authority, unavailable receipt storage, stale authority, unauthorized actions, protected input, invalid binding output, and unrecoverable receipt completion. The receipt store must recover a completed mutation outcome idempotently if its primary commit fails; otherwise the claim remains reserved for operator recovery rather than allowing automated re-execution. Unbound actions are absent. No server or provider installs these tools in this change. Existing adapters and application behavior do not change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. Agentic coding mode used repository tools, code execution, and automated tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run the affected tests locally and they pass; full-suite baseline exceptions are documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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
|
23048f1219 |
Add canonical semantic action catalog to Paperclip Runner (#12121)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner now has a durable PRP transport and a Codex provider bridge. > - Codex must use stable, provider-neutral action contracts before Paperclip can grant run-scoped tool access. > - A catalog must describe actions without granting permission to discover or invoke them. > - Generated inventory must stay synchronized with its TypeScript source. > - This pull request adds the canonical Codex-spine semantic action catalog inside the runner package. > - The benefit is a small review unit for schemas and inventory before authorization and dispatch land. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This pull request extends private runner infrastructure in `packages/paperclip-runner`. **Problem or motivation** The Codex provider bridge has no canonical description of the Paperclip actions that a later authorization layer can project into a run. Independent operation lists can drift in names, claims, task modes, effects, and input bounds. **Proposed solution** Add one immutable v1 catalog for the first 27 Codex-spine actions. Give each action a stable identifier, placement, effect, required claims, supported task modes, and JSON Schema input and output contracts. Generate a deterministic JSON inventory from that source and fail package checks on drift. **Alternatives considered** The combined runner branch contains larger live and scenario catalogs with authorization, bindings, labs, and other providers. That change is too large for this review unit. A generic API escape hatch would also bypass the operation-level boundary, so this catalog excludes it. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the governed tool access direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not add a tool gateway, application binding, server endpoint, or production authorization decision. **Additional context** Refs #12111 and #11962. Pull request #12111 was squash-merged first. This branch starts at the resulting `master` commit. Its delta is 10 files. ## What Changed - Added 27 versioned, provider-neutral semantic action declarations for the Codex spine. - Added bounded JSON Schema input contracts and normalized operation receipt output contracts. - Added placement, effect, claim, mode, and role metadata. - Added a deeply frozen public catalog and an operation lookup helper. - Added a deterministic checked-in JSON inventory and generation commands. - Added a byte-for-byte drift gate to the package build. - Added AJV schema compilation, mutation-bound, forged-field, immutability, inventory, and non-executable-boundary tests. - Exported only the catalog types and declarations from the existing package root. - Documented that catalog membership does not grant discovery, authorization, dispatch, or application binding. - Kept server code, UI code, other providers, scenario-only actions, labs, generic API access, authorization, dispatch, and receipts processing out of this pull request. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` passes. - TypeScript protocol tests pass: 8 Node tests and 49 Vitest tests. - All package Rust tests and conformance and replay parity checks pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:semantic-action-catalog` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - Prettier and `git diff --check` pass for the changed source and documentation files. - The generated catalog matches its source byte for byte. - The secret scan is clean. - The delta against `master` is 10 files. `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. - `pnpm test:run` completed locally with 4,692 passing tests, 19 skipped tests, and 24 failures in 8 unchanged server test files. The failures reproduce the established local macOS path-alias, listener, and workspace-runtime baseline. No changed-file test failed. Linux CI remains the repository handoff authority. - The full Linux PR workflow passes, including the aggregate `verify` gate. - Snyk, Socket, Superagent security, and supply-chain checks pass. - Greptile is 5/5 with no actionable comments, recommendations, or follow-ups. - Storybook visual regression skipped by design because this pull request changes no UI file. - Browser and migration tests are not applicable because this pull request changes no server, UI, database, or migration file. ## Risks Production behavior is unchanged because no consumer projects this catalog into a provider run. The main risks are contract drift, unbounded mutation input, forged scope fields, accidental executable authority, and generated inventory drift. Closed input schemas, explicit bounds, a frozen catalog, tests, and the byte drift gate cover these risks. The later authorization layer must still bind every action to the active run and company before discovery or invocation. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change is private contract infrastructure for the governed tool access direction. It does not duplicate a shipped or public product surface. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local 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 - [ ] 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
|
4ffa8de4e2 |
Add Codex provider bridge to Paperclip Runner (#12111)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The package-local runner now has a durable PRP transport, but it cannot execute a real provider. > - The first provider must preserve PRP identities while using Codex native thread and turn identities. > - Recovery must resume the same Codex thread without starting a duplicate turn. > - Provider output must become bounded and provider-neutral before it crosses PRP. > - Semantic tools must remain unavailable until the catalog and authorization layers exist. > - This pull request adds the Codex provider bridge inside the runner package only. > - The benefit is a reviewable provider slice with no server or user-facing behavior change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This pull request extends private provider infrastructure in `packages/paperclip-runner`. **Problem or motivation** The durable runner from #12100 has no production provider. It cannot start Codex app-server, map its events, cancel or steer a turn, deliver a structured question, or recover a native thread after process restart. **Proposed solution** Add a supervised Codex app-server transport and a normalized runner backend. Persist the Codex thread and active turn identities. Resume and inspect the exact thread after restart. Convert supported notifications into bounded PRP events. Keep the dynamic tool inventory empty. **Alternatives considered** The combined runner branch implements several providers, semantic tools, server coordination, and UI integration together. That change is too large for one review unit. Reusing the direct `codex_local` adapter would also couple this package layer to the existing server execution path. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the governed tools and self-healing run direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not add a server endpoint, runtime adapter, rollout flag, or user-facing behavior. **Additional context** Refs #12100 and #11962. Pull request #12100 was squash-merged first. This branch starts at the resulting `master` commit. Its current delta is 16 files. ## What Changed - Added a Codex-only app-server process transport with bounded JSONL frames and buffered notifications. - Added strict provider descriptor validation for the Codex driver, working directory, launch arguments, model, instructions, and non-interactive approval policy. - Started new Codex threads with an empty dynamic tool inventory and the named workspace-only permission profile. - Added native turn start, steering, interruption, cancellation, thread reads, and structured question responses. - Added thread and active-turn binding checks for provider requests and notifications. - Added provider-neutral normalization for session, turn, item, plan, usage, tool execution, notice, and structured input events. - Bounded and redacted provider text and process output before durable persistence. - Added private atomic provider state for the descriptor, thread ID, account session ID, active turn ID, and unacknowledged normalized events. - Added exact-thread recovery through `thread/resume` and `thread/read`. Recovery does not issue another `turn/start` for an active turn. - Preserved active native turn identity across unexpected provider exit and reconciled it before later start, interrupt, or snapshot commands. - Added stable provider-event identities, per-event durable commit and acknowledgement, and a bounded fingerprint receipt journal that prevents duplicate delivery across outbox and provider-ack crash windows. - Extended the durable command executor with provider event polling and explicit process shutdown on stop, suspend, revocation, lease expiry, and runtime expiry. - Preserved completed shutdown behavior when the command result is replayed after a disconnect. - Added a fake Codex app-server and integration tests for response buffering, structured questions, interruption, provider exit, unacknowledged-event recovery, durable resume, and duplicate-turn prevention. - Added a focused `test:codex` package command for the provider integration suite. - Kept server code, UI code, other providers, semantic catalogs, tool authorization, and production runtime selection out of this pull request. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` passes. - TypeScript contract tests pass: 8 Node tests and 44 Vitest tests. - Rust tests pass: 43 unit tests, 5 Codex integration tests, 3 public durable-recovery tests, 2 local-runner tests, and 3 process-supervisor tests. - Rust conformance and replay parity checks pass against the shared PRP fixtures. - `cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets -- -A clippy::filter-map-bool-then -D warnings` passes. The narrow allow covers an unchanged replay implementation from the preceding contract pull request. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `git diff --check` passes. - The delta against `master` is 16 files. The package lockfile is unchanged. The PR workflow generates its temporary lockfile artifact from the changed package manifest. - `pnpm test:run` completed locally with 4,690 passing tests, 19 skipped tests, and 26 failures in 8 unchanged server test files. The failures reproduce the established local macOS path-alias, listener, port-range, and workspace-runtime baseline. No changed-file test failed. Linux CI remains the repository handoff authority. - Browser and migration tests are not applicable because this pull request changes no server, UI, database, or migration file. - The full Linux PR workflow passes. One unchanged heartbeat recovery test timed out on the first pass and passed on the failed-only rerun; the aggregate `verify` gate is green. - Greptile is 5/5 on the final commit. All four review threads are resolved. ## Risks Production behavior is unchanged because no server code starts this provider. The main risks are a provider process escape, cross-thread event confusion, secret leakage, duplicated turns, duplicated or lost provider events, lost questions, and unsafe recovery. Process-group supervision, identity binding, private bounded state, redaction, durable command replay, retained event acknowledgements, bounded durable receipts, exact-thread reconciliation, and integration tests cover these risks. Semantic tools remain undiscoverable in this layer. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change is private provider infrastructure for planned control-plane work. It does not duplicate a shipped or public product surface. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b76e36d6cf |
Add durable PRP transport and recovery (#12100)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The package-local runner can supervise a local process, but it cannot yet survive a broken controller connection. > - A production transport must authenticate both peers without putting the bootstrap secret on the wire. > - Commands and events must remain bounded, ordered, and recoverable across reconnects and crashes. > - Retrying an uncertain side effect is unsafe, so indeterminate outcomes must fail closed instead of running twice. > - This pull request adds those transport and recovery guarantees inside the runner package only. > - The benefit is a durable PRP boundary that can be reviewed before any provider or server integration exists. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This pull request extends private transport infrastructure in `packages/paperclip-runner`. **Problem or motivation** The local runner introduced by #12095 has no authenticated network handshake, durable outbox, reconnect lease, cumulative acknowledgement, or crash-safe command journal. A dropped connection could otherwise lose an event or tempt a controller to repeat a side effect whose outcome is unknown. **Proposed solution** Add an authenticated PRP v1 WebSocket transport, encrypted frames, lease-based reconnects, a bounded durable event outbox, cumulative acknowledgements, and an idempotent command journal. Preserve pending commands before execution and classify the crash window as indeterminate so an uncertain side effect is never repeated automatically. **Alternatives considered** The combined runner branch implements transport together with Codex, semantic tools, and server coordination. That change is too large for one review unit. Keeping transport in memory would make reconnect and crash recovery unverifiable. Re-running a pending command after restart would weaken the at-most-once side-effect boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the governed tools and self-healing run direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not add a production provider, server endpoint, adapter, feature flag, or user-facing behavior. **Additional context** Refs #12095 and #11962. Pull request #12095 was squash-merged first. This branch has been rebased onto the resulting `master` commit, and its current delta is 13 files. ## What Changed - Added a loopback-only WebSocket connection policy with one-time DNS resolution and pinned reconnect addresses. - Added an HMAC mutual-authentication handshake that never sends the bootstrap ticket over the socket. - Added AES-256-GCM secure frames with per-direction keys, monotonic counters, and session-bound authenticated data. - Added one-use bootstrap-ticket handling and lease-based reconnect validation with expiry, revocation, and epoch checks. - Added a private, symlink-resistant state directory with atomic, synchronized state replacement. - Added a bounded durable event outbox, priority-zero reserve, cumulative acknowledgements, and reconnect replay of only the unacknowledged suffix. - Added a bounded command journal with contiguous sequence enforcement, persistent results, and deterministic duplicate responses. Duplicate replay requires a SHA-256 match over the complete canonical command. - Persisted commands before their effects. A crash after persistence but before result storage returns an indeterminate terminal result and does not execute the command again. - Migrated pre-fingerprint command journals by compacting through their persisted controller cursor. Legacy redelivery fails closed instead of reconstructing an incomplete identity or repeating an uncertain effect. - Added strict limits and validation for frames, state, results, outbox entries, command history, and redacted diagnostics. - Added a transport-only `paperclip-runnerd --connect-url` mode. It handles lifecycle commands and rejects provider commands because no provider is present in this pull request. - Added a full disconnect-before-ack fault test that reconnects with the lease, replays identical command and event state, and proves the effect ran once. - Kept provider transports, semantic tools, server integration, and production runtime selection out of this pull request. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` passes. - TypeScript contract tests pass: 8 Node tests and 44 Vitest tests. - Rust tests pass: 33 unit tests, 3 public durable-recovery integration tests, plus the existing 2 local-runner and 3 process-supervisor tests. - The disconnect-before-ack, lease reconnect, duplicate command, malformed state, unknown command, bounds, and crash-window tests pass. - Rust conformance and replay parity checks pass against the shared PRP fixtures. - `cargo clippy --workspace --all-targets -- -A clippy::filter-map-bool-then -D warnings` passes. The narrow allow covers an unchanged replay implementation from the preceding contract pull request. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `git diff --check` passes. - The delta against `master` is 13 files. The package lockfile is unchanged. - `pnpm test:run` completed locally with 4,686 passing tests, 19 skipped tests, and 30 failures in 8 unchanged server test files. The failures reproduce the established local macOS path-alias, listener, port-range, and workspace-runtime baseline. No changed-file test failed; Linux CI remains the repository handoff authority. - Storybook visual regression is not applicable because this pull request changes no UI or story files. ## Risks Production behavior is unchanged because no server code starts or connects to this transport. The main risks are secret disclosure, forged or replayed frames, state corruption, unbounded disk growth, duplicated side effects, and incorrect recovery. Mutual authentication, encrypted counter-bound frames, private atomic state, explicit bounds, cumulative acknowledgements, a durable command journal, fail-closed indeterminate recovery, and fault-injection tests cover these risks. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change is private transport infrastructure for planned control-plane work. It does not duplicate a shipped or public product surface. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6b20cc97cc |
Add local fake runner supervision (#12095)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner needs a small local process model before it can connect to a production provider or server. > - The TypeScript PRP contracts now define the expected replay behavior. > - A second language implementation must produce the same result from the same fixtures. > - Local child processes also need bounded input, bounded output, and complete descendant cleanup. > - This pull request adds a package-local Rust runner, a scripted fake harness, and deterministic parity checks. > - The benefit is a testable process boundary with no production Paperclip behavior change. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This pull request adds private test infrastructure to `packages/paperclip-runner`. **Problem or motivation** The PRP contracts have no second implementation on `master`. There is also no small harness that can prove process cleanup, command idempotency, terminal reconciliation, or bounded JSONL handling without a production provider. **Proposed solution** Add a minimal Rust workspace. Add a local runner process, a scripted fake harness, a bounded process supervisor, and Rust conformance and replay checks. Keep all binaries package-local. Do not connect them to the Paperclip server. **Alternatives considered** The combined runner branch includes provider transports, durable networking, SDKs, labs, and server behavior. That change is too large for this review unit. A TypeScript-only harness would not test cross-language contract parity. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the governed tools and self-healing run direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not add a user-facing runtime, adapter, endpoint, or rollout flag. **Additional context** Refs #12091 and #11962. Pull request #12091 was merged before this branch opened. This branch is based on the current `master`. Its delta is 25 files. ## What Changed - Added a minimal locked Rust workspace with only `serde` and `serde_json` dependencies. - Added a package-local `paperclip-runnerd` local mode and a scripted fake harness. - Added bounded controller input, harness input, subprocess output queues, line sizes, log retention, script sizes, script steps, and command history. - Added contiguous controller and harness sequence checks and equivalent-command replay handling. - Added process-group supervision that cleans up child processes and remaining descendants after forced or natural harness exit. - Added runner-owned terminal reconciliation for success, failure, interruption, cancellation, controller closure, and protocol failure. - Added Rust conformance output and deterministic replay summaries for the shared PRP fixtures. - Added fake scripts for success, failure, interruption, interaction, duplicate terminal output, process cleanup, and oversized output. - Added package scripts and documentation for the Rust and cross-language checks. - Kept provider transport, server integration, semantic tools, and production runtime selection out of this pull request. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:all` passes. - TypeScript contract tests pass: 8 Node tests and 44 Vitest tests. - Rust tests pass: 20 unit tests, 2 local-runner tests, and 3 process-supervisor tests. - The Rust conformance and replay parity checks pass against the shared fixtures. - The natural-exit and forced-exit tests confirm that the harness and its worker process are stopped. - The oversized-frame test confirms that a harness frame above the configured limit is rejected. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes after the final rebase to `master`. - `pnpm build` passes after the final rebase to `master`. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `git diff --check` passes. - The delta against `master` is 25 files. The package lockfile is unchanged. - `pnpm test:run` completed locally with 4,686 passing tests, 19 skipped tests, and 30 failures in 8 unchanged server test files. The failures are local macOS path-alias, listener, port-range, and workspace-runtime baseline failures. No changed-file test failed, and every applicable Linux CI shard passes. - Storybook visual regression skipped intentionally because this pull request changes no UI or story files. ## Risks Low production risk. No server code invokes the new binaries. The package remains private. The main risks are process leaks, unbounded local input, and cross-language drift. Bounded queues and sizes, process-group cleanup tests, fixture manifests, and parity checks cover these risks. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change is private test infrastructure for planned control-plane work. It does not duplicate a shipped or public product surface. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b2d1673b9e |
Add TypeScript PRP replay contracts (#12091)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner needs one typed interpretation of the language-neutral PRP contract. > - The JSON Schemas and fixtures now exist, but TypeScript consumers cannot validate or replay them yet. > - A deterministic reducer must define how duplicate delivery and source gaps affect the projected session. > - Result and question contracts must also validate untrusted provider and user input before later runtime code uses it. > - This pull request adds those TypeScript contracts and replay oracles without adding a process, provider, endpoint, or production behavior. > - The benefit is a reviewable and testable TypeScript foundation for the local runner and transport pull requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** This change affects the private `@paperclipai/paperclip-runner` package. It does not change an existing server or adapter execution path. **Problem or motivation** The PRP v1 schemas do not yet provide TypeScript types, runtime validators, normalized result handling, or a deterministic session projection. Later Rust, transport, provider, and server work needs one tested TypeScript oracle instead of separate interpretations. **Proposed solution** Generate a checked-in TypeScript schema bundle from the PRP v1 sources. Add derived types, AJV validation, result and question validation, deterministic replay, a reducer, and generated golden snapshots. Export only these implemented root-package surfaces. **Alternatives considered** The combined runner branch adds the TypeScript contracts together with Rust, providers, semantic authorization, SDKs, labs, and server behavior. That delta is too large for normal review. Handwritten duplicate protocol types would also create a drift risk. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports the governed tool and control-plane direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not enable a new production adapter or endpoint. **Additional context** Refs #12087 and #11962. This pull request was prepared on #12087, then rebased onto its squash merge before opening. The current delta against `master` is 37 files. ## What Changed - Added JSON-Schema-derived PRP v1 types and AJV runtime validation. - Added fail-closed required-version checks and cross-envelope binding checks. - Added provider-neutral completion-result and structured-question contracts. - Added normalization for accepted legacy provider result aliases before strict validation. - Added a deterministic session reducer for replay, duplicate delivery, source gaps, requests, items, results, and terminal state. - Added generated replay snapshots and compact parity summaries for six accepted fixtures. - Added schema-bundle, manifest, and replay-golden drift gates. - Added only the root package export. Deferred testing, SDK, evaluation, lab, provider, and browser entry points remain unavailable. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner test` passed with 8 protocol tests and 44 TypeScript tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner typecheck` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:replay-goldens` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - The delta against its declared base is 37 files. - `pnpm test:run` was executed locally. The package tests pass, while the macOS repository run retains the unchanged local-environment failures documented on #12087. The complete Linux CI matrix must pass on this commit. - A scoped scan found no secret-like values, internal references, or deferred-provider file names. - Greptile found an unbounded sequence-gap allocation. Commit `4a405c17` caps detailed missing IDs at 256, records the full missing count and truncation state, and rejects sequence values above the exact JavaScript integer range. The focused tests, workspace typecheck, build, and token gates pass after this fix. ## Risks Low production risk. The package remains private. This change adds no process, network endpoint, provider bridge, server integration, database change, or execution selection. The main risk is protocol interpretation drift. Generated schema and replay gates detect that drift. Browser and CSP-specific validator packaging remains deferred to its later package boundary. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change defines contracts for planned control-plane work and does not add overlapping product behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local 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 - [ ] 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
|
fdbc69172d |
feat(runner): add PRP v1 schemas and fixtures (#12087)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner needs a language-neutral contract between the server and the runner process. > - A shared contract must exist before TypeScript, Rust, transport, or provider implementations can depend on it. > - Required protocol versions must fail closed, while safe optional fields must remain compatible. > - The contract also needs deterministic fixtures and a drift gate for later cross-language work. > - This pull request adds that contract without adding runtime behavior. > - The benefit is a small, reviewable source of truth for the next implementation pull requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This pull request adds a private package contract for later server, TypeScript, and Rust work. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip Runner does not have a small language-neutral protocol boundary on `master`. A runtime implementation without this boundary can drift between languages, accept unsupported required versions, or silently change canonical fixtures. **Proposed solution** Add PRP v1 JSON Schemas, accepted and rejected fixtures, a Codex structured-question fixture, and a generated SHA-256 manifest. Run compatibility and manifest checks during the package build. Keep the package private and export nothing in this pull request. **Alternatives considered** The combined runner branch contains schemas together with providers, SDKs, labs, and server behavior. That change is too large for normal review. Generating TypeScript validators in this pull request would also cross into the next review unit. **Roadmap alignment** This contract supports the governed tool and control-plane direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not enable a new production adapter or endpoint. **Additional context** Refs #12084 and #11962. This pull request was reviewed as a stack on #12084, then rebased and retargeted to `master` after #12084 merged. The current delta is 38 files. ## What Changed - Added 20 PRP v1 JSON Schemas with stable identifiers and resolved references, including explicit cross-language conformance input and output schemas. - Added canonical replay, cross-language, and Codex question fixtures. - Added accepted cases for additive optional fields and a rejected case for an unsupported required protocol version. - Added a deterministic manifest with SHA-256 digests for every schema and fixture. - Added package-local schema-instance, schema-reference, compatibility, question-ID, conformance-pair, and drift checks. - Added a private workspace package with no public exports and no production runtime behavior. - Added the package manifest to the Docker dependency-stage inventory required for every workspace package. This does not copy or build runner runtime code into the production image. - Kept the provider descriptor and question fixture Codex-only. No deferred provider package or dependency is present. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed with Node 24.19.0 and pnpm 9.15.4. No lockfile change is committed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/paperclip-runner check:protocol` passed with 8 tests. - The committed AJV 2020-12 gate accepted every canonical v1 replay, question, and cross-language conformance fixture. It rejected the required v2 fixture, a replay fixture with a missing required command ID, and conformance output with a missing session ID. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed and ran the protocol manifest drift check. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. - `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` passed. - `git diff --check` passed. - The delta against its declared base is 38 files. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,687 passing tests, 19 skipped tests, and 29 failures across 9 unchanged server files. The failures reproduce macOS path aliases, local listener probes, workspace-runtime assumptions, and one connection-retry timeout. No changed-file test failed. Linux CI must pass before this pull request is ready. - `pnpm check:tokens` reports existing personal-name references outside this pull request. A scoped scan of `packages/paperclip-runner` found no secret-like values, internal references, or deferred-provider names. - PR #12084 was squash-merged, and this branch was rebased onto that merge and retargeted to `master`. The first master-base policy run correctly caught the missing Docker dependency-stage manifest copy; commit `4fa1ea7c` fixes that gate, and the complete Linux matrix is green. - Serialized server shard 1 initially hit an unchanged heartbeat test-harness timeout and a later assertion in the same file. Its isolated rerun passed in 3m57s. All other shards passed on their first attempt. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no blocking failure. Both earlier actionable validation threads are resolved, and no review thread remains open. ## Risks Low production risk. The package is private and has no exports, server adapter, endpoint, or process. AJV is a package-only development dependency that the server workspace already uses. The main risk is contract churn before the TypeScript and Rust consumers land. The generated manifest and compatibility fixtures make that churn explicit. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This change defines a contract for planned control-plane work and does not add overlapping product behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local 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 - [ ] 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
41bf5cafa1 |
docs(runner): define architecture and compatibility (#12084)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent execution currently uses direct adapters inside the server process. > - The proposed Paperclip Runner adds a separate process and a new protocol boundary. > - This boundary needs clear trust, recovery, rollout, and compatibility rules before code lands. > - Large runner changes are difficult to review as one pull request. > - This pull request defines the first small boundary for the runner series. > - The benefit is a stable design contract for later implementation pull requests. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Missing documentation. **Where is the issue?** The repository does not have a concise architecture decision or compatibility contract for Paperclip Runner. **What's wrong?** The available runner design material is too large for normal review. It mixes architecture, implementation history, test evidence, and deferred work. Reviewers need a short statement of the process boundary, trust model, rollout behavior, and direct-adapter compatibility rules. **Suggested fix** Add one architecture decision record and one compatibility document. Keep implementation details and campaign evidence out of this pull request. Related public work: Refs #11041, #11297, #11634, #11639, #11640, and #11962. This pull request is the first small replacement in the new review series for #11962. ## What Changed - Added an architecture decision for the runner process, PRP v1 transport, semantic tools, durable recovery, and additive server integration. - Added a compatibility and rollout contract for the default-off adapter, existing direct adapters, persisted native runs, and the task page. - Defined the initial package and provider limits. The first production provider is Codex only. - Defined acceptance checks for later implementation pull requests. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` passed with Node 24.19.0 and pnpm 9.15.4. - `pnpm check:node-version` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - The pull request changes 2 files. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 4,686 passing tests and 30 failures in unchanged master paths. The failures reproduce macOS path aliases, invalid generated port values, and local listener behavior. This documentation-only change does not touch those paths. Linux CI must pass before this pull request is ready. - All applicable GitHub Actions and security scans passed. The Storybook visual job skipped because this documentation-only change does not match its paths. - Greptile completed at 5/5 with no actionable comments. ## Risks Low implementation risk. This pull request changes documentation only. A later implementation can still diverge from the contract. Each later pull request must prove its behavior against these compatibility rules. I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This design supports the governed tool and control-plane direction. It does not add an overlapping user feature. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5 was used. The exact serving model ID and context size were not exposed. The model used high reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [ ] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ae6761e2b0 |
fix(server): authorize agent resume through direct grants (#12047)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip keeps agent lifecycle changes behind control-plane authorization > - Plugins can create agents in a paused state until an operator activates them > - An agent with a direct configuration grant could not resume these agents > - A paused plugin-managed agent also had no stable provenance in its pause reason > - This pull request adds one protected resume path and preserves every other lifecycle gate > - The benefit is safe recovery from plugin provisioning without a broad permission change ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8168. That pull request uses a role capability and also opens clear-error. This change uses the current grant system and keeps clear-error closed. **What happened?** A plugin can create a paused managed agent. An agent actor cannot resume that agent, even when the actor has a direct `agents:configure` grant. The paused agent can also have a null pause reason. **Expected behavior** An agent with a direct `agents:configure` grant can resume an accessible paused agent. An agent without that grant cannot resume it. Plugin-managed paused agents show stable plugin provenance. A completed resume stays in effect after reconcile. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install a plugin that declares a managed agent with `status: paused`. 2. Give a same-company agent a direct `agents:configure` grant. 3. Call `POST /api/agents/{id}/resume` with the granted agent key. 4. On the base revision, observe a board-only authorization error. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at `63df7ad2b3`. **Deployment mode** All deployment modes. This is a server authorization and reconcile behavior. ## What Changed - The resume route now uses the protected `agent_config:update` decision with `requiresChangeGrant: true` for agent actors. - The route keeps board access, tenant non-disclosure, and invalid organization-chain protection. - Resume activity now records the real user or agent actor, run, and API key. - Plugin-managed paused agents now receive a stable provenance reason and pause time at creation. - Reconcile backfills only a null reason on an agent that is still declared and stored as paused. - Reconcile preserves manual, budget, system, and other pause reasons. It does not pause a resumed agent again. - The implementation specification now records the narrow resume exception. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts` passed: 2 files and 26 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - `pnpm build` passed. - GitHub CI passed all policy, typecheck, build, test, e2e, canary, and security gates on commit `306edf469c`. - Greptile reviewed all 5 changed files. Its check passed with 0 comments and 0 unresolved threads. - The host uses Node 22.22.2. The repository requests Node 24.11 or newer, so pnpm printed engine warnings. - A broad `pnpm test:run` attempt did not complete its general-server group. Runtime port fixtures failed because host port `52000` was already bound. The isolated failing fixture reproduced the same port conflict. The focused feature tests passed before and after the final commit. ## Risks The main risk is an unintended lifecycle permission increase. The change limits agent access to resume only. It requires a protected direct-change decision. It does not open pause, clear-error, terminate, approval, or key-management routes. Tests cover denial, self-denial, tenant isolation, organization-chain checks, and activity attribution. There is no database migration. > This change fixes a narrow gap in the completed plugin, approval, and activity-log roadmap areas. It does not add a new roadmap feature. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex `gpt-5.6-sol`, with xhigh reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose its context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f572e08678 |
fix(recovery): stop automatic stranded-task takeovers (#11961)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The recovery service restores execution when a task loses its live path. > - The service retries the original agent for a limited number of attempts. > - The old fallback could select a manager or an executive and wake that agent. > - That fallback changed the effective recovery owner without a board decision. > - This pull request keeps the source owner and gives the exhausted recovery decision to the board. > - The benefit is a clear ownership rule with no automatic task takeover. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #11807 Refs: #11817 **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves stranded-task recovery in the server and the recovery action card in the board UI. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server recovery orchestration, recovery observability, board UI, and execution documentation. **Current behavior** Paperclip retries the original agent for a limited number of attempts. After the retry limit, it can select a manager, task creator, CTO, or CEO as a recovery owner. It can then wake that substitute agent. The source task keeps its assignee, but the automatic substitute wake creates an implicit takeover path. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip keeps the limited retry path for the original agent. If recovery is exhausted or unsafe, Paperclip creates one board-owned source recovery action. It keeps both source assignee fields. It does not wake a substitute agent. The board can repair, retry the original owner, explicitly reassign, or resolve the task. **Reason and benefit** Source task ownership must remain stable until a person or an approved policy changes it. The new rule removes implicit manager and executive takeover. It also gives operators clear evidence through the `board_escalation_no_takeover_v1` routing marker. **Breaking changes** Automatic recovery no longer wakes a manager or executive after the original-agent retry limit. Existing active agent-owned recovery actions remain visible and can resolve. Paperclip does not schedule a new takeover wake for those legacy actions. ## What Changed - Route exhausted and unsafe stranded recovery to a board-owned source action. - Preserve agent and user assignee fields during automatic escalation. - Keep limited same-agent continuity repair and provider quota monitoring. - Stop new manager, creator, CTO, and CEO recovery wakes. - Keep legacy agent-owned recovery actions readable and resolvable. - Add the routing marker to new board escalation evidence and observability. - Update recovery notices, the board UI card, tests, and execution documentation. ## Verification - Run `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Run `pnpm build`. - Run `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`. - Run the focused recovery and UI Vitest files changed by this pull request. - Confirm that a paused or over-budget source owner creates one board action, keeps the source assignee, and creates no substitute wake. ## Risks - Operators must now make the final recovery decision after the original-agent limit. - Legacy agent-owned actions use their stored contract. This avoids a rollout-time ownership rewrite. - No database migration or API response shape changes are included. - The tests cover concurrent escalation, paused and over-budget owners, legacy actions, provider quota monitoring, and UI presentation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The hosted exact model revision and context window are not exposed. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
417336f8be |
fix(workspaces): attach PR preparation to existing branches (#11703)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Execution workspaces isolate an agent task from the primary checkout. > - Pull request preparation can need a branch that already contains completed work. > - The workspace policy could not require an exact existing branch. > - Workspace cleanup also treated worktree creation as branch ownership. > - This pull request adds an exact existing-branch policy and separate branch ownership metadata. > - The benefit is safe pull request preparation that preserves every existing commit and operator-owned branch. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A pull request preparation run could not pin its execution workspace to an exact existing branch. Workspace reuse and cleanup could also confuse worktree creation with branch ownership. **Expected behavior** The run must attach only to the requested branch in an isolated Git worktree. It must fail if the branch is missing, busy, or inconsistent. Cleanup must not delete a branch that Paperclip does not own. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a branch that contains completed work. 2. Configure a pull request preparation task to use that branch. 3. Start the task and observe that the prior policy cannot require the exact branch. **Paperclip version or commit** This behavior reproduces on the base revision before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local development with isolated Git worktrees. ## What Changed - Add `existingBranch` to the execution workspace policy and shared validation contracts. - Require `existingBranch` to use an isolated Git worktree and reject conflicting branch templates. - Attach to the exact branch without creating, renaming, resetting, or deleting it. - Track branch ownership separately from worktree creation and use that ownership during cleanup. - Return HTTP 422 for invalid existing-branch settings on every issue-producing route. - Add a bounded repair script for existing pull request preparation tasks. - Add focused policy, route, heartbeat, runtime, and ready-comment tests. - Document the exact-branch behavior and safety rules. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-existing-branch-validation-status.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts server/src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure.test.ts server/src/services/workspace-runtime-ready-comment.test.ts` passed 335 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm test:run` passed 4,431 tests. Two unrelated embedded-Postgres setup hooks timed out under aggregate load. Their isolated rerun passed 74 tests. - `pnpm build` passed for all workspace projects. - The two review regressions passed with 139 unrelated tests skipped. - All latest-head CI gates passed after one unrelated timing-sensitive test passed on rerun. - Greptile scored the latest head 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Invalid workspace settings now return HTTP 422 instead of a generic validation response. - The exact branch must already exist and must not be checked out by another worktree. - The new policy fails closed when it cannot prove branch identity or ownership. - This change has no database migration. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex from the GPT-5 family assisted with this change. The runtime did not expose its exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used high-reasoning mode, repository tools, shell execution, 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
cb0009b097 |
fix: preserve recovery retries across restarts (#11817)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must keep each active issue on a clear execution or recovery path. > - A missing issue disposition can require more than one bounded repair attempt. > - A server restart could lose that repair path or move source ownership to the recovery owner. > - A parked or expired retry could also make the user interface show a false healthy state. > - Concurrent recovery loops must not schedule the same repair attempt twice. > - This pull request keeps retry state durable, makes scheduling atomic, and keeps source ownership stable. > - The benefit is that recovery continues after a restart and operators see the correct state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A run that ended without a valid issue disposition could lose its repair path after a server restart. Manager recovery could also change the source owner. In addition, a parked or expired retry could make the issue look healthy when no active work existed. Concurrent reconciliation could also schedule the same repair attempt twice. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must keep bounded source and manager repair attempts across restarts. Recovery ownership must stay separate from source issue ownership. The server and user interface must report only a live retry as active work. Each repair attempt must be scheduled at most once per company. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an agent run on an issue. 2. End the run without a valid issue disposition. 3. Let the first repair attempt schedule a retry. 4. Restart the server, let the retry time pass without a live run, or start two reconciliation loops together. 5. Observe that the repair path can stop, the issue can show a false healthy state, or duplicate retries can be created. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem existed on `master` before candidate head `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. **Deployment mode** The problem affects self-hosted servers and local builds that use automatic recovery. ## What Changed - Persist bounded source-owner and manager repair lineages with stable fingerprints and retry limits. - Resume incomplete disposition repairs after a server restart. - Keep recovery ownership separate from source issue ownership and enforce source mutation authority. - Project live retry evidence into issue and blocker summaries. - Show recovery owner, return owner, attempt count, and retry state in the board user interface. - Treat expired or parked retries as attention states unless a queued or running attempt exists. - Atomically deduplicate disposition-repair wake requests with a company-scoped partial unique index. - Reuse the winning run when concurrent reconciliation loses the uniqueness race, without duplicate scheduling activity. - Honor disabled on-demand wake policy before recovery scheduling and again before delayed retry promotion. - Keep the new index migration safe for lagging seeded databases that already contain the index. - Add server and user interface tests for recovery, restart, ownership, retry, concurrency, and blocker states. - Update the implementation and execution semantics documents. ## Verification - Focused server recovery and ownership suites: 282 tests passed on the repaired base candidate. - Focused user interface recovery suites: 128 tests passed on the repaired base candidate. - Atomic-deduplication schema and recovery suites: 111 tests passed on the first Greptile repair. - Recovery and scheduled-retry wake-policy suites: 126 tests passed at `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. - The exact lagging-source migration-order test passed after the index migration became idempotent: 1 test passed and 62 unrelated tests were skipped. - `@paperclipai/db` and `@paperclipai/server` typechecks passed at the current head. - Migration generation and migration safety checks passed for migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql`. - `pnpm check:token-gates` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm build` passed on the repaired base candidate. - `pnpm test:run` passed 4,540 tests on the repaired base candidate. Four fixed-port cases met listeners that already existed on the host. - The two unchanged fixed-port files passed in an isolated network namespace: 129 tests passed and 27 tests were skipped. - Independent Security and QA reviews approved `63c0423aab54c66f2293a20b0fb3f3b013ee3ba8`; exact-head re-review is required after automated checks settle on `d8e620fe86bade7df18decac332007f5821ae04f`. ## Risks - Recovery orchestration affects issue liveness and ownership. The new paths use bounded attempts, stable fingerprints, row locks, authority checks, and database uniqueness. - A conservative attention state can show more warnings when a scheduled retry has no queued or running attempt. It does not hide stopped work. - Migration `0226_tan_colossus.sql` creates a partial unique index on a known-large table. Migrations run transactionally, so `CONCURRENTLY` is unavailable. The matching disposition-repair key namespace is introduced by this release, so deployed databases have no matching rows before the index is added. > 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 from the GPT-5 model family used agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the exact model ID or context window. - Anthropic Claude Opus 5 used a 1M context window, tool use, and code execution for part of the user interface repair, as recorded in the commit history. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e826188e82 |
refactor(settings): unify settings and speed up exports (#11789)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators use the settings area to control a company and its Paperclip instance. > - The current navigation separates related settings and uses duplicate instance pages. > - Company exports also do independent reads in sequence and do extra work for previews. > - Hardened workspace commands can differ from their saved command after loopback binding. > - This pull request makes these related operator workflows consistent and faster. > - The benefit is one clear settings area, faster exports, and stable runtime command matching. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #338 Related: #9834 **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the company settings UI, company export preparation, and workspace runtime command matching. **Current behavior** Company and instance settings use separate navigation and duplicate pages. Export preparation reads many independent records in sequence. Preview generation can also build an unused organization image. A command with a forced loopback bind can fail to match its saved runtime command. **Proposed behavior** Use one settings navigation and put general instance controls on the company General page. Load independent export data with bounded concurrency, skip unused preview image work, and load the export page only when it is needed. Treat the loopback-bound form of a command as the same runtime command. **Reason and benefit** Operators get one clear settings area. Large company exports need fewer serialized reads. Export previews and initial UI loads do less work. Hardened runtime services remain linked to their saved command definitions. **Breaking changes** The obsolete instance General URL redirects to the unified settings page. Access and Heartbeats remain available, and legacy bookmarks keep their destinations. No API response shape or database schema changes. ## What Changed - Unified company and instance settings navigation and removed duplicate instance settings pages. - Embedded general instance controls in the company General page and kept access-sensitive navigation behavior. - Preserved instance Access and Heartbeats controls in the unified navigation and normalized old bookmarks to those destinations. - Improved environment and access-state handling when workspace seed requests overlap. - Added bounded export reads, a lighter preview path, deferred export preparation, and lazy export-page loading. - Matched loopback-bound runtime commands to their saved command definitions. - Added focused shared, server, and UI regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run <18 changed test files>`: 18 files and 256 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed all four token gates. - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm build`: passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm test:run`: tests ran without a reported failure, but the runner did not close after the server handoff tests. The process closed with status 0 after an interrupt. - Focused latest-head route tests: 2 files and 4 tests passed. - GitHub latest-head checks: all completed without failure. - Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Medium risk: settings routes and navigation changed across several operator roles. - Medium risk: bounded export concurrency increases simultaneous database reads. The limits stay below the normal pool size. - Low risk: runtime command matching accepts only the known Tailscale HTTPS loopback transformation. - No migrations are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with a GPT-5-family coding model. The runtime does not expose the exact deployed model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, tool use, and local code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details Exception: This task requires the existing execution branch. The harness does not permit a branch rename. - [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
|
2eb9a09c0c |
fix(runtime): adopt surviving shell-command services (#11744)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Managed workspace services must continue after a control-plane restart > - A service command can use shell control operators before it starts the final process > - The final process command line then differs from the stored shell expression > - Paperclip rejected that valid process even when its listener, process group, and workspace matched > - This pull request uses the stronger ownership checks for shell expressions > - The benefit is that Paperclip can adopt a valid service after a restart ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11740 **What happened?** A managed service could use a command such as `env | sort > file; exec pnpm dev`. After a control-plane restart, the surviving process command line contained only the final program. Paperclip compared it with the complete shell expression and rejected the service. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must adopt the surviving service when the listener, process group, and workspace directory prove ownership. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Configure a managed workspace service with a shell pipeline or command sequence. 2. Start the service. 3. Restart the control plane while the service stays alive. 4. Observe that Paperclip starts a replacement instead of adopting the live service. **Paperclip version or commit** `bd059a073d` **Deployment mode** Local dev with managed workspace services. ## What Changed - Detect shell control syntax outside quoted strings. - Skip the weak command-line comparison for these shell expressions. - Require the live port owner to remain in the recorded process group. - Keep the existing workspace directory check. - Add unit and restart-adoption regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/local-service-supervisor.test.ts src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t 'does not compare shell expressions|re-adopts a live service whose shell command differs' --reporter=verbose` — 2 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk. The relaxed command comparison applies only to shell expressions. - Listener ownership, process-group ownership, and workspace directory checks still fail closed. - This change does not change the database schema, lockfile, workflow files, or user interface. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The serving suffix and context-window size are not exposed. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, test execution, and GitHub 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
|
01ddc26a37 |
fix(routines): clear transient execution failures (#9689)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Scheduled routines track each dispatch in `routine_runs` and link it to an execution issue > - Moving an execution issue to `blocked` or `cancelled` correctly records a failed run state for operator visibility > - When that issue later resumes or completes, the run can retain the earlier failure reason and completion timestamp > - That stale state makes an active or successfully completed routine appear failed > - This pull request reconciles the run back to a live state on resume and preserves cleared failure details as completion context > - The benefit is that routine run status consistently reflects the current execution issue lifecycle without losing useful recovery history ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9201 ### What happened? A routine execution issue that temporarily moved to `blocked` or `cancelled` caused its linked routine run to become `failed`. If the issue later returned to an active status or reached `done`, the routine run could keep the stale failure reason and terminal timestamp. ### Expected behavior Active execution issues should have an `issue_created` run with no failure or completion timestamp. Completed execution issues should have a `completed` run with no active failure reason, while retaining any earlier transient failure in structured trigger context for diagnosis. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create a routine run linked to a routine execution issue. 2. Move the issue to `blocked` and synchronize the run state. 3. Move the issue back to `in_progress` or forward to `done` and synchronize again. 4. Observe that the run previously retained stale failed-state fields. ### Environment - Reproduced on `master` at `da549123cc`. - Core server behavior; not adapter-specific. - Covered with the embedded PostgreSQL routines service test harness. ## What Changed - Load the linked routine run while synchronizing execution issue status. - Restore transiently failed runs to `issue_created` when their execution issue resumes active work. - Clear stale failure state when an execution issue completes and retain the earlier failure under `triggerPayload.transientFailure`. - Add regression coverage for both resumed and completed execution issues. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` — 57 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk: the change is limited to routine execution issue/run reconciliation. - A completed run now stores a prior failed-state reason as structured transient context instead of leaving `failureReason` populated. - No schema, migration, API contract, or UI behavior changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.4 with reasoning, repository tools, GitHub CLI access, code execution, and focused test execution. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
bd059a073d |
fix(workspaces): make managed runtimes reliable across restarts (#11740)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Execution workspaces need isolated databases, ports, and runtime services > - Concurrent workspaces could reuse ports or lose service ownership after a restart > - A markerless worktree also needed seed recovery, but normal markerless instances still needed to boot > - This pull request makes seed, port, and service ownership state explicit and recoverable > - It also checks live process and listener identity before it reclaims shared resources > - The benefit is reliable workspace startup, restart, adoption, and concurrent provisioning ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Managed workspaces could lose runtime service ownership after a control-plane restart. Concurrent worktrees could also reuse a port when their parent paths differed. A seed recovery change made every markerless instance resolve a worktree seed source, so normal instances without a source could not start. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must preserve healthy managed services across restarts. It must reserve unique ports across worktree parents. It must provision a registered markerless worktree, but it must skip seed work for a normal markerless instance. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start two managed worktrees under different parent paths at the same time. 2. Restart the control plane while a managed service stays alive. 3. Start Paperclip with a config that has no seed markers and no registered worktree source. 4. Observe duplicate port selection, lost service adoption, or a seed-source startup error. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` plus the workspace runtime reliability changes in this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local development with managed execution workspaces and embedded Postgres. ## What Changed - Added a shared port registry with lease heartbeats, process identity checks, and live listener probes. - Reserved worktree ports across custom parent paths and repaired duplicate legacy assignments. - Preserved and adopted healthy managed services across control-plane restarts. - Reconciled guest bind modes and verified listener ownership before termination or reuse. - Provisioned registered markerless worktree databases and kept normal markerless instance startup as a no-op. - Added CLI, shared, server, and shell regression tests for seed, port, listener, restart, and adoption behavior. - Updated the worktree development documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/worktree-port-registry.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 5 tests passed. - Focused runtime Vitest set — 199 tests passed across 37 suites. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs` — 10 tests passed. - `git diff --check` passed. ## Risks - Port reservation now depends on lease and process identity data. The fallback listener probe prevents early reclamation when process metadata is incomplete. - Runtime adoption is stricter about bind and owner identity. The tests cover healthy adoption, stale records, PID reuse, and unrelated listeners. - Markerless seed detection now separates registered worktrees from normal instances. The tests cover both paths. - There are no database schema migrations. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with the `gpt-5` model family. The serving snapshot and context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e0d46d1375 |
test(workspaces): fix runtime provision metadata assertion (#11707)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work in isolated execution workspaces. > - Workspace operations record operation metadata and command-result metadata separately. > - Runtime provisioning records its provision kind in the operation metadata. > - One merged regression test checked that value in the command-result metadata. > - The production behavior was correct, but the test failed. > - This pull request checks the provision kind in the operation metadata. > - The benefit is that the regression test now matches the recorder contract. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related pull request: #11706 **What happened?** The runtime provisioning regression test expected `provisionKind` in `result.metadata`. The recorder stores this value in the operation's top-level `metadata`. The command-result metadata is `null` for this case. **Expected behavior** The test must check `metadata.provisionKind`. It must continue to check `result.status`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Check out commit `e1df4c6068fea684a1e9714ebd64bce95f3db19a`. 2. Run the focused runtime provisioning test. 3. Observe that the assertion checks the wrong metadata object. **Paperclip version or commit** `e1df4c6068fea684a1e9714ebd64bce95f3db19a` **Deployment mode** Local development. ## What Changed - Move the `provisionKind` assertion from `result.metadata` to the operation's top-level `metadata`. - Keep the `result.status` assertion unchanged. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts -t "keeps an explicit command matching the built-in seed command as runtime provisioning"` - Result: 1 test passed and 125 tests skipped. ## Risks - Low risk. This pull request changes one test assertion and does not change production code. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, high-reasoning mode, with repository, shell, Git, GitHub, and code execution tools. The runtime does not expose a context-window value. ## 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
|
e1df4c6068 |
fix(workspaces): keep deferred seed databases reliable (#11706)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work in isolated execution workspaces. > - A workspace depends on a valid database seed before it can run. > - Deferred seed failures were hidden behind a successful provision status. > - The seed restore also had two possible owners for the embedded PostgreSQL process. > - That allowed the target database to stop while the restore was still running. > - This pull request makes seed failures visible and gives the seed process sole lifecycle ownership. > - The benefit is that workspace provisioning reports the real result and does not stop its own target database. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #11684 **What happened?** Initial worktree provisioning could report success before its deferred database seed completed. The seed restore could also reuse a target embedded PostgreSQL process with another shutdown owner. This could stop the target database during the restore. **Expected behavior** Workspace status must show a failed deferred seed as a failure. The seed restore must own the target embedded PostgreSQL process until restore, migration, and validation finish. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Provision a worktree with deferred database seeding. 2. Make the seed manifest end in a failed state while the command exits with code 0. 3. Observe that the provision status remains successful on `master`. 4. Start a seed restore against an already-running target embedded PostgreSQL process. 5. Observe that another lifecycle owner can stop the target during restore. **Paperclip version or commit** `51a843e135` **Deployment mode** Local dev with execution workspaces and embedded PostgreSQL. ## What Changed - Add a first-class `workspace_seed` operation for deferred database seeds. - Require terminal, verified seed evidence before the seed operation succeeds. - Surface the seed phase and failure metadata in workspace status and UI state. - Give the seed process exclusive lifecycle ownership of the target embedded PostgreSQL process. - Suppress imported embedded-Postgres exit hooks without removing existing host listeners. - Record a credential-safe shutdown diagnostic in failed seed manifests. ## Verification - The original deferred-seed commit passed 4 server tests, 24 workspace-status UI tests, shared/server/UI typechecks, and the UI token gate. - The original PostgreSQL-lifecycle commit passed 3 lifecycle tests, 3 ownership/diagnostic tests, 1 real embedded-Postgres seed integration, and the affected package typechecks. - No local tests were rerun after the clean cherry-pick because the operator requested the shortest landing path. - Review the automatic PR checks for the clean `origin/master` replay. ## Risks - A live target database now causes an early error instead of being reused. The error includes recovery guidance. - Workspace consumers must handle the new `workspace_seed` operation type. Shared types and UI state handling are updated in this pull request. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, high-reasoning mode, with repository, shell, and GitHub tool use. The runtime does not expose a more specific deployment suffix or context-window value. ## 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
|
51a843e135 |
fix(cli): accept renumbered migration journal order (#11684)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Worktree provisioning clones a source database into an isolated workspace > - Source validation must accept a migration journal that matches a prefix of the checkout journal > - Long-lived instances can apply migrations in a different order after migration files are renumbered > - The validator compared application order with filename order and rejected a valid source > - This pull request compares the resolved migration names as a set and records the checkout-prefix revision > - The benefit is that valid renumbered migration histories can pass source validation without allowing divergent histories ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Worktree seed source validation compared applied migrations in database application order with available migration files in filename order. A current source with the same migration set failed with `Migration journal is not a prefix` after migration files were renumbered. **Expected behavior** Source validation must accept a source when its resolved applied migration set equals a prefix of the checkout migration files. It must still reject a source that contains a resolved migration outside that prefix. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Apply migrations before a migration-file renumber operation. 2. Update the checkout so the same migration files have a different filename order. 3. Run worktree seed source validation against the long-lived source. 4. Observe that positional comparison rejects the source even though the sets are equal. **Paperclip version or commit** The bug reproduces on the master-equivalent worktree-seeding implementation before this commit. **Deployment mode** Local dev with embedded PostgreSQL. ## What Changed - Compare resolved applied migration names with the expected checkout prefix as an order-independent set. - Derive the reported source revision from the checkout prefix instead of database application order. - Add unit and embedded-PostgreSQL regressions for shuffled application order, stale unresolved rows, lagging sources, and true divergence. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts` — 54 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` — passed. - The focused suite includes the real embedded-PostgreSQL seed path. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is limited to source migration-prefix validation. - The validator still rejects missing or unknown resolved migrations. - Duplicate resolved names remain set-equivalent by design. Raw stale journal rows remain tolerated. - Existing documentation already specifies order-independent checkout-prefix behavior, so no documentation change is required. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`. The Codex runtime manages the context window. The model used reasoning, shell tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a2bf936f9a |
feat(workspaces): sign the workspace login handoff and gate readiness (#11671)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Managed worktree services run isolated Paperclip instances with cloned databases. > - A reachable service was reported as ready even when its database, runtime identity, or login path was not usable. > - The first candidate added verified database seeding and managed repair in #11665. > - This pull request consolidates that candidate with signed login handoff and a complete readiness contract. > - Post-QA fixes close five defects in repair identity, repair responses, UI retry, seed journal handling, and seed-source trust. > - The benefit is a workspace that either opens safely or reports one accurate recovery action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work, so the problem is described here. **What happened** Managed workspace URLs could return HTTP 200 and report ready while login failed. QA also found cases where repair used the wrong instance identity, returned a generic error, left the UI stuck, rejected a safe journal lag, or trusted a mutable workspace manifest. **Expected behavior** Opening a ready workspace signs the board user in to the correct isolated instance. Provisioning and repair use a registered source and report a structured recovery state. **Actual behavior** Entry depended on a password copied into the clone. Several failure paths could publish stale readiness, hide the repair precondition, or trust state that the workspace could modify. **Additional context** This pull request includes the commits first published in #11665. That pull request keeps the original base head for review history. This consolidated pull request is the merge candidate. Related open readiness work includes #11575 and #11621. ## What Changed - Adds a short-lived, signed, single-use login ticket. It binds the user, workspace, instance, and runtime origin. - Exchanges the ticket through Better Auth. It creates the session and cookie through the supported adapter path. - Adds protected workspace readiness fields for the database, clone data, login handoff, seed phase, and runtime identity. - Fails readiness closed when the guest has no company or execution-workspace binding. - Binds ticket issuance to the exact cloned user and active company membership selected for the handoff. - Verifies every current active board identity through the exact-user handoff before publication or reuse. - Gates managed runtime publication on the readiness contract and the recorded worktree instance identity. - Refreshes runtime work products from the live runtime row after a port change. - Adds one workspace access card with ready, degraded, repairing, and failed states. - Uses the runtime response identity for repair. It returns structured repair precondition errors. - Lets a valid source journal lag converge during provisioning. - Binds seed and repair manifests to a source registered outside the agent-writable worktree. - Clears recovered UI errors so a successful retry can open the workspace. - Makes runtime tests register canonical sources and avoid ports owned by live host listeners. - Keeps Vitest on source suites when compiled `dist` trees exist. - Isolates CLI and adapter tests from ambient AWS and runtime API environment variables. - Preserves a 404 response for cross-company workspace ID lookups before runtime authorization. - Makes concurrent single-flight coverage independent of path-canonicalization scheduling order. ## Verification The following checks passed on the integrated head: ```sh pnpm -r typecheck pnpm build pnpm check:token-gates pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations ``` - The server source lane passed 420 files and 4,953 tests. Five tests were skipped. - The CLI lane passed 57 files and 385 tests. - The database lane passed 26 files and 97 tests. - The shared package passed 58 files and 506 tests. - The adapter utility lane passed 640 tests. Four tests were skipped. - The Claude adapter passed 220 tests. One test was skipped. - The Codex adapter passed 323 tests. - The OpenClaw adapter passed 13 tests. - The OpenCode adapter passed 42 tests. - The plugin SDK passed 45 tests. - The workspace runtime suite passed 124 tests. - The caller-scoped readiness and handoff suite passed 52 tests. - The workspace provisioning shell suite passed 7 tests. - The runtime exposure suite passed 17 tests while live host mappings occupied fixed test ports. - `git diff --check` passed and the worktree is clean. The serialized route lane will run in GitHub CI with its normal shards. No deployment or active-workspace migration was performed. ## Risks - This is a medium-risk authentication and runtime-readiness change. - The login ticket uses exact origin, workspace, instance, and user binding. It has a short expiry and a one-time nonce. - Runtime publication is stricter. A real readiness, identity, per-user handoff, or control-plane database disagreement now blocks publication. - This pull request supersedes #11665 as the merge candidate. Close #11665 after this pull request merges. - No new database migration is included. The lockfile and workflow files are unchanged. - Deployment and active-workspace migration are intentionally outside this pull request. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5[1m]`), 1M context, extended thinking, tool use, and code execution produced the main candidate. OpenAI GPT-5 (`gpt-5`) through Codex, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution, integrated the post-QA fixes and hardened the test gates. The Codex 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4b968d8c05 |
fix(worktrees): quarantine cloned runtime services (#11653)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip can create a worktree and seed it with data from another instance. > - A full seed copied active runtime state and live process claims into the new database. > - The copied state could make the new instance restart or adopt services that belong to the source instance. > - A stale process identifier, port, or URL could then make the worktree page fail to load after a restart. > - This pull request makes cloned runtime state inactive before the new instance starts. > - The benefit is that each instance starts with clear service ownership and no stale live claims. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - [x] I searched open and closed issues and pull requests. I found no duplicate report. **What happened?** `paperclipai worktree init --full` copied project and execution workspace runtime records without changing their active state. The new database could contain `running` desired state, `running` service state, and provider references that identify processes from the source instance. After a host restart, the cloned instance could try to recover services that it did not own. The browser then showed a load failure at a stale or moved service URL. **Expected behavior** A cloned database must not claim that source-instance runtime processes are live. Project and execution workspace services must start as stopped in the clone. An operator can start them explicitly after the clone is ready. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a managed worktree runtime in a source Paperclip instance. 2. Create a full worktree seed from that instance. 3. Start Paperclip with the seeded database. 4. Observe that the copied database can retain active desired state and live process, port, and URL claims. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `master` at `d1cd9c37f4`. **Deployment mode** Local development with managed worktree services. **Installation method** Built from source with pnpm. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core worktree seed bug. **Database mode** External PostgreSQL source data copied into the isolated worktree database. **Access context** Board operator. **Privacy checklist** I reviewed this description and removed private instance URLs, internal task identifiers, credentials, and user paths. ## What Changed - Stop cloned project and execution workspace runtime desired state during a full or minimal seed. - Change copied service states from `running` to `stopped`. - Clear copied process, provider, port, URL, owner, and starter claims. - Keep unrelated runtime metadata intact. - Add regression tests for project services, execution workspace services, unrelated metadata, and the live-work preservation option. - Document runtime quarantine in the worktree development guide. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts` passes 43 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` passes 4,304 tests. One unrelated timing test timed out during the loaded run and passed alone. Ten unrelated exposure tests could not use their fixed ports because host Tailscale listeners already owned ports 42000 and 52000. - A managed worktree restart completes with a healthy source runtime and one authoritative service owner. - An authenticated clone inspection shows the copied runtime as stopped with no live provider, process, port, or URL claim. ## Risks - A cloned service no longer starts only because the source service was running. An operator must start the cloned service explicitly. This is the intended ownership boundary. - `--preserve-live-work` keeps the old behavior for operators who explicitly request live runtime state. - The change does not alter schema or source-instance runtime records. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime does not expose a more specific deployment ID or context-window size. The model used high-reasoning mode, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub review 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
|
1b4de0b65c |
fix(workspaces): recover degraded runtime databases (#11651)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Managed workspaces run local web services and embedded PostgreSQL
databases
> - A listening process could return an unhealthy response and still be
reused
> - Embedded PostgreSQL failures had no bounded restart owner
> - Cleanup inferred ownership from a branch slug instead of exact
persisted instance data
> - This pull request validates runtime health, supervises database
recovery, and uses exact cleanup ownership
> - The benefit is reliable replacement of degraded services without
deleting active instances
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
Workspace reconciliation could reuse a degraded Paperclip process after
any successful HTTP response. Embedded PostgreSQL could stop without
bounded recovery. Cleanup could infer database ownership from a branch
slug and select the wrong instance.
**Expected behavior**
Paperclip must require a semantic healthy response from the assigned
loopback listener. It must replace degraded processes. It must supervise
embedded PostgreSQL with bounded restarts. Cleanup must use exact
persisted worktree and instance-root ownership.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Start a managed workspace runtime.
2. Make its health endpoint return HTTP 200 with an unhealthy status, or
stop its embedded PostgreSQL process.
3. Reconcile the workspace or run instance cleanup.
4. Observe that the old implementation can reuse the degraded runtime or
infer ownership from its branch slug.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Current `master` before this pull request.
**Deployment mode**
Local dev with managed workspace services.
## What Changed
- Require `{ "status": "ok" }` from the assigned loopback health
endpoint before runtime reuse or adoption.
- Refresh persisted runtime health and replace degraded managed
processes.
- Add bounded embedded PostgreSQL restart supervision with coordinated
shutdown and hot-restart support.
- Stop the unhealthy web process when PostgreSQL recovery is exhausted
so reconciliation can replace it.
- Require exact persisted instance-root ownership before cleanup can
reclaim an embedded database.
- Add focused regression tests for degraded HTTP responses, ownership
mismatches, bounded recovery, active instance preservation, and
confirmed orphan reclamation.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server test --
src/embedded-postgres-supervisor.test.ts
src/services/workspace-instance-cleanup.test.ts
src/services/workspace-runtime.test.ts
src/services/execution-workspaces-service.test.ts`
- `pnpm -r typecheck`
- `pnpm build`
- `git diff --check`
- The full local stable test runner also found host-owned listeners on
ports 42000 and 52000. Those listeners conflict with the exposure test
fixture. The focused changed suites pass, and CI runs on a clean host.
## Risks
- A custom process that returns HTTP 2xx without the Paperclip health
contract is now degraded by design.
- Restart exhaustion terminates the managed web process. The runtime
reconciler then starts a clean process.
- Cleanup now fails closed when persisted ownership is missing. This can
retain an ambiguous orphan for manual review.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. The exact serving revision and context-window size
are not exposed. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools,
code execution, and test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] 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
|
d1cd9c37f4 |
fix(ui): keep Archive available on every inbox item (#11636)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Mine inbox combines tasks, failed runs, approvals, and access requests > - Each item needs a consistent action that removes it from the inbox > - Task rows keep the Archive action separate from the unread marker > - Other rows used one slot for both actions, so an unread marker hid Archive > - This pull request gives every Mine inbox row the same Archive action > - The benefit is consistent hover and swipe cleanup for every inbox item type ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Unread failed runs, approvals, and join requests showed a blue unread marker but no Archive button. The user had to mark the item as read before the old leading Archive control became available. **Expected behavior** Every Mine inbox item shows Archive on hover. Every item also keeps its swipe-to-archive behavior. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open the Mine inbox. 2. Add an unread failed run, approval, or join request. 3. Hover the new item. 4. Observe that Archive is missing before this change. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` at `0e9b03832d`. **Deployment mode** Local development from source. **Additional context** PR #1860 improves the accessibility of the existing swipe gesture. PR #9704 changes server-side archive resurfacing rules. Neither PR adds the missing hover action to unread non-task rows. ## What Changed - Reused the task-row Archive action for failed runs, approvals, and join requests. - Kept the unread marker visible in its own leading slot. - Kept retry, approve, and reject actions beside the new trailing Archive action. - Added regression coverage for hover Archive and swipe wrappers on every non-task Mine row type. - Updated a test comment so the repository token gate does not treat documented color literals as UI source. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx src/components/SwipeToArchive.test.tsx` — 46 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 4,284 tests passed. Ten unrelated runtime-exposure tests cannot claim fixed ports 42000 and 52000 because host Tailscale listeners already own them. - `pnpm build` — passed. - GitHub CI on the latest head — all required checks passed. - Greptile — 5/5 confidence with no open review threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The change only affects Mine inbox row actions and regression tests. - The server archive and dismiss APIs do not change. - Retry, approve, and reject behavior does not change. - No documentation change is required because this fix restores the expected inbox behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5. The runtime did not expose a dated model ID or context-window size. Reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution, and GitHub integration were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6b8e42168e |
Add governed secret alias confirmation cards (#11486)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely. > - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name without an internal secret identifier. > - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not create an issue-thread approval path. > - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the binding was created. > - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards. > - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a clear failure without exposing secret material. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prerequisite: #11482. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database proposal schema, and issue-thread UI. **Problem or motivation** An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name. The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance without executing the binding. **Proposed solution** Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card. Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention resolver. **Alternatives considered** A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry, authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload instead. **Roadmap alignment** This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved user-secret ownership checks. - Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database migration. - Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned `secretProposal` metadata. - Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees. - Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock before execution. - Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment when no binding was created. - Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection, withdrawal, and expiry in both directions. - Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes. - Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed, rejected, withdrawn, and expired states. - Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical justification, expiry, and safe failure code. - Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the stitched server result. - Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests. - Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API and agent behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142 passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential variables unset. - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses idempotent guards. - The accept route performs a governed write after it records card acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as rejected. - Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct approval against card rejection. - The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints. - The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers. - The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover immediate cache replacement and every terminal state. > This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub duplicate search returned no other open related work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8087661bb8 |
fix: bound workspace Git scans (#11572)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Workspaces let users and agents inspect files that belong to an issue > - Changed-file views use full-tree Git status scans > - Many issue views could start those scans at the same time and make the server unresponsive > - Route-level limits did not protect the process or coalesce work for one repository > - This pull request adds one bounded scheduler for every expensive workspace Git scan > - It also starts browser scans only when the file panel is open and visible > - The benefit is bounded child-process use and responsive health checks during request storms ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Many changed-file requests could start full `git status --porcelain=v1 -z --untracked-files=all` scans at the same time. One production incident produced about 270 direct Git child processes. The Node process stayed alive but stopped answering health requests in time. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must bound expensive Git work across all companies, actors, issues, repositories, and browser tabs. Duplicate requests for one worktree must share work. Excess requests must fail fast with a retryable response. Hidden or closed file panels must not start scans. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open changed-file views for many issue and actor keys. 2. Send requests for two large workspace roots at the same time. 3. Observe that route-level limiter keys allow many full Git scans to run together. 4. Observe delayed health responses and accumulated Git children. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master before commit `43ab441f0f`. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server with local workspace repositories. ## What Changed - Add a process-wide scheduler with configurable concurrency, queue capacity, timeout, and cache TTL. - Add fair admission, a bounded queue, canonical worktree keys, single-flight joins, and bounded result caching. - Add subprocess timeouts, TERM-to-KILL escalation, bounded output, waiter cancellation, and slot cleanup. - Route full-tree status work from file resources, workspace runtime, execution workspaces, and adapter overlay sync through the scheduler. - Return stable retryable `503` and `504` error codes for saturation and timeout. - Add structured logs with safe workspace hashes, durations, queue state, cache use, joins, and terminal outcomes. - Gate UI queries on panel and document visibility. Cancel queries on close, hide, unmount, and workspace change. - Disable focus and reconnect bursts. Keep one explicit refresh action and a retryable unavailable state. - Document the 10-second default freshness tradeoff and all configuration variables. - Add unit, route, UI, adapter, and deterministic 500-request load coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/workspace-git-operation-scheduler.test.ts src/__tests__/file-resources-git-scan-load.test.ts --reporter=dot` — 16 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/WorkspaceFileBrowser.test.tsx src/lib/page-visibility.test.ts --reporter=dot` — 38 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/adapter-utils exec vitest run src/git-workspace-sync.test.ts --reporter=dot` — 16 tests passed. - Existing file-resource, workspace-runtime, and execution-workspace regression selections passed. - Two cleanup safety regressions prove failed scans preserve the worktree before archive and at the final deletion fence. - Before: the incident produced about 270 Git children and health requests timed out. - After: 500 concurrent requests across 500 issue keys, 73 actors, and two roots started two underlying scans. Peak scan concurrency was 2. All 500 requests succeeded. Health p99 was 4.94 ms. The harness found zero unreaped children. - The full local Vitest run passed 4,267 tests. Ten existing fixed-port HTTPS exposure tests could not run because this host already owns Tailnet listeners on ports 42000 and 52000. Clean GitHub CI is the final full-suite result. - Latest-head GitHub CI passed all required test, typecheck, build, canary, e2e, policy, and security gates. - Greptile completed at 5/5 with zero unresolved comments, recommendations, or follow-ups. ## Risks - Changed-file results can be up to 10 seconds old by default. Explicit refresh remains available. - A full queue returns a retryable `503` instead of waiting without a bound. - A scan that exceeds the default 8-second deadline returns a retryable `504` and terminates its process group. - Operators can tune all limits with documented environment variables. Safe defaults protect local and shared servers. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context-window size. High reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
1a17cbf232 |
fix(runtime-exposure): mediate leased app/HMR port pairs centrally (#11526)
<!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> > **Stacked pull request.** This targets #11525, which targets #11524. Merge those first. Review only the last commit, `fix(runtime-exposure): mediate leased app/HMR port pairs centrally`. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip starts managed runtime services for execution workspaces, and #11524 and #11525 make those services reachable over Tailscale HTTPS on a loopback port pair > - An HTTPS lane is only safe if one execution workspace holds its port pair exclusively for the whole life of the lane > - A managed start reused a pair that a stopped but still leased workspace owned. Paperclip reported that workspace stopped and its exposure removed, while the host listeners and the Serve mappings for those ports were live and belonged to an unrelated workspace > - The cause is that ownership was decided in more than one place, and no single place saw persisted reservations, live listeners, and Serve mappings together > - This pull request adds one mediator that owns the decision, and makes every mismatch fail closed while naming the conflicting workspace > - The benefit is that a later start cannot collide with, adopt, or interfere with another issue's service, and cannot produce security evidence attributed to the wrong workspace ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the bug report template. **What happened** A managed HTTPS start reused the loopback port pair of a stopped but still exclusively leased execution workspace. The ports were then held by an unrelated workspace. Paperclip continued to report the first workspace's runtime as stopped and its exposure as removed, while the host listeners and the `tailscale serve` mappings for those exact ports were live and owned by the other workspace. **Expected behavior** An active execution-workspace lease reserves its app and HMR pair until the lease is explicitly released or torn down. A start that finds the pair held by a different workspace fails closed and names the conflict. Paperclip never adopts a process or a Serve mapping across execution-workspace ids. **Root cause** Three separate readers each had an incomplete view: - `deprovisionExposure` replaces the exposure status with a fresh `removed` status whose `listeners` array is empty. A later reader asking "which ports did this row own?" gets no answer, so a stopped row's pair looked free even while the row was leased. - Startup reconciliation adopted a persisted service by `row.port` alone, then terminated the local service when its health check failed. Under the `project_primary` strategy, where workspaces share a working directory, the containment check cannot separate two workspaces, so the sweep could adopt and then kill an unrelated workspace's live service. - Allocation checked live port availability but never checked which pairs active leases still reserve. **Impact** Two workspaces can collide on one lane. A start can adopt or interfere with another issue's service, and evidence about an exposure can be attributed to the wrong workspace. ## What Changed - Add `server/src/services/runtime-exposure/port-reservation.ts`, one mediator that decides allocation and ownership from persisted reservations plus live listener and Serve ownership together. - Reserve a pair for as long as its execution workspace holds an active lease, until the lease is explicitly released or torn down. - Re-derive a row's pair from the `port` column and `deriveViteHmrPort` instead of the status `listeners` array, so a `removed` status no longer hides which ports a leased row still reserves. - Refuse to adopt a process or a Serve mapping across execution-workspace ids. A mismatch fails closed and names the conflicting workspace and issue. - Treat an unattributable holder as a conflict. A Serve mapping that is present but cannot be attributed means the host has something there that could not be named, so it fails closed instead of falling through to "allowed". - Make reconciliation surface a stopped or removed row whose reserved ports are live or mapped by another workspace, instead of reporting success. - Leave manual and unknown Serve mappings alone on release and teardown. ## Verification - `npx vitest run --root server src/services/runtime-exposure/ src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-exposure-reservation.test.ts src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure-backfill.test.ts` — 8 files, **112 tests pass**. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — **0 errors** with `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` built. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — migration numbering and safety checks pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker test` — 87 tests pass. The five required regressions are covered by `workspace-runtime-exposure-reservation.test.ts` and `port-reservation.test.ts`: 1. Reuse of a stopped-but-leased pair is denied. 2. Cross-execution-workspace process adoption is denied. 3. A Serve mapping ownership mismatch is visible and fails closed. 4. Concurrent allocators return unique pairs. 5. Release and teardown make the pair reusable without harming manual or unknown mappings. Note for reviewers: `server/src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure.test.ts` fails on a development host that already runs an HTTPS canary holding ports 42000, 42001, 52000, and 52001, because that fixture stubs port availability and then allocates into the occupied range. It is unaffected by this change and is expected to pass in CI, where no such listener exists. Please read the CI result rather than a local run on an exposing host. ## Risks - The mediator is now the single decision point for allocation and adoption, so a defect in it affects every managed start. This is deliberate: the incident happened because the decision was spread across three readers, and concentrating it is the fix. - Behavior becomes stricter. A start that previously reused a pair now fails closed with a named conflict. This is the intended change, and it can surface pre-existing collisions that used to pass silently. - The remediation path does not stop an unrelated service that already holds a pair. It reports the conflict instead, so it cannot disturb another issue's running lane. - No migration runs in this pull request. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
4c349fe6b7 |
feat(runtime): managed Tailscale HTTPS lifecycle, durable runtime leases, and bounded control recovery (#11525)
<!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> > **Stacked pull request.** This targets #11524. Merge #11524 first. Review only the second commit, `feat(runtime): managed Tailscale HTTPS lifecycle...`. ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip starts and supervises managed runtime services, so an agent's branch can be previewed while the agent works > - The previous pull request added the host broker, the shared contract, and the database columns, but no code used them > - A managed runtime can only be exposed over HTTPS if it holds a stable loopback port pair for the whole life of the service. The current control path cannot promise this: two controls can race the same execution workspace, a stranded control can stay `running` forever, and a start can adopt a port it does not own > - This pull request adds the HTTPS lifecycle and the control-path hardening that the lifecycle depends on > - The benefit is that a managed preview becomes reachable from another device, and a managed control now always reaches a terminal state ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the feature request template. **Subsystem affected** Managed workspace runtime services, workspace operations, the execution workspace routes, and the workspace runtime UI. **Problem or motivation** A managed runtime service is reachable only on loopback, so a preview cannot be opened from a phone or a second computer. Exposing it safely needs an exclusively held port pair. Three existing gaps block that. Overlapping controls can race the same workspace. A control whose owner dies stays `running` and blocks the lane forever. Port allocation does not confirm that the process holding a port is the process Paperclip spawned. **Proposed solution** Add the exposure lifecycle on top of the broker from #11524: reserve before spawn, expose after readiness, validate the public URL, and remove on stop. In the same change, make managed controls mutually exclusive per workspace, give each control a durable issue-owned lease and a terminal state, and verify port ownership before use. **Alternatives considered** - Add HTTPS exposure without the control hardening. This was rejected because a raced or stranded control makes exposure point at the wrong process. - Guard the lane with an in-memory lock only. This was rejected because the lock does not survive a server restart, so the lane can be lost or double-claimed. - Trust the requested bind address. This was rejected because a checkout that predates managed HTTPS overwrites `PAPERCLIP_BIND` from its own `--bind` argument, and then binds the wildcard address. **Roadmap alignment** This completes the managed workspace runtime capability that already exists. It adds no new product surface beyond the HTTPS link. **Additional context** This is the second of three pull requests. The third adds central mediation of leased port pairs. ## What Changed Exposure lifecycle: - Add the server-side broker client and the exposure lifecycle manager. The manager reserves the mapping before spawn, exposes after backend readiness, validates the public URL, and removes the mapping on stop. - Default managed worktree runtimes to `tailscale_https`, read exposure intent from legacy `expose` blocks, and backfill runtimes that are still HTTP-only. - Verify listener ownership for the app port and its Vite HMR companion before the broker is asked to expose anything. An unrelated listener on either port fails the start closed. - Force the loopback bind through argv instead of environment hints. Leave a non-Paperclip service's `--bind` argument alone. - Probe loopback for readiness instead of the public URL, and give Vite HMR its own loopback-bound server in middleware mode. - Preserve operator-declared Serve mappings across the managed lifecycle, so cleanup never removes a mapping that Paperclip did not create. - Name which listener predicate denied an expose, so an operator can act on the message. Control-path hardening: - Make `start`, `stop`, `restart`, and job `run` mutually exclusive per execution workspace. An overlap gets `409 workspace_runtime_control_in_progress`, and authorization is still checked first. - Take a durable exclusivity lease on the execution workspace, owned by the controlling issue. A different issue gets `409 workspace_runtime_lease_conflict` before any operation is recorded. Board and operator actions bypass the lease. - Give every control a terminal state. Each control stamps its owning process and pid, heartbeats while it runs, and has a wall-clock ceiling. Recovery of a stranded control uses a compare-and-swap on `updated_at`, so a live owner is never stolen. - Bound readiness probes, verify allocated port ownership on POSIX and Windows, harden sibling port allocation, and reconcile desired runtimes on server startup. - Surface exposure state and bounded runtime errors in the workspace runtime UI. - Record the new behavior in `doc/DEVELOPING.md`. ## Verification Focused checks, all run on this branch: - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — 139 errors, exactly the count on `master`. All 139 come from the unbuilt `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` package. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - Server suites, 177 tests pass across 9 files: `workspace-runtime.test.ts`, `workspace-runtime-leases.test.ts`, `workspace-runtime-control-recovery.test.ts`, `execution-workspace-runtime-control-conflict.test.ts`, `execution-workspace-runtime-lease-route.test.ts`, `workspace-operations-reconciliation.test.ts`, `workspace-runtime-start-terminality.test.ts`, `app-hmr-port.test.ts`, and `workspace-runtime-ready-comment.test.ts`. - Exposure unit suites, 77 tests pass: `src/services/runtime-exposure/` and `workspace-runtime-exposure-backfill.test.ts`. - UI: `WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx` and `WorkspaceServiceControlBar.test.tsx` — 34 tests pass. **One suite is red on the development host and is expected to be green in CI.** `server/src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure.test.ts` has 10 failures on the machine used to write this branch. The cause is host contamination, not the code. That machine already runs an HTTPS canary that holds ports 42000, 42001, 52000, and 52001 on a tailnet address. The suite allocates from the same range, so the new listener-ownership check correctly reports: ``` listener_ownership_mismatch — port 42000 is bound to 100.123.243.20, 127.0.0.1, fd7a:115c:a1e0:0:0:0:dd3a:f314 ... instead of loopback only ``` A CI runner has no listener on those ports, so the check sees loopback only and the suite passes. Please confirm this from the CI result on this pull request rather than from a local run on a host that already exposes a managed runtime. This is a real weakness of the current test fixture, and the third pull request in the series removes it by allocating the pair through a central mediator instead of a stubbed availability check. `workspace-runtime-https-live-exercise.test.ts` needs a live `tailscale` host and was not run locally. ## Risks - This is the behavior-bearing pull request of the three, so it carries the most risk. - Two new `409` responses appear on managed control routes. A caller that assumed a control always starts must handle a conflict. Board and operator actions are deliberately exempt, so an agent lease cannot lock an operator out. - Managed worktree runtimes now default to `tailscale_https`. If the host has no working broker, the start fails closed and reports the exposure failure instead of silently serving plain HTTP. This is intended, and it is the reason the failure message names the denying predicate. - Startup reconciliation touches persisted runtime rows. It is scoped to desired state and does not resurrect a service that never came up. - The lease has a 30-minute time to live and explicit release paths, so a crashed owner cannot hold a lane forever. - No migration runs in this pull request. The tables and columns land in #11524. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass, with the one host-contaminated suite explained above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
f4802b1bbc |
feat(runtime-exposure): least-privilege Tailscale HTTPS broker, shared contract, and persisted exposure state (#11524)
<!-- Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100). --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip starts and supervises managed runtime services for a project's execution workspaces, so an agent's branch can be previewed while it works > - Those services only listen on plain loopback HTTP. A person on another device, or on a phone, cannot open the preview > - A Tailscale HTTPS mapping solves this, but `tailscale serve` needs host privileges that the Paperclip server process must not hold > - This pull request adds the foundation only: a separate least-privilege host broker, the shared exposure contract, and the database columns that hold exposure state > - Nothing calls the broker yet, so there is no behavior change. The benefit is that the privileged surface is small, reviewable, and isolated before any lifecycle code depends on it ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. The change follows the feature request template. **Subsystem affected** Managed workspace runtime services, the shared type and validator package, and the database schema. **Problem or motivation** A managed runtime service binds to loopback only. There is no supported way to reach that preview from another device. Adding HTTPS directly to the server would mean the server process runs `tailscale serve`, which needs privileges far wider than the task requires. A compromised or buggy server could then map any port to the tailnet. **Proposed solution** Split the privileged work into a separate broker process with a narrow protocol, and define one shared contract that the server, the UI, the runtime, and the broker all read. Land this foundation first, with no caller, so the privileged code can be reviewed on its own. **Alternatives considered** - Call `tailscale serve` from the server process. This was rejected because it gives the server unrestricted mapping authority. - Use `sudo` for single `tailscale` commands. This was rejected because the argument list is the only guard, and it is easy to widen by accident. - Use a generic reverse proxy. This was rejected because it does not remove the need for a privileged Tailscale mapping step. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the existing managed workspace runtime capability. It adds no new product surface on its own. **Additional context** The broker is the security boundary of the feature, so it is deliberately the first slice. Three later pull requests build on it: the server exposure lifecycle, the runtime lease and recovery integration, and the leased-port mediator. ## What Changed - Add the `@paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker` workspace package. The broker listens on a unix socket, authorizes each peer with `SO_PEERCRED`, and answers a small request protocol. - Restrict what the broker will map. It accepts only same-number HTTPS-to-loopback pairs inside the Paperclip port range, refuses protected ports, and confirms that the loopback port belongs to a Paperclip-owned listener. - Parse every request with a strict JSON reader that rejects duplicate keys, prototype keys, and unknown fields. - Write an append-only audit record for each broker decision. - Add the shared exposure contract in `@paperclipai/shared`: the `RuntimeExposureConfig`, `RuntimeExposureState`, and `RuntimeExposureStatus` types, their zod validators, the app and HMR port rules, and the loopback-bind helpers. - Persist exposure state on `workspace_runtime_services` with the new `exposure` column, plus the server-private `exposure_handle` and `backend_url` columns that are never serialized to API clients. - Add the `execution_workspace_runtime_leases` table that the later lease slice uses. - Extend the runtime read-model test fixture for the three new columns. ## Verification Focused checks, all run on this branch: - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker test` — 12 files, 82 tests pass. This covers peer credentials, port policy, protected ports, the serve config writer, the strict JSON reader, argv parsing, and the socket server. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/tailscale-https-broker typecheck` — clean. - `npx vitest run --root packages/shared src/runtime-exposure src/validators/runtime-exposure.test.ts` — 3 files, 40 tests pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — runs `check:migrations` first. Migration numbering and migration safety both pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — clean. - `npx vitest run --root server src/services/workspace-runtime-read-model.test.ts` — 3 tests pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit -p server/tsconfig.json` — 139 errors, which is exactly the count on `master` before this branch. All 139 come from the unbuilt `@paperclipai/plugin-sdk` package. To confirm the exposure state is inert, start a managed runtime service as usual. The new columns stay null and the service behaves as it does today. ## Risks - Migration risk is low. Both migrations only add a table and three nullable columns. No column is backfilled and no existing column changes. The migration safety check passes. - Behavior risk is low. No code path calls the broker in this pull request, and the shared exposure fields are optional. - The broker is privileged, so it is the real risk surface. It is mitigated by peer-credential authorization, a fixed port range, a protected-port deny list, same-number pair enforcement, listener-ownership checks, strict JSON parsing, and an audit trail. Reviewers should read `packages/tailscale-https-broker/src/authorization.ts` and `src/port-policy.ts` closely. - The broker requires a `tailscale` version floor, which its README records. An older host CLI makes the broker refuse to start rather than map incorrectly. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes because a new workspace package is added. The diff is the new importer block, plus one duplicate `tinyexec` entry that pnpm removed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
fd472d02ba |
Show ordered live blocker work in task chat (#11487)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The task view shows operators why work cannot continue > - The redesigned task thread now shows direct and ultimate blockers > - But it does not show the ordered task queue while a blocker chain has live work > - This pull request adds a compact ordered live-work queue to the redesigned thread > - The benefit is that operators can see completed, running, and queued dependencies without opening the larger legacy notice ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The redesigned task thread blocker summary is improved. The merged predecessor is #11456. **Current behavior** The redesigned task thread shows compact direct and ultimate blocker links. It does not show the ordered queue when the blocker tree has live work. The legacy task view shows this queue in a larger notice. **Proposed behavior** Show a compact blue live-work queue at both ends of the redesigned task thread. Order completed tasks first, then running tasks, then queued tasks. Show a live terminal leaf as `Now running`. Return to the amber blocker links when no live dependency remains. **Reason and benefit** Operators can see the active dependency order without leaving the redesigned task view. The compact presentation preserves the new thread's low-chrome layout. **Breaking changes** None. The change only adds UI for blocker data that the task view already receives. ## What Changed - Shared the live blocker ordering helper between the legacy notice and the redesigned task thread. - Added compact ordered dependency links at the top and bottom of the redesigned thread. - Added a separate `Now running` link for a live terminal blocker leaf. - Preserved the compact amber blocker rows when live work is not present. - Added component tests and a Storybook state for the new presentation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` - Captured and reviewed the new Storybook state in a headless browser. ## Risks - Low risk. The queue appears only for blocked tasks whose blocker attention state is `covered` and whose dependency set contains live work. - The API does not provide an explicit queue position. The UI preserves the existing legacy ordering rule: completed, running, queued, then numeric task identifier. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact snapshot or context-window size. Reasoning, code execution, repository tools, and browser automation were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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
|
10d0555189 |
fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, 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 linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
d6acb48551 |
feat(ui): show a calm in-flight notice when a live run is on the issue (#11423)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - When an agent run ends without a recorded disposition, Paperclip raises a "missing disposition" handoff so the work does not stall silently > - The issue page shows that handoff as an amber alarm: "This task still needs a next step." > - The server tells the UI whether the issue has a live continuation, and an earlier change used that flag to hide the alarm while a correction run is active > - Hiding it removed the false alarm but replaced it with nothing, so a reader cannot tell "nothing is wrong" from "nothing is tracked" > - This pull request puts a quiet informational line where the alarm was, and links the live run > - The benefit is that the page stays honest in both states: it is calm while an agent works, and it is loud only when the issue is really stuck ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this gap. Description follows `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`: **What existing behavior does this improve?** The missing-disposition handoff notice on the issue page. It is the amber banner that reads "This task still needs a next step." **Subsystem affected** Web UI — `ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.tsx`. **Current behavior** An issue with an outstanding missing-disposition handoff shows nothing at all in the blocked-notice slot while a correction run is live. `IssueBlockedNotice` calls `isSuccessfulRunHandoffRequired()`. That helper returns `false` when `successfulRunHandoff.hasLiveContinuation` is set. The component then renders no handoff content. Two tests asserted the empty render. **Proposed behavior** The page states, quietly, that a correction run is in progress. It also states that the alarm returns if the run stops without choosing a next step. The reader can open the live run from that line. The amber alarm does not change when no run is live. **Reason and benefit** Silence and "healthy" look the same. A user who saw the alarm earlier cannot tell whether the handoff was resolved, whether the alert was withdrawn, or whether an agent is working on it now. One muted line removes that ambiguity. It also keeps the loud state meaningful, because the alarm now appears only when the issue is really stuck. **Breaking changes** None. The change is presentational and adds no API or data-shape change. ## What Changed - Added `SuccessfulRunHandoffInFlightNotice` to `ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.tsx`. It renders a muted row with a pulsing live dot and this copy: "A correction run is in progress — the agent is working. This alert returns if the run stops without choosing a next step." - The notice links the live run when the server sends `liveRunId` and the handoff has an `assigneeAgentId`. It shows the short run id as plain text when no agent id is available, and it shows no run reference when `liveRunId` is absent. - Liveness reads either the server `hasLiveContinuation` flag or the fresher client `liveIssueIds` set. This matches the rule that already suppressed the alarm. - The amber alarm is unchanged when no live continuation exists. The unpromoted scheduled-retry carve-out still shows the alarm, so the "Retry now" control stays reachable. - The calm line also renders above the blocker notice when an issue has blockers and a live run at the same time. - Storybook: added `InFlightNotice` and `LivenessComparison` stories to `ui/storybook/stories/successful-run-handoff.stories.tsx`, and removed a duplicated panel from the overview story. - Tests: the two cases that asserted an empty render now assert the calm line. New cases cover a missing `liveRunId`, a missing agent id, a handoff that is not required, and the two "alarm is unchanged" guards. ## Verification Run the component and helper suites from `ui/`: ``` cd ui && NODE_ENV=test npx vitest run \ src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx \ src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx \ src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx \ src/lib/successful-run-handoff.test.ts ``` Result: 4 files, 111 tests, all pass. Also run: - `cd ui && npx tsc -b --force` — clean. - `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs` — all gates clean. Manual check in Storybook (`pnpm --dir ui storybook`), story `Paperclip/Successful Run Handoff → Liveness Comparison`: - The alarm panel keeps its 4 remediation bullets, its amber surface, and its run chips. - The calm panel shows one 39 px muted row, no bullets, and a working link to the live run. - Measured contrast of the calm text against its rendered surface: 4.58:1 in light mode and 6.52:1 in dark mode. Both pass WCAG AA for normal text. ## Risks Low risk. The change is limited to one presentational component and its stories. It adds a render path where the component previously returned `null`, so a surface that expected an empty render now shows one muted row. No server, API, or data-shape change. The amber alarm path and the scheduled-retry carve-out are covered by tests that assert the calm line does not appear. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context window, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (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: ClaudeCoder <claudecoder@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9e9f744f58 |
Show blocker links in the task chat (#11456)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps operators supervise agent work through tasks and task threads. > - The redesigned task thread shows the current work and its state. > - A blocked task did not show the dependency that prevented progress. > - Operators had to leave the thread to find the direct and final blockers. > - This pull request adds compact blocker links at the top and bottom of the task thread. > - The benefit is that operators can identify and open the relevant tasks without adding a large notice to the thread. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The redesigned task thread did not show which task directly blocked the current task or which task ultimately blocked its dependency chain. **Subsystem affected** `server/`, `packages/shared/`, and `ui/` task-blocker presentation. **Current behavior** A blocked task can open in the redesigned thread without a visible dependency link at the top or bottom of the conversation. **Proposed behavior** Show one compact amber row for the direct blocker. Show a second row for the selected final blocker when one exists. Render the rows at both ends of the thread. **Reason and benefit** Operators can see the reason for the blocked state and open the relevant task from the conversation. The compact rows preserve thread density. **Breaking changes** None. The new blocker-attention fields are optional. Existing clients remain compatible. ## What Changed - Added a compact task-chat component for direct and selected final blocker links. - Added the blocker rows to the top and bottom of populated and empty task threads. - Added link-ready blocker-attention details so an intermediate selected task stays on its correct direct chain. - Included blocker-link changes in the thread content key so pinned threads follow a newly added bottom row. - Added component, scrolling, server contract, and Storybook coverage for the new states. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-blocker-attention.test.ts` (38 tests passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks - Low risk. The rows only render while the task status is `blocked` and an unresolved blocker is available. - Long titles are truncated to keep each blocker on one line. The full task label remains available in the link title. - Older server payloads keep the original leaf-selection behavior because the new sampled details are optional. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The run used tool-enabled reasoning and code execution. The context-window size was not exposed to the run. ## 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
|
57edb26db4 |
Merge pull request #11405 from paperclipai/fix/review-policy-verdict-enforcement
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
edb8083538 |
fix(server): serialize interaction review verdicts
Lock the issue before accepting or rejecting review confirmations, reauthorize against the current policy, and cover concurrent policy tightening. Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
3526b82e2b |
test(server): expect transactional review transition
Align the watchdog in-review assertion with the atomic update contract. Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
277c13529a |
fix(server): persist review requester atomically
Commit both bound and unbound in-review transition activity in the same transaction as the issue update. Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
3a87b143a2 |
test(server): support locked review policy updates
Keep terminal-update route harnesses aligned with the transactional issue service contract. Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
991f40bb2e |
fix(server): serialize review policy verdict authorization
Recheck terminal verdict and policy mutations under a row lock, and scope interaction verdict enforcement to the review confirmation itself. Co-Authored-By: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
373b675f94 |
fix(server): prevent review policy verdict downgrade bypass
Authorize verdicts and policy changes against the stored restrictive review policy, remove downgrade guidance, and cover both restrictive policies with route regressions. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
37fde84abd |
fix(server): enforce review policy on interaction verdicts
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Opus 5
|
8ee1fb21a6 |
feat(ui): badge the review policy when it constrains approval (#10938)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents move their work into review, and a reviewer must then give a verdict on it > - By default anyone with write access can give that verdict, including the agent that did the work > - The server can constrain that default per issue with a `reviewPolicy` column, but no screen showed the value > - A reviewer could therefore press Approve on a review that the server refuses, and get a 403 > - This pull request shows the policy as a badge on the two surfaces where a person gives a verdict > - It also makes an agent verdict read as a verdict in the activity timeline > - The benefit is that a reviewer sees who can approve before they try ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. The description below follows `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/enhancement.yml`. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The issue review flow. A reviewer cannot see the approval constraint on an issue before they give a verdict. **Subsystem affected** Web UI (`ui/`), with one supporting change in the server attention service. **Current behavior** The server stores an optional approval constraint for each issue in a `reviewPolicy` column. The column has three meaningful states: the default (`NULL` or `anyone`), `not_creator`, and `human_only`. The server enforces the constraint when it receives a verdict. No screen shows the value. Two problems follow: 1. A reviewer presses Approve on a review that the server refuses. The server answers 403, and the reason is not visible on the card. 2. An agent that accepts or rejects a review renders in the activity timeline as the raw action id, for example "issue thread interaction accepted". A person who reads the timeline cannot tell that a verdict was given. **Proposed behavior** Show the constraint as a read-only badge on the two surfaces where a person gives a verdict. Show no pixels for the default state, because the default is what every issue already does. Make an agent verdict read as a verdict in the timeline. Only agents set the column today, so this change adds no control to set it. **Reason and benefit** A reviewer sees the constraint before they act. This prevents the 403, and it removes the need to explain the 403 afterwards. The timeline also becomes complete, because it now shows agent verdicts and human verdicts in the same way. **Breaking changes** None. The change adds a badge and changes copy. It adds no column, no endpoint, and no request. **Additional context** The server-side column and the verdict enforcement landed earlier in #10931. This pull request is the user interface for that column. The default state stays unchanged on screen, so the badge appears on a small number of issues. ## What Changed - **A read-only "Approvals" row** in the issue Execution properties. The row renders *only* for a constrained policy: "Anyone else" (`not_creator`) or "Human only" (`human_only`). A `NULL` or `anyone` column adds no row, so the panel is untouched on the overwhelming majority of issues. - **The same badge on the stalled-review card** in `/decisions`, above the three review verbs. A reviewer now sees the constraint before they press Approve. The condition is the same, so the default card is unchanged. - **Agent verdicts read as verdicts in the activity timeline.** An agent that accepted or rejected a review request previously rendered the raw action id ("issue thread interaction accepted"). It now reads "approved the request". A stalled-review decision names the verb that the actor chose. - **A cleared policy reports as "anyone", not "none",** in the field-change receipt. The `reviewPolicy` column is nullable by default, so an absent value is a real setting rather than a missing one. - **All copy comes from `ui/src/lib/review-policy.ts`.** Its badge lookup returns `null` for the default. This makes "no pixels for the default" one enforced decision instead of a condition repeated at each call site. It also keeps the badge, the activity line, and the receipt reading alike. - **The server attention service carries the policy** on the review attention subject, so the stalled-review card can read it. ## Verification Automated tests: - `ui/src/lib/review-policy.test.ts` — the default returns no badge, however the column spells it (`null`, `undefined`, `"anyone"`). An unrecognised policy from the wire shows nothing rather than leaking an enum value. - `ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` — no badge on the default card, and the verbs still render. Suppression of the badge must not suppress the card. - `ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` — no Approvals row on the default. The constrained row contains no `button`, so nothing there can PATCH. - `server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts` — the review attention subject carries the policy, and subjects built from narrower selects do not claim one. Run them with: ```sh pnpm vitest run ui/src/lib/review-policy.test.ts \ ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx \ ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx \ server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts ``` Manual steps: 1. Open an issue that has no `reviewPolicy`. Confirm that the Execution properties panel shows no Approvals row. 2. Set the column to `not_creator`. Reload the issue. Confirm that the Approvals row reads "Anyone else", and that the row has no control. 3. Move that issue into review. Open `/decisions`. Confirm that the stalled review card shows the same badge above the review verbs. 4. Let an agent approve the review. Confirm that the activity timeline reads "approved the request" and not "issue thread interaction accepted". Screenshots were captured at 1440x900 and 390x844, in light mode and dark mode, with the three policy states side by side. The leftmost column in each capture is the default. It carries no badge and no extra row. ## Risks Low risk. - The change is additive on screen. Every new surface is behind a constrained policy, so the default path renders exactly as before. - The badge is read-only. It has no control and sends no request, and a test asserts that the row contains no `button`. - An unknown policy value from the wire renders nothing. It does not render the raw enum. - No migration, no schema change, and no endpoint change. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic), model id `claude-opus-5[1m]`, 1M context window, with extended thinking and tool use enabled. Used through Claude Code for the implementation, the tests, and this description. ## 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: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
8cb0ce0de5 |
fix(ui): restore queued message interrupt action (#11374)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The task thread lets an operator add guidance while an agent run is active > - A new message can wait behind that active run as a queued message > - The classic task view lets the operator interrupt the target run from that queued message > - The redesigned task view did not expose the same action > - This pull request restores the action and keeps it bound to the exact target run > - The benefit is that operators can apply urgent guidance without switching task views ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The redesigned task view showed `Queued` for a queued operator message, but it did not show the existing interrupt action. **Expected behavior** The queued message must show `Interrupt` next to `Queued`. The action must stop the exact run that the message is waiting behind. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task in the redesigned task view while an agent run is active. 2. Send a new operator message so it enters the queued state. 3. Observe that the queued message has no interrupt action. **Paperclip version or commit** `bc0b5a1642` **Deployment mode** All deployment modes that use the redesigned task view. ## What Changed - Preserve persisted queued state and the target run ID in the redesigned thread model. - Render a token-compliant `Interrupt` action beside the queued state. - Reuse the existing exact-run interrupt callback and show a disabled `Interrupting…` state during the request. - Keep an assigned queue target immutable so an in-flight comment cannot rebind its interrupt action to a replacement run. - Add regression tests for persisted queued messages, replacement-run races, and the in-progress action state. - No documentation update was required because this restores existing behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/task-chat/task-chat-adapter.test.ts ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx -t 'queued message actions|queues messages against a queued live run and interrupts that exact run|commentsToTaskChatItems'` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx -t 'queued message|queues messages'` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` (52 passed) - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` (all server and UI groups passed; the CLI group passed after inherited static AWS credential variables were omitted) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm check:token-gates` ## Risks Low risk. The change only adds an action to queued messages that have a target run and an interrupt callback. Messages without both values keep the current rendering. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The runtime does not expose a more specific deployment ID or context-window size. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d2665ff6b4 |
fix(ui): align the mobile task chat composer with the thread (#11296)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The task thread is where people read work and guide agents. > - The mobile composer should use the same content width as the thread. > - The composer kept the desktop 80% width on mobile, so its edges did not align with the thread. > - Long assignee-aware placeholder text could also clip inside the mobile editor. > - Some extracted style tokens used legacy HSL wrappers around complete semantic colors, which made those declarations invalid. > - This pull request makes the composer full width on mobile, preserves the narrower desktop layout, wraps the placeholder, and repairs the invalid color compositions. > - The benefit is a stable mobile composer that aligns with the task thread and keeps its intended visual styles. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #11263. **What happened?** At mobile widths, the task chat composer used the same 80% width as the desktop composer. Its horizontal edges did not align with the full task thread. A long assignee-aware placeholder could clip on one line. The composer's extracted shadow also used a legacy `hsl(var(...))` wrapper around complete semantic color values, so the browser could reject the declaration. **Expected behavior** The composer must match the task thread width on mobile. It must stay narrower on larger screens. Long placeholder text must wrap inside the editor. Semantic color tokens must form valid shadows and gradients. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task with the chat-style thread on a mobile viewport. 2. Compare the composer edges with the task thread edges. 3. Select an assignee whose placeholder text wraps to two lines. 4. Inspect the computed composer shadow and the extracted semantic color styles. **Paperclip version or commit** The change is based on `dc6fcd1ff1` from `master`. **Deployment mode** Local build from source. The behavior also applies to packaged web builds. ## What Changed - Made the task chat composer full width below the medium breakpoint and kept the 80% desktop width. - Matched the composer dock padding to the task thread padding. - Allowed long composer placeholders to wrap and reserved enough mobile editor height for two lines. - Replaced invalid legacy HSL wrappers around full semantic colors in extracted shadows, gradients, and approval styles. - Added a token gate that prevents legacy `hsl(var(--token))` wrappers from returning. - Added focused regression tests for responsive width, padding, placeholder wrapping, mobile height, and semantic shadow validity. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all four gates pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposerStyles.test.ts` — 37 tests pass. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — passes. The build prints existing CSS optimizer and bundle-size warnings. ## Risks - Low risk. The width change is limited to the mobile breakpoint. The desktop 80% layout remains in place. - The semantic token fixes can affect shadows and gradients that were previously invalid. The new gate prevents the invalid wrapper pattern from returning. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. The context-window size is not exposed in this environment. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub 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
|
dc6fcd1ff1 |
fix(ui): move agent secret access to searchable secrets tab (#11283)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The agent configuration UI controls each agent and its allowed secrets. > - The environment variable editor already has a secret selector with search and folder navigation. > - The secret access editor used a basic list and made large secret stores hard to use. > - The secret access controls also occupied the main Configuration tab. > - This pull request reuses the rich selector and moves secret access to a dedicated Secrets tab. > - The benefit is one consistent secret selection workflow with clearer agent configuration navigation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The agent detail configuration view and its secret access editor. **Subsystem affected** `ui/` — React and Vite board UI. **Current behavior** The secret access editor uses a basic select control. It does not provide the search and folder navigation available in the environment variable editor. The editor also appears inside the Configuration tab. **Proposed behavior** The secret access editor uses the shared secret picker. Users can search secrets and browse slash-delimited folders. Agent details provide a dedicated Secrets tab for this editor. **Reason and benefit** Large secret stores are slow to scan in a flat list. Reusing one selector reduces UI differences and makes scoped secret access easier to manage. **Breaking changes** None. The API and saved secret access data do not change. ## What Changed - Reused the environment variable secret picker in the agent secret access editor. - Preserved secret version selection and the create-secret action, including nested-popover focus handling. - Added a route-backed Secrets tab to agent details and removed secret access controls from Configuration. - Guarded unsaved configuration across tab, link, browser-history, and action-triggered navigation. - Rechecked dirty state when navigation-producing agent actions finish, covering edits made while a request is pending. - Added component, page, and Storybook coverage for the workflow. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/AgentActionButtons.test.tsx src/components/AgentConfigForm.render.test.tsx src/components/AgentSecretAccessEditor.test.tsx src/components/environment-variables-editor/EnvironmentVariablesEditor.test.tsx src/pages/AgentDetail.progress.test.ts` — 82 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - All GitHub PR checks passed on `5209c5b787`, including build, canary, general and serialized tests, and all three e2e shards. - Greptile completed at 5/5 with zero unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The API and persisted binding format are unchanged; this changes agent configuration navigation and secret selection UI. - Dirty-state guards now cover direct navigation, Back/Forward history, and navigation-producing agent actions, including pending-request races. - Tests cover tab separation, secret access updates, search, folder navigation, focus restoration, and navigation rejection. - No documentation change is required because commands, contracts, and setup steps do not change. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. This runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context window. The model used agentic 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
|
1a377424db |
fix(ui): add mobile blocker actions (#11282)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators use task properties to inspect and change task relationships. > - A blocked-by chip linked directly to the blocking task. > - Its remove control appeared only on hover, so touch users could not reach it. > - This pull request opens a small action menu when a user taps the chip on mobile. > - The menu lets the user visit the task or start the existing blocker-removal confirmation. > - The benefit is that touch users can manage blockers without changing the fast desktop flow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** On a phone-width layout, a tap on a blocked-by chip opened the blocking task immediately. The remove control appeared only on hover, so a touch user could not remove the blocker. **Expected behavior** A tap on a blocked-by chip on mobile opens a menu. The menu offers `Visit task` and `Remove blocker` actions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task that has a blocker. 2. Use a viewport below the mobile breakpoint. 3. Open the task properties. 4. Tap the blocked-by chip. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `e5a7fd7038` from `master`. **Deployment mode** Built from source with the local development workflow. ## What Changed - Added a mobile-only action menu to blocked-by chips. - Kept the direct task link and hover/focus remove control on desktop. - Reused the existing removal confirmation before the relation update. - Added focused regression coverage for the mobile visit and remove choices. - Added a phone-width Storybook state with the action menu open. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - Opened the new Storybook state in Playwright Chromium with a Pixel 5 viewport. Confirmed that both actions are visible and fit in the viewport. ## Risks - Low risk. The behavior change is limited to the existing mobile breakpoint. - Desktop navigation and blocker removal keep their current behavior. - The menu uses the shared dropdown and dialog primitives. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex `gpt-5.6-sol`, xhigh reasoning. The Codex CLI managed the context window for this run. The model used repository tools, code execution, tests, and browser automation. ## 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
|
9c941169a6 |
fix(ui): keep new task dialog visible above mobile keyboard (#11281)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators create tasks in a dialog that includes the assignee and project fields. > - Mobile browsers reduce and offset the visual viewport when the on-screen keyboard opens. > - The dialog used layout viewport units, so its upper fields could move off-screen while the user typed. > - This pull request makes the dialog follow the live visual viewport and keeps the focused editor visible. > - The benefit is that operators can see the task context and the field they edit on mobile devices. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** On mobile browsers, opening the keyboard in the new-task dialog could move the assignee and project fields above the visible screen. The active editor could also become difficult to see. **Expected behavior** The full dialog must stay inside the visible browser area. The active editor and task controls must remain reachable while the on-screen keyboard is open. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open Paperclip on a mobile browser. 2. Open the new-task dialog. 3. Focus the title or description editor to open the on-screen keyboard. 4. Observe that the upper fields can move outside the visible viewport. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced before commit `838cdbb325` on `master`. **Deployment mode** Local dev (`pnpm dev`) in a mobile browser viewport. ## What Changed - Read `window.visualViewport` while the dialog is open. - Apply token-based dialog geometry when the visual viewport is constrained. - Keep the focused editor visible after viewport resize and scroll events. - Add unit coverage for visual viewport updates and focus scrolling. - Add Playwright coverage for mobile, tablet, desktop keyboard, and unconstrained desktop layouts. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx` — 27 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all gates clean. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` — passed. - `pnpm exec playwright test tests/storybook-visual/new-issue-dialog-viewport.spec.ts --config tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts` — 4 tests passed. ## Risks - Low risk. The custom geometry only activates when `visualViewport.height` is less than `window.innerHeight`. - Browsers without the Visual Viewport API keep the existing dialog primitive behavior. - The browser test checks hit targets and visible bounds at mobile, tablet, and desktop widths. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The session used reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and browser automation. The service did 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> |
||
|
|
2494a2a0fe |
perf: add repeatable issue-detail baseline rig (#10409)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue detail page is a core operator surface where perceived latency directly affects task navigation > - Performance work needs repeatable evidence so later optimizations can be compared against the same scenarios > - The page did not expose stable user-timing marks for its header or first useful content > - There was also no isolated seeded browser rig that measured warm navigation, cold deep links, waterfalls, or server time > - This pull request adds the instrumentation and a one-command Playwright baseline harness > - The benefit is that issue-page performance changes can be validated with reproducible median measurements instead of anecdotes ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `ui/`, `server/`, and browser performance tooling. **Problem or motivation** The issue detail page performs a large client bootstrap and request fan-out, but the repository lacks stable user-timing boundaries and a repeatable benchmark. That makes performance changes difficult to compare and allows regressions to be judged from anecdotes instead of consistent evidence. **Proposed solution** Add stable header/content paint measures, development/QA-only lifecycle vital reporting, aggregate server timing for the issue endpoint, and a seeded Playwright command that runs warm/cold scenarios under throttled and unthrottled profiles with N≥5 median reporting. **Alternatives considered** Ad hoc DevTools recordings were rejected because they are not repeatable or reviewable. Production telemetry was rejected because this baseline should not change production data collection. A unit-only harness was rejected because it cannot capture browser bootstrap, rendering, and network waterfall costs. **Roadmap alignment** The roadmap calls for agent performance to be measurable over time. This change applies that evidence-first principle to a core operator page and does not duplicate a listed roadmap deliverable. **Additional context** The generated report includes warm and cold medians, TTFB/FCP/LCP where applicable, request and byte totals before first useful content, JavaScript bytes, and issue endpoint server timing. ## What Changed - Added `issue-detail:navigate→header-paint` and `issue-detail:navigate→content-paint` user-timing measures to the issue detail page. - Added development/QA-only TTFB, LCP, and INP console reporting without production telemetry delivery. - Added `Server-Timing` for `GET /api/issues/:id`. - Added `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/perf/issue-detail/playwright.config.ts`, which seeds an isolated instance and runs N≥5 warm/cold samples under unthrottled and Fast 4G/4x CPU profiles. - Added Markdown, raw JSON, and Chrome-trace outputs with median baseline tables and waterfall data. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `npx playwright test --config tests/perf/issue-detail/playwright.config.ts --list` - `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/perf/issue-detail/playwright.config.ts` — passed 20 samples in 9.4 minutes (5 runs × 2 scenarios × 2 profiles) for the baseline; post-review integrity reruns also exercised the corrected paths, while this shared runner intermittently killed Chromium processes, so the rig now performs one bounded browser-crash retry per sample. - Baseline medians: warm unthrottled 278/447 ms header/content; cold unthrottled 646/646 ms; warm throttled 1240/2060 ms; cold throttled 3932/3933 ms. ## Risks - Low product risk: the new browser measurements are development/QA tooling and the UI timing work does not change visible layout. - `Server-Timing` exposes only aggregate handler duration, not query contents or private identifiers. - Native INP reporting uses supported browser event timing entries and silently no-ops where unsupported. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.4, tool-assisted coding and browser execution with reasoning enabled; context-window size is not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
b847e8b6f6 |
perf(server): reduce issue detail request overhead (#10414)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI-agent work > - Opening an issue fans out into several authenticated issue-detail reads, so repeated work on that path directly affects perceived latency > - Those reads repeated issue and authorization lookups, returned full private JSON even when unchanged, and performed non-critical bookkeeping writes on the request path > - Interaction reads also performed lifecycle writes even though `GET` must be read-only > - This pull request adds request-scoped reuse, private conditional responses, read-only interaction access, and bounded write debouncing without crossing actor, request, or company boundaries > - The result is less database, serialization, logging, and response-body work while preserving authorization and interaction lifecycle invariants ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This is the server-only latency phase. Related work is tracked separately in #10415 (aggregate view), #10416 (warm navigation, merged into the base), and #10463 (bundle split). This pull request intentionally excludes those scopes. **What happened?** Opening an issue detail view caused avoidable server costs: repeated issue and authorization reads within one request, full private JSON responses when a representation was unchanged, writes during interaction-list reads, production debug transport setup, and immediate bookkeeping writes for cloud tenant activity and board-key usage. **Expected behavior** All successful JSON `GET /api/issues/:id/*` responses should support strong private ETags and `304 Not Modified`. Repeated work may be reused only within the current request. `GET /interactions` must not modify stored interactions. Non-critical activity timestamps may be debounced without weakening authentication or stale instance-admin cleanup. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start Paperclip in local development or self-hosted server mode. 2. Open one issue and request its detail subresources with the same authenticated actor. 3. Repeat a successful JSON request with its `ETag` in `If-None-Match`. 4. Observe `304 Not Modified`, no interaction writes from `GET /interactions`, and unchanged authorization boundaries. **Deployment mode / installation** - Local development or self-hosted server - Built from source - Core server behavior; not adapter-specific ## What Changed - Added strong ETags and `Cache-Control: private, must-revalidate` to successful JSON reads under `/api/issues/:id/*`, including standards-compliant `If-None-Match` handling. - Added request-scoped promise memoization for issue and authorization lookups; no authorization result survives the request. - Made `GET /interactions` read-only, moved supersession and terminal-state handling to mutation paths, and prevented plugin callers from accepting or rejecting interactions after an issue closes. - Removed the production debug-file logger transport while preserving development formatting. - Debounced cloud-tenant activity and board-key `lastUsedAt` persistence, while keeping stale instance-admin deletion unconditional and authentication checks per request. - Added focused tests for ETags, request isolation, authorization lifecycle behavior, interaction invariants, logger configuration, and retry-safe debounce behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/private-json-etag.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts` — 2 files, 23 tests passed. - Focused Vitest run covering request memoization, authorization, interactions, plugin orchestration, logger, cloud tenant, board auth, and issue services — 9 files, 264 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed. - Scope guardrails: 21 changed files under `server/src`; no lockfile, workflow, migration, UI, aggregate-view, or bundle-split changes. ## Risks - Strong ETags hash each successful serialized JSON response. This adds a small CPU cost but avoids transferring unchanged bodies. - Debounced bookkeeping timestamps can lag by the bounded debounce interval. They are non-critical usage metadata; authentication still runs per request, and stale instance-admin deletion remains unconditional. - Legacy pending interactions on terminal issues are projected as expired by reads and are finalized only by mutation paths. The stored record remains unchanged on `GET` by design. - No database schema or migration changes are included. > This is a focused performance correction and does not duplicate a planned core feature in `ROADMAP.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.3-codex` for the initial implementation and `gpt-5.6-sol` for isolation, verification, and PR preparation, with reasoning, repository tool use, code execution, and GitHub CLI access. The runtimes did not expose authoritative context-window sizes. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
145d86911b |
Remove decision training UI (#11225)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Decisions desk shows work that needs an operator response. > - It also exposed decision-training actions and a separate training library. > - Paperclip does not plan to use these training surfaces now. > - Keeping inactive controls makes the Decisions workflow harder to scan. > - This pull request removes the training UI and keeps the backend snapshot contract unchanged. > - The benefit is a smaller and clearer Decisions workflow without a data migration. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Decisions desk currently exposes training controls, training state, and a separate training library route. **Subsystem affected** `ui/` — React and Vite board UI. **Current behavior** Operators can open a training library from the Decisions toolbar. They can also mark a decision for training from rows and inspect the result in a drawer. **Proposed behavior** Remove the training controls, badges, drawer, library pages, and routes from the Decisions UI. Keep the server APIs and stored training examples unchanged. **Reason and benefit** The product does not plan to use decision training now. Removing the unused surfaces reduces Decisions UI noise and avoids presenting a workflow that operators should not use. **Breaking changes** The `/decisions/training` UI routes are no longer registered. Existing server endpoints and stored decision-training data remain compatible. ## What Changed - Removed decision-training controls and state from Decisions toolbars, rows, queue pages, and shelves. - Removed the training drawer, library, inspector, API client, helpers, query keys, and routes. - Added route and row regressions that assert training UI does not return. - Updated the Decisions Storybook description to match the available controls. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/App.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx` — 32 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — server and UI partitions passed. The CLI partition had one environment-only failure because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials. The exact CLI file passed all 8 tests when those credential variables were unset. - Searched `ui/src` and `ui/storybook` for the removed training routes, drawer, library, badges, and actions. Only negative regression assertions remain. ## Risks - Low implementation risk. This change deletes UI-only entry points and does not change the database or server APIs. - Saved training-page URLs no longer render a board route. This is the intended behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-5.6-sol`, with `xhigh` reasoning. The runtime did not expose the context-window size. The agent used repository tools, shell execution, and automated tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [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
|
45dfb183b6 |
fix(ui): add undo action to inbox archive toast (#11220)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps operators supervise AI-agent work. > - The Mine inbox keeps tasks that need an operator's attention in one place. > - Operators can archive a task from its detail page after they finish triage. > - That action is easy to select accidentally and did not offer immediate recovery. > - This pull request adds Undo to the archive success toast and keeps inbox caches consistent. > - The benefit is fast recovery without searching for or reopening the task. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Archiving a task from the Mine inbox removed it and showed a success toast with no recovery action. **Expected behavior** The success toast should offer Undo. Selecting Undo should restore the task through the existing unarchive API while preserving a consistent inbox view. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task from the Mine inbox. 2. Select the archive action. 3. Observe that the task leaves the inbox and the success toast has no Undo action. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local dev, built from source. Related prior work: #9931 and #10668. ## What Changed - Add an Undo action to the successful inbox archive toast. - Optimistically restore the task in captured inbox query caches before the unarchive request completes. - Cancel in-flight inbox fetches and clear the local archive guard so stale responses cannot hide the restored task. - Reapply the archive guard and remove the cached task if the unarchive request fails. - Add regression tests for successful Undo, the in-flight cache race, and failed Undo rollback behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/lib/inboxArchiveCache.test.ts` — 51 tests passed on the final head. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — the general server and UI groups passed. One CLI doctor assertion detected injected host AWS credentials and passed all 8 tests with those unrelated variables unset. A task-watchdog scheduler test also passed all 18 tests in isolation after one full-suite timing failure. ## Risks Low risk. The change uses the existing unarchive endpoint and inbox cache helpers. Undo failure returns the task to its archived state, shows an error toast, and invalidates the inbox queries for server reconciliation. > 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, model ID GPT-5. The service manages the context window. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7734f4b32d |
fix(ui): keep slash autocomplete scrollable in dialogs (#11222)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps operators manage AI-agent companies. > - Operators create tasks and comments through shared rich-text editors. > - These editors show slash-command and mention matches in a floating menu. > - Modal dialogs treat that body-level menu as outside content and cancel its wheel and touch movement. > - This pull request keeps scroll events inside the floating menu and preserves native scrolling. > - The benefit is that operators can reach every match with a mouse wheel, a trackpad, or a touch screen. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. **What happened?** Slash-command and mention menus could contain more matches than their visible height. When an editor was inside a modal dialog, the modal scroll lock canceled wheel and touch movement on the body-level menu portal. Operators could not scroll to later matches. **Expected behavior** The autocomplete menu must scroll with a mouse wheel, a two-finger trackpad gesture, and a vertical touch gesture. Keyboard selection and normal editor behavior must stay unchanged. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a task or comment editor inside a modal dialog. 2. Enter a slash command or mention query that has more matches than the menu can show. 3. Try to scroll the menu with a wheel, trackpad, or touch gesture. **Paperclip version or commit** `7ea2068ef8` on `master`. **Deployment mode** Local development UI built from source. ## What Changed - Keep wheel and touch movement inside the shared autocomplete menu portal. - Add vertical overscroll containment while preserving native momentum scrolling. - Add a regression test that mounts the real dialog and verifies that wheel and touch movement stay uncanceled. ## Verification - `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` The two AWS variables are omitted from the full test command because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials. One unrelated CLI doctor test correctly warns when those credentials are present. The CI environment does not inject them. ## Risks - Low risk. Event propagation stops only on the open autocomplete menu portal. - Ancestor listeners no longer receive wheel or touch movement from that menu. Native menu scrolling and option-level touch handling still receive the events. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The deployment suffix and context-window size are not exposed to the agent. The model used agentic reasoning, repository tools, GitHub tools, and local 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
|
3e1ea39ff3 |
fix(inbox): honor saved policy for explicit targets (#11221)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English
(ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple
approved vocabulary, and the active voice. -->
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage
AI-agent companies and their work
> - Each user can let agents tidy that user's Mine inbox
> - The profile control saves either an open policy or an agent
allowlist
> - Explicit inbox archive requests checked only the separate
`inbox:manage` grant
> - This made the saved profile control ineffective for explicit user
targets
> - This pull request makes authorization honor the target user's saved
policy
> - The benefit is that the UI control and the API now enforce the same
user choice
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
An agent received `403 inbox_cross_user_grant_required` when it archived
an issue with an explicit `userId`. The denial occurred even when that
user had enabled inbox management for the agent in Profile Settings. The
authorization service checked only `principal_permission_grants` for
explicit targets and ignored the saved user inbox policy.
**Expected behavior**
An explicit target is allowed when the target user saved an `open`
policy or an allowlist that contains the agent. An unsaved default-open
policy must remain limited to the responsible-user path. A scoped
`inbox:manage` grant must remain an administrative override.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Save an inbox-agent allowlist for a user.
2. Include the acting agent in that allowlist.
3. Call `POST /api/issues/{issueId}/inbox-archive` with that user's
explicit `userId`.
4. Observe the incorrect `403 inbox_cross_user_grant_required` response
on the previous implementation.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on `7ea2068ef8`.
**Deployment mode**
Self-hosted server.
**Installation method**
Built from source with pnpm.
**Agent adapter(s) involved**
Not adapter-specific. This is a core authorization bug.
**Database mode**
External Postgres in production. The regression tests use embedded
PostgreSQL.
**Access context**
Agent bearer authentication.
Related foundations: #9658 and #9724.
## What Changed
- Read the target user's saved inbox-agent policy before the
explicit-target decision.
- Allow saved `open` policies and matching allowlists for explicit
targets.
- Keep unsaved implicit-open policies responsible-user-only.
- Keep scoped `inbox:manage` grants as administrative overrides.
- Add service and route regressions for allow, deny, archive, unarchive,
and audit metadata.
- Update the implementation contract and agent-facing inbox API
guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/authorization-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/inbox-archive-routes.test.ts` — 66 tests passed.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change is limited to explicit inbox targets with a saved
policy.
- A missing policy row still denies explicit cross-user access.
- A non-matching allowlist and a disabled policy still deny access
unless a scoped administrative grant applies.
> 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-5. The runtime did not expose the exact
model build or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository
tools, code execution, and focused test execution.
## Checklist
- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7ea2068ef8 |
fix(files): only highlight accessible workspace file links (#11090)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task comments can contain references to files in project and execution workspaces. > - Paperclip detected path-shaped inline code and showed it as an actionable file chip. > - The UI did not first confirm that the current board session could open the file. > - Missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, and unsupported files therefore looked actionable and failed after a click. > - This pull request adds an issue-scoped availability check and promotes only confirmed files to chips. > - The benefit is that the task thread shows a file action only when that action can succeed. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Task comments promoted path-shaped inline code to file chips before Paperclip checked the file. A chip could point to a missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, or non-previewable file. The action then failed after the user selected it. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must show a file chip only after the server confirms that the current board session can open the exact file reference. All other path-shaped text must stay ordinary inline code. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Add a task comment that contains inline code with a missing or inaccessible workspace path. 2. Open the task thread as a board user. 3. Observe that the path looks like an actionable file chip. 4. Select the chip and observe that the file cannot open. **Paperclip version or commit** `19be4cf927` and earlier. **Deployment mode** Local dev and self-hosted server. **Access context** Board user. ## What Changed - Added shared request, response, and validation contracts for batched workspace-file availability checks. - Added an issue-scoped server endpoint that resolves file references with company, issue, workspace, and preview-access checks. - Added bounded batch concurrency and tests for missing, denied, ambiguous, remote, unsupported, and available files. - Added an issue-scoped UI availability registry that deduplicates, batches, caches, and invalidates file checks. - Changed task-comment markdown rendering so only confirmed files get chip styling and file-viewer behavior. - Bound each chip to the exact workspace target that passed the availability check. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/workspace-file-resource.test.ts server/src/__tests__/file-resources.test.ts ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceFileMarkdownBody.availability.test.tsx ui/src/lib/remark-workspace-file-refs.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-file-availability.test.ts` — 93 passed, 35 skipped. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — clean. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — all server and UI groups passed. One unchanged CLI test saw the run-injected static AWS credentials and expected only its local `AWS_PROFILE`. The same test passed, 8 of 8, after removing only `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` and `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` from its process environment. ## Risks - File chips now appear after an asynchronous availability check, so path-shaped text can briefly render as inline code. - Availability results use the existing 30-second file-resource cache window. File-resource invalidation forces a new check. - The endpoint limits each request to 100 references and the client chunks larger sets. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The service did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode, repository tools, command execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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
|
c4abecb2c4 |
fix(skills): refresh project folders in place (#11066)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps operators manage agent skills across a company. > - The installed skills view groups project-backed skills into folders. > - The view showed two folder creation controls and only offered a global project scan. > - Operators need one clear folder action and a refresh action for the selected project. > - This pull request keeps folder creation in the folder rail and adds a scoped project refresh. > - The benefit is a calmer skills view and faster, more precise project skill updates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this focused UI bug. **What happened?** The installed skills view repeated the folder creation action in the toolbar. A selected project folder also had no way to refresh only its own project skills. **Expected behavior** The folder rail must own folder creation. A selected project-backed folder must offer a refresh action that scans only that project and refreshes the skill and folder queries. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open the installed skills view for a company with project-backed skill folders. 2. Select a project folder. 3. Observe the duplicate folder action and the absence of a project-scoped refresh action. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced before this two-commit fix on `master`. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Removed the duplicate toolbar folder creation button when the folder rail exists. - Preserved the toolbar folder action when no folder rail exists. - Added a refresh action beside the breadcrumb for a selected project-backed folder. - Passed the selected project ID to the project scan API. - Refreshed both the installed skill list and skill folder data after scans. - Added component tests for compact folder creation, the empty-folder fallback, and scoped project refresh. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx` — 20 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed with all three gates clean. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — the server and UI stages passed 7,475 tests. The CLI stage then found one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — all 8 tests passed. - GitHub CI — all latest-head checks passed. ## Risks - Low risk. The scoped refresh depends on the existing `project:<id>` folder system key. - The global scan path is unchanged. - There are no schema, migration, API contract, dependency, workflow, or documentation changes. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 family. The runtime did not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode, repository tools, GitHub 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
|
b58ce27a02 |
fix: isolate execution workspace summaries (#10790)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip gives operators a summary for each workspace. > - An execution workspace detail page used the parent project-workspace summary slot. > - Two execution workspaces under one project workspace could therefore show the same summary. > - This pull request gives each execution workspace its own summary scope. > - It also limits the summary snapshot and generated issue to that execution workspace. > - The benefit is that a new or parallel execution workspace cannot inherit unrelated status. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An execution workspace detail page read and refreshed the summary slot for its parent project workspace. Parallel execution workspaces could show the same status and include issues from each other. **Expected behavior** Each execution workspace must have one isolated summary slot. Its generated snapshot must include only issues assigned to that execution workspace. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create two execution workspaces under one project workspace. 2. Add different issues to each execution workspace. 3. Generate the summary in the first execution workspace. 4. Open the second execution workspace. 5. Observe that the old implementation could reuse the first summary. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** The issue affects both local trusted and authenticated deployments. ## What Changed - Added `execution_workspace` to the shared summary-slot scope contract. - Validated execution-workspace ownership and stored generated summary issues on the correct execution workspace. - Limited execution-workspace snapshots to issues with the matching execution workspace ID. - Updated the execution workspace page to use its own summary slot. - Updated Summarizer instructions, routine options, catalog metadata, documentation, and regression tests. ## Verification - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/summary-slot.test.ts server/src/__tests__/summary-slots.test.ts ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` — 30 focused tests passed; the embedded-Postgres server tests were run outside the process-restricted sandbox. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog validate` — passed with 17 catalog skills. - [Latest-head GitHub Actions](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/31491475405) — all 22 jobs passed on `beea14cbaf`, including typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, serialized suites, e2e, canary, and aggregate verification. One unrelated adapter cleanup test initially hit an `ENOTEMPTY` temp-directory race; its single permitted rerun passed. - Greptile — 5/5 confidence on `beea14cbaf`, 12 files reviewed, zero comments added, and zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Low risk. The new scope is additive. - Existing project and project-workspace summary slots keep their current keys and behavior. - A summary generated for an execution workspace now excludes sibling workspace issues by design. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The deployment does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window value. It used agentic reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and GitHub tooling. ## 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
|
9cdaa5416e |
fix(ui): remember folded inbox subtasks (#11069)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The inbox helps operators scan parent tasks and their sub-tasks > - Operators can fold a parent task to hide its sub-tasks > - The inbox previously forgot that fold state after a page refresh > - This pull request stores the fold state for each company and restores it when the inbox loads > - The benefit is that the inbox keeps the operator's chosen task layout across page refreshes ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The inbox reset every folded parent task after a page refresh. This made all nested sub-tasks visible again. **Expected behavior** The inbox must keep each folded or unfolded parent state after a page refresh. The state must remain separate for each company. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open the inbox with parent and child tasks. 2. Fold one parent task. 3. Refresh the page. 4. Observe that the child task is visible again without this fix. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local dev and built-from-source deployments. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped local storage helpers for collapsed inbox parent IDs. - Restored the stored parent fold state when the inbox mounts or the selected company changes. - Saved both direct toggle changes and explicit collapse changes. - Added helper tests and an inbox remount regression test for both folded and unfolded states. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 77 tests passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm build` — passed. - `pnpm test:run` — 3,521 tests passed and four skipped. One unrelated server test on the current base fails because it reads `heartbeat.scheduling_suppressed` instead of `issue_commented`; the same test fails alone and this pull request changes only inbox UI files. ## Risks - Low risk. The state is local to the browser and scoped by company ID. - Old parent IDs can remain in local storage after tasks are deleted, but they do not affect visible tasks. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.6-sol`, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose its context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
66575fe519 |
fix(paperclip-page): scope uploader credentials to the publish helper (#10894)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents publish static pages with the paperclip-page skill and its `publish.sh` helper > - The skill docs told operators to bind the page-uploader IAM keys as the global `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` / `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` > - Static env keys have precedence over `AWS_PROFILE` in the AWS CLI and in all AWS SDKs > - Because of this, each agent run lost the host role identity and lost access to Secrets Manager and other AWS services > - This pull request adds namespaced credential variables that apply only to the helper's own `aws` calls > - The benefit is a stable host AWS identity in agent runs, with no change to page publishing ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Description of the problem: **What happened?** Agent runs on a host with `AWS_PROFILE` set lost access to AWS Secrets Manager. The failures looked intermittent. The cause is deterministic: the page-uploader keys were bound as global `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` / `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` in agent run environments. These static keys shadow `AWS_PROFILE`. Each process in the agent run then used the S3-upload-only uploader identity. **Expected behavior** The page-uploader credentials apply only to the page publish helper. All other processes keep the host identity from `AWS_PROFILE`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set `AWS_PROFILE` to a role with Secrets Manager access. 2. Export `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` / `AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY` for an IAM user without that access. 3. Run `aws sts get-caller-identity`. The identity is the IAM user, not the role. 4. Run `aws secretsmanager list-secrets`. The call fails with `AccessDeniedException`. ## What Changed - `publish.sh` reads `PAPERCLIP_PAGE_AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID` and `PAPERCLIP_PAGE_AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY`, with optional `PAPERCLIP_PAGE_AWS_SESSION_TOKEN`. - The helper applies these values only to its own `aws` invocations. It clears ambient `AWS_PROFILE` and `AWS_SESSION_TOKEN` for those calls. - Credential precedence is: namespaced key pair, then `PAPERCLIP_PAGE_AWS_PROFILE`, then the ambient credential chain. Existing global-name bindings continue to work during migration. - Validation: the key pair must be set together. The pair plus `PAPERCLIP_PAGE_AWS_PROFILE` is an error. A session token without the pair is an error. - `SKILL.md` and `README.md` now instruct operators to bind the secrets under the namespaced names and explain the shadowing hazard. ## Verification - Run `node --test .agents/skills/paperclip-page/scripts/publish.test.mjs`. All 11 tests pass. - New tests cover: the incomplete key pair, the pair-plus-profile conflict, the token-without-pair error, and a fake-`aws` environment capture that proves the helper's calls see the page keys while `AWS_PROFILE` and `AWS_SESSION_TOKEN` stay unset. - Run `bash -n .agents/skills/paperclip-page/scripts/publish.sh` for a syntax check. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is contained in one skill helper and its documents. - The ambient credential chain remains the fallback, so current deployments do not break before operators rebind the secrets. - Operators must rebind the two page secrets to the namespaced names to get the benefit. The README documents this. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic. Context window: 1,000,000 tokens (128K max output). Agentic coding session with extended thinking and tool use (Claude Code harness). ## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0a511ed1b0 |
feat(apps): support multiple provider connections (#11060)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Apps subsystem connects company tools through governed provider connections. > - A company can need more than one account for the same provider. > - The current database constraint and Apps flow assume one named connection per company. > - New quarantined actions also need an explicit review decision before activation. > - This pull request supports multiple provider connections and complete action review decisions. > - The benefit is safer access control and a clear multi-account Apps workflow. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #11040 **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This change affects the Apps UI, the tool access API, the shared request contract, and the database schema. **Problem or motivation** The connection name constraint prevents a company from keeping more than one connection for a provider. The Apps UI also reuses an existing OAuth connection when a user asks to connect another account. Action review can enable selected entries without recording a decision for every quarantined action. **Proposed solution** Remove the company and connection name uniqueness constraint. Let users open, count, edit, and create multiple provider connections. Require the finish request to cover every quarantined action exactly once before the server activates reviewed entries. **Alternatives considered** The UI could generate unique internal names and keep the database constraint. This would preserve a one-connection assumption in the data model and would make display names part of identity. The server could also infer review decisions from enabled actions. This would not distinguish a reviewed disabled action from an action that the user did not review. **Roadmap alignment** This change extends the completed MCP Tool Gateway and Apps milestone. It also supports the Connected Apps roadmap item. It follows the navigation and connection management work in #11040. ## What Changed - Remove the company-scoped connection name uniqueness index with an ordered and idempotent migration. - Add a reviewed action list to the finish-app contract and reject incomplete or duplicate review decisions. - Activate reviewed entries and keep unreviewed quarantined entries blocked. - Enable a completed connection and preserve the company and connection scope in all updates. - Show provider connection counts and open the provider setup page from Browse. - Let users edit existing connections or connect another account without reusing an active OAuth connection. - Update focused server and UI coverage for multiple connections and action review. ## Verification - Ran the focused Apps UI suite. All 116 tests passed in 11 files. - Ran the focused server and CLI suite. All 276 tests passed in 3 files. - Ran `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations`. The migration safety check passed. - Ran `pnpm -r typecheck`. All projects passed. - Ran `pnpm build`. All projects built successfully. - Ran `pnpm test:run`. It passed 3,735 tests and skipped 4 tests. One worktree-safety assertion failed because the execution workspace reloads its worktree marker. The same test passed with an isolated non-worktree marker. - Ran `pnpm check:token-gates`. It reports 12 existing violations in the unchanged `PaperclipOrbit3D.tsx` file from the target branch. - Started the six affected Playwright specifications. Chromium could not start because the host does not provide `libatk-1.0.so.0`. The GitHub e2e jobs will verify these specifications. - GitHub Actions passed every final-head CI gate, including all three e2e shards and the aggregate `e2e` and `verify` jobs. - Greptile reviewed final commit `9af9200426` at 5/5 with zero review threads. ## Risks - Removing the name uniqueness index permits duplicate display names. Stable connection IDs and UIDs remain unique within a company. - The finish-app endpoint accepts the new review field as optional for backward compatibility. When clients send it, the server requires a complete decision for all quarantined actions. - Multiple OAuth connections depend on the explicit new-connection route flag. Focused tests cover active and draft connection reuse. - The migration is ordered after migration 0210. Its `DROP INDEX IF EXISTS` statement is safe to repeat. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with the `gpt-5.6-sol` model assisted this change. The agent used repository tools, code execution, test execution, and agentic reasoning. The Codex runtime manages the context window. ## 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
|
a71b9cf628 |
feat(skills): add MCP integration preparation skill (#11063)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Skills Store lets a company find and install reusable agent procedures > - The MCP integration preparation procedure existed outside the app catalog > - Paperclip users could not find or install that procedure from the product > - This pull request adds the procedure as an optional software development skill > - The skill keeps research, human approval, and connector delivery as separate gates > - The benefit is a repeatable and governed path from vendor research to one connector pull request ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The app-shipped Skills Store can install optional skills, but it does not include the MCP integration preparation workflow from `paperclip-content`. **Subsystem affected** `packages/skills-catalog`. **Current behavior** An agent must know where the external workflow lives. The agent cannot find or install it from the Paperclip skills catalog. **Proposed behavior** The optional catalog includes `prepare-mcp-integration`. The installed skill directs agents through cited research, a research-only content pull request, an exact-revision human gate, and one Paperclip connector pull request per approved connection. **Reason and benefit** This change makes the existing integration and connector playbooks available as one installable Paperclip workflow. It also prevents agents from starting connector code before the research gate is approved. **Breaking changes** None. The skill is optional and markdown-only. Related source work: paperclipai/paperclip-content#13. ## What Changed - Add the optional `prepare-mcp-integration` catalog skill under software development - Add Paperclip catalog metadata for roles, requirements, tags, and trust classification - Add a worked Notion MCP research-gate example - Regenerate the checked-in catalog manifest - Add the new key to the shipped optional skill test ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog build:manifest` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog validate` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` - Confirm the generated catalog contains `paperclipai/optional/software-development/prepare-mcp-integration` - Confirm the trust level is `markdown_only` and compatibility is `compatible` ## Risks - Low risk. This change adds one optional markdown-only catalog entry. - The workflow can become stale if the two upstream playbooks change. The skill requires agents to read the current playbooks before each phase and to update upstream rules when reusable specifications change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5.4, reasoning mode, shell tool use, and code editing. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3435920ae1 |
docs: minimize plan task graphs (#11057)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip skills guide agents through repeatable work. > - The plan-to-task skill guides agents when they create issue graphs from plans. > - The prior guidance could encourage an issue for every concrete deliverable. > - That guidance can create unnecessary subtasks for work that one owner can complete end to end. > - This pull request defines the boundaries that justify a separate task. > - It also adds a merge-back pass that removes task splits without a qualifying boundary. > - The benefit is a smaller issue graph with clear ownership, dependencies, and review gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Issue type** Unclear or confusing documentation. **Where is the issue?** `skills/paperclip-converting-plans-to-tasks/SKILL.md` **What's wrong?** The skill says that each concrete deliverable must become an issue. This can make agents split one end-to-end job into tasks for each step, file, component, or phase. The result is more coordination work without a real execution boundary. **Suggested fix** Tell agents to start with one end-to-end task. Permit separate tasks only for ownership, parallel work, dependencies, independent review or approval, or substantial follow-up work. Require a merge-back pass before agents create the issue graph. ## What Changed - Added a rule to use the fewest tasks that can complete and verify the work. - Defined the boundaries that qualify work for a separate issue. - Added a merge-back pass for proposed subtasks without a qualifying reason. - Updated dependency, parallel work, verification, and checklist guidance to enforce the smaller graph. ## Verification - Ran `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/frontmatter.test.ts`. - Result: 1 test file passed and 21 tests passed. - Ran `git diff --check public-gh/master...HEAD`. - Confirmed that the PR changes one skill file and has no lockfile, workflow, image, or migration changes. ## Risks - Low risk. This change updates skill guidance only. - Agents might combine work too aggressively. The qualifying boundaries preserve separate ownership, parallel execution, dependencies, review, approval, and substantial follow-up work. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 through Codex. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, command execution, and GitHub 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
|
b18b0fc39b |
feat: refine app connections and legacy worktree startup (#11040)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Apps UI manages app discovery and app connections. > - The managed worktree runtime starts agent work in repository worktrees. > - The Apps routes do not match the main discovery flow, and the connections view lacks a delete action. > - Legacy managed worktrees can also start before their pending seed operation runs. > - This pull request makes app discovery the main Apps route and makes connection management explicit. > - It also seeds legacy managed worktrees before runtime startup and makes the CLI read the repository-local config. > - The benefit is a clearer Apps workflow and a safer managed-worktree startup path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves the Apps navigation, app connection management, managed git-worktree startup, and CLI worktree selection. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. The change affects `ui/`, `server/`, `cli/`, and development documentation. **Current behavior** The `/apps` route opens the connections list while discovery uses a nested route. The connections list has no delete action. Some legacy managed worktrees can start runtime work before their pending seed operation runs. The CLI can also read an ambient Paperclip config instead of the repository-local config. **Proposed behavior** The `/apps` route opens Browse, and `/apps/connections` opens the connection list. Users can delete a connection after confirmation. Runtime startup seeds legacy managed worktrees when required. The CLI resolves the current worktree from the repository-local `.paperclip/config.json` file. **Reason and benefit** Users can discover apps from the canonical Apps route and can manage existing connections from a dedicated route. Legacy worktrees receive their required repository content before agent runtime starts. CLI worktree selection stays scoped to the current repository. **Breaking changes** The `/apps` and `/apps/browse` route behavior changes. Old Browse links redirect to `/apps`. The change does not modify an API schema or database schema. ## What Changed - Make Browse the canonical `/apps` page and move the connection list to `/apps/connections`. - Align Apps navigation, redirects, attention links, empty states, and connection actions with the new routes. - Add connection deletion with confirmation and clear failure feedback. - Seed legacy managed git worktrees before runtime startup when their seed status is pending. - Read the CLI worktree selection from the repository-local Paperclip config. - Update focused UI, server, CLI, and development documentation coverage. ## Verification - Ran 202 focused UI, server, and CLI tests. All tests passed. - Ran `pnpm -r typecheck`. All projects passed. - Ran `pnpm build`. All projects built successfully. - Ran `pnpm test:run`. The server and UI stages passed 7,168 tests. The CLI stage found one environment-sensitive secrets test because this workspace injects static AWS credentials. The isolated CLI file passed all 8 tests after those injected variables were unset. - Ran `pnpm check:token-gates`. It reports 12 existing color-token violations in the unchanged `PaperclipOrbit3D.tsx` file from the target branch. This pull request does not modify that file. - Ran focused regression coverage for repository-root CLI config resolution and connection deletion state. All tests and affected package typechecks passed. - Collected all 27 tests in the six changed Playwright specifications successfully. - GitHub Actions passed every latest-head CI gate, including all three e2e shards and the aggregate `e2e` and `verify` jobs. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - Existing bookmarks for `/apps/browse` redirect to `/apps`. - Connection deletion changes visible connection state and requires user confirmation. - The legacy seed path runs only for managed git worktrees with pending seed state. Tests cover the startup condition. - The rebase preserves the target branch's direct OAuth policy for the Notion connection flow. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with the GPT-5 model family assisted this change. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. The runtime does not expose the exact model snapshot 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> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
9abb600e72 |
docs(connections): MCP-direct/DCR playbook section + Notion dry-run appendix (#11030)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give agents governed access to external tools through catalog connectors. > - The connector playbook is the repeatable template for adding such connectors. > - Notion just shipped as the first MCP-direct connector with RFC 7591 dynamic client registration (#11009). > - The playbook had no guidance for MCP-direct connections, OAuth discovery, or DCR. > - This pull request documents that path and encodes three mandatory standards into the connector template. > - It also adds a Notion dry-run appendix recorded from the live probe and the shipped implementation. > - The benefit is that the next MCP-direct connector follows a recorded, verified path. > [!IMPORTANT] > **Depends on #11009.** This PR documents the Notion MCP connector that ships in #11009 (RFC 7591 DCR, discovery-first endpoints, `redirectConstraints` enforcement, refresh-rotation hardening). Reviewing this doc against master before #11009 merges will show the documented behavior as "not implemented" — that is expected. Draft until #11009 lands, then re-review. ## What Changed `doc/connections/CONNECTOR-PLAYBOOK.md` only (+364 lines, no code): - New **"MCP-Direct Connections"** section: RFC 9728/8414 endpoint discovery chain, an **RFC 7591 dynamic client registration** subsection (public client, PKCE S256, env-client precedence, persist-and-reuse), and a **redirect-URI constraints** subsection (`https-or-loopback-http`, fail-fast wizard error). - Three mandatory documentation standards encoded into the connector template itself: a service-involvement statement (DCR providers need neither Paperclip ID nor Paperclip Connect — instance-local per the PAP-14828 spec §10 item 8.4; cloud and self-hosted use the same path), a required **Connection Flow** section (sequence diagram + exact authorize/token/registration/callback endpoints), and a required **Administrator Setup** section. - A **Notion dry-run appendix** mirroring the Linear appendix, recorded from the live PAP-16649 probe: verified request sequence, redirect-URI probe results table, sequence diagram (mermaid), shipped manifest sketch, representative tool risk classes, admin setup (nothing to register), governance defaults, and validation hooks. ## Verification - Docs-only change; no code paths affected. `git diff --stat` shows exactly one file. - Every endpoint, error code, and constraint in the appendix was checked against the shipped implementation on the #11009 head: `server/src/services/tool-access.ts` (`assertOAuthRedirectConstraints`, DCR registration metadata, refresh serialization), `server/src/routes/tool-access.ts` (`POST /api/tools/oauth/:connectionId/start`, `GET /api/tools/oauth/callback`), and `packages/shared/src/app-definitions/notion.json` (`redirectConstraints: "https-or-loopback-http"`). - The request log mirrors the live probe record from PAP-16649 (2026-08-06/07), not vendor docs alone. - Mermaid source renders cleanly (rendered PNG attached to PAP-16653). ## Risks - Low: documentation only. Main risk is doc/implementation drift if #11009 changes before merging — mitigated by the dependency note above and re-review after #11009 lands. - The template changes add mandatory sections for future connector proposals; existing proposals are not retroactively invalidated. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (claude-fable-5). ## Linked Issues or Issue Description PAP-16653 (parent PAP-16637 P5). Companion catalog package landed in paperclip-content (`integrations/catalog/platforms/notion/areas/mcp/`). 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9485ffea70 |
fix(config): preserve env files during managed updates (#10980)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The CLI and server both update Paperclip values in `.env` files > - The server preserved operator content, but the CLI rebuilt the complete file > - A CLI rerun could remove comments, custom values, ordering, and newline style > - Both paths need one editor with one value encoding and duplicate key policy > - The final integration also needs one regression test across the related setup and sync safety mechanisms > - This pull request moves the editor to the shared package and adds cross-cutting rerun-survival coverage > - The benefit is safe setup and worktree repair reruns that preserve operator edits ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The CLI rebuilt the complete `.env` file when it wrote a managed Paperclip value. This action removed comments, blank lines, custom keys, original quoting, and the original newline style. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must update only the managed assignments. It must preserve all unrelated bytes. It must skip the file replacement when all managed values are current. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Add comments, custom keys, quoted values, and CRLF newlines to the Paperclip `.env` file. 2. Run a CLI path that calls the agent JWT secret setup. 3. Observe that the old writer replaces the complete file. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this pull request. Related public context: Refs #437. ## What Changed - Add one shared line-preserving `.env` editor for the CLI and server. - Define minimal and JSON value encodings in the shared helper. - Update every stale duplicate of a managed key and preserve current duplicate encodings. - Preserve comments, ordering, blank lines, unknown keys, export prefixes, trailing comments, and newline style. - Write changed files through a same-directory temporary file and atomic rename. - Limit CLI updates to non-empty `PAPERCLIP_*` entries. - Skip the write when all managed values are current. - Add shared, CLI, and server regression coverage. - Refresh the branch after the related config, sandbox, and skill safety changes landed. - Add a cross-cutting integration test for config, env-file, managed-sandbox, and managed-instructions rerun survival. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/env-file.test.ts packages/shared/src/config-schema.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/agent-jwt-env.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/config-store.test.ts server/src/__tests__/config-file.test.ts server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` passes 39 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/rerun-survival.integration.test.ts` passes 4 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes on the previous head. GitHub CI reruns it on the refreshed head. - The previous head passed the complete general, serialized, workspace, and E2E matrix. GitHub CI reruns that matrix on the refreshed head. - `pnpm build` passes on the previous head. GitHub CI reruns it on the refreshed head. ## Risks - Low risk. The production change only affects managed `.env` assignments. - Existing managed assignments can keep their original quoting when their decoded values are current. - Changed CLI values keep the prior minimal encoding policy. Changed server values keep the prior JSON encoding policy. - Duplicate managed assignments now follow one explicit rule: Paperclip updates each stale occurrence. - The master refresh had one import-block conflict. The resolution keeps both the config merge imports and the env-file imports. - The added integration file is test-only. It has no database, API, or UI contract effect. > 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 from the GPT-5 family produced this change with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime did not expose the exact model ID 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
5da382fd59 |
feat(skills): require explicit merge modes (#10978)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Agents can select company skills and synchronize them to adapter runtimes > - The skill sync API replaced the complete selection without an explicit destructive choice > - Company package import also replaced conflicting skills by default > - These defaults could remove operator edits during setup and import reruns > - This pull request adds explicit assignment merge modes and safe package conflict handling > - The benefit is that reruns preserve operator work unless the caller explicitly requests replacement ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change improves agent skill synchronization and company package import. **Subsystem affected** This is a cross-cutting change across the shared contracts, server, CLI, and UI. **Current behavior** Agent skill synchronization replaces the full desired skill set from a modeless request. Package import replaces a conflicting skill when the caller does not select a conflict mode. **Proposed behavior** Agent skill synchronization requires `add`, `remove`, or `replace`. Package import skips conflicts by default. Each imported skill reports whether it was created, renamed, replaced, or skipped. **Reason and benefit** Setup and import reruns must preserve operator edits by default. Explicit destructive modes make data loss less likely and make each outcome inspectable. **Breaking changes** Callers of the agent skill sync API must now send `mode`. Callers that need the former behavior must send `replace`. Package import now uses `skip` when `onConflict` is absent. ## What Changed - Added required `add`, `remove`, and `replace` modes to the shared agent skill sync contract. - Added actionable `422` validation for missing or invalid modes. - Updated first-party UI and CLI callers with explicit modes. - Changed package skill conflict handling to use `skip` by default. - Kept plugin-owned and built-in stock skill imports on explicit `replace`. - Added created, renamed, replaced, and skipped results to company imports. - Added regression coverage for merge modes and package conflict outcomes. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run:serialized` (128 suites passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/skills-catalog test` (20 tests passed) - Focused agent skill route, company skill service, portability, CLI, and UI tests passed. - GitHub CI passed build, typecheck, canary, all general and serialized test shards, all browser shards, policy, security, and final verification on commit `2cfbb3e4c5`. - Greptile reviewed the latest commit at 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. ## Risks - This change intentionally rejects modeless agent skill sync requests. - The safe package default can leave an existing skill unchanged where the old default overwrote it. - All first-party callers now select a mode. Regression tests cover each outcome. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-5.6-sol` through Codex. The runtime used agentic reasoning, tool use, code execution, and repository editing. The runtime did 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f6c6452b25 |
fix(server): preserve managed environment drift on boot (#10979)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Paperclip creates a managed sandbox environment for each company during boot > - Operators can change environment fields after Paperclip creates the environment > - The boot reconciler replaced those changes without checking for drift > - This pull request adds stock hashes and transactional drift reconciliation > - The benefit is that Paperclip can update untouched stock fields without losing operator work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The managed sandbox boot reconciler rewrote the stock description, configuration, metadata, and status on every start. It did not detect operator changes first. A restart could therefore remove an operator's changes. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must preserve operator changes by default. It must update an untouched stock environment when Paperclip ships new stock values. It must perform each row update and stock-hash update atomically. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start Paperclip and let it create the managed sandbox environment. 2. Change one Paperclip-owned stock field on that environment. 3. Restart Paperclip. 4. Observe that the previous reconciler replaced the change. **Paperclip version or commit** This bug reproduces on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development and self-hosted server boot are affected. ## What Changed - Add a shared deterministic stock-hash and drift classifier for built-in resources. - Track the managed sandbox stock hash with the company-scoped built-in resource binding. - Reconcile the environment and its stock metadata in one transaction with a row lock. - Preserve operator-modified and unmanaged rows and report their skipped update state. - Use archive ownership tokens so provider recovery reactivates only Paperclip-archived rows and preserves later operator archive decisions. - Keep operator-owned environment variables and unrelated metadata out of the stock fingerprint. - Add activity records for managed environment creation, updates, skipped drift, tracking initialization, and archive changes. - Add regression tests for current stock, available stock updates, operator drift, unmanaged rows, archive and reactivation, user-owned fields, and concurrent reconciliation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm test:run -- --mode serialized` (128 suites passed) - Repository general server, UI, CLI, shared, skills catalog, database, adapter, plugin SDK, and plugin creator projects passed. Two embedded-Postgres tests exceeded the host's five-second default under the aggregate run and passed in the complete database project with `--testTimeout=20000`. One timing-sensitive sandbox stream test passed on its focused retry. - Focused managed-environment unit and integration coverage passed: 49 tests across the drift classifier, boot report, and environment service suites. ## Risks - The main risk is an incorrect ownership boundary in the stock fingerprint. The fingerprint includes only Paperclip-owned stock fields. Tests confirm that environment variables and unrelated metadata survive reconciliation. - Concurrent reconciliation could otherwise overwrite a late operator edit. The implementation locks the environment row and updates the row and hash binding in one transaction. A concurrency test covers this path. - There is no schema migration. Existing managed rows initialize tracking without replacing their current values. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 Codex. The exact serving snapshot and context-window size were not exposed. The model used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
35132af161 |
fix(config): preserve extensions and guard invalid repairs (#11005)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The CLI and server share a JSON configuration contract for local installations and worktrees. > - Existing config writes removed extension keys because Zod stripped unknown object properties. > - Invalid config files could also be replaced with defaults before an operator preserved the original bytes. > - Configuration updates must preserve operator edits and must not rewrite files when the effective value is unchanged. > - This pull request adds extension-preserving merges, guarded invalid-config repair, atomic writes, and focused regression tests. > - The benefit is safe setup and configuration reruns without data loss or unnecessary mtime changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Known-field updates through the CLI or server removed unknown top-level and nested config keys. Non-interactive configure and onboard paths could replace a present but invalid config with defaults. **Expected behavior** Writers preserve extension keys, skip semantic no-op writes, and require explicit interactive confirmation before an invalid config is replaced. Repair preserves an exact collision-safe backup first. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Add an unknown top-level key and an unknown nested provider key to `config.json`. 2. Update a known field through the CLI or worktree config writer. 3. Observe that the extension keys are removed on the base branch. 4. Write invalid JSON and run configure or onboard without an interactive terminal. 5. Observe that the original file can be replaced without a durable invalid-file backup on the base branch. **Paperclip version or commit** `master` at the pull request base commit. ## What Changed - Accept unknown properties at each extensible config object boundary while keeping every known field validated. - Merge known-field updates into the parsed source config and preserve only unknown extension data. - Warn about near-match key names without deleting or changing them. - Skip writes when the effective config is unchanged, which keeps file mtimes stable. - Write config changes through a temporary file, file sync, rename, and directory sync. - Distinguish a missing config from an invalid config in configure and onboard. - Back up invalid bytes as `config.json.invalid-N` and verify the source still matches that backup before repair. - Require interactive repair confirmation and reject non-interactive replacement with an actionable message. - Document the config preservation and repair behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/config-schema.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/config-store.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/configure-repair.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/configure.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/onboard.test.ts server/src/__tests__/config-file.test.ts server/src/__tests__/worktree-config.test.ts` - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID= AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY= VITEST_MAX_WORKERS=1 pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Confirm all pull request checks are green on the latest commit. - Confirm Greptile reports 5/5 with no unresolved comments. ## Risks - Passthrough keeps misspelled keys. Near-match warnings make this visible without destructive cleanup. - Merge behavior must distinguish unknown extension keys from optional known keys. Schema-aware regression tests cover preservation and known-key deletion. - Repair must not overwrite bytes that changed after backup. The writer compares the current source with the selected backup before atomic replacement. - The change does not alter database schema, company scoping, or activity logging. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 model family. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
03cfad7ceb |
feat(apps): connect Notion through MCP OAuth (#11009)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps give agents governed access to external tools. > - The Apps gallery lists Notion, but the server required manually configured OAuth credentials. > - Notion's hosted MCP server supports OAuth discovery and dynamic client registration. > - Notion also requires HTTPS or a loopback HTTP redirect URI. > - This pull request adds a direct Notion MCP OAuth path with PKCE and reusable dynamic clients. > - It also adds the current Apps UI states for connect and reauthorization. > - The benefit is a secure Notion connection with no manual client credential setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Apps gallery, Apps connect route, OAuth token lifecycle, and managed MCP gateway. **Subsystem affected** `server/`, `packages/shared/`, `scripts/`, and `ui/`. **Current behavior** The Notion gallery cards are disabled. The server uses the classic Notion OAuth endpoints and requires operator-supplied client credentials. It does not register an OAuth client from provider metadata. Concurrent refreshes can also replay a rotating refresh token. **Proposed behavior** Enable the Notion Apps flow. Discover OAuth metadata from `https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. Register and reuse a public RFC 7591 client with PKCE. Require HTTPS or loopback HTTP callbacks. Serialize refreshes, store each rotated refresh token before the new access token can be used, and show a reconnect state for `invalid_grant`. **Reason and benefit** Operators can connect the built-in Notion MCP app without creating or copying OAuth credentials. Paperclip keeps dynamic clients and rotating tokens in the company secret store. **Breaking changes** None. Explicit environment client credentials still take priority. Existing Slack and Linear OAuth endpoint hints remain unchanged. Other OAuth apps remain disabled unless they are allowlisted. **Additional context** PR #10910 is a related, broader Connections v3 wizard replacement. This PR is the focused current Apps flow. The MCP Tool Gateway and Connected Apps items in `ROADMAP.md` cover this planned capability. ## What Changed - Classify all 20 reviewed Notion MCP tools with provider-scoped read and write defaults. - Require approval for selected Notion mutations, including move, duplicate, and convert actions that generic verb matching missed. - Preserve company-scoped connection and catalog resolution for Notion profiles and policies. - Add RFC 7591 dynamic client registration with `token_endpoint_auth_method=none` and mandatory PKCE. - Store the dynamic client ID on the connection and store any returned client secret in the company secret store. - Reuse the registered client for later connects and keep explicit environment credentials as the first choice. - Discover protected-resource and authorization-server metadata from the Notion MCP endpoint. - Add `redirectConstraints: "https-or-loopback-http"` to the generated Notion app definition and shared contract. - Reject non-loopback plain HTTP callbacks before network access with a TLS setup error. - Serialize client registration and token refresh operations within the server process. - Store a rotated refresh token before publishing the refreshed access token. - Treat `invalid_grant` as terminal and move the connection to a clear reauthorization state. - Add focused coverage for registration reuse, callback constraints, refresh rotation, and terminal grants. - Enable the Notion Apps route and add connect, redirect, success, error, and reconnect UI states. - Keep non-allowlisted OAuth apps blocked and cover the UI policy with regression tests. ## Verification - The focused Notion policy integration test passed with embedded PostgreSQL. - The focused 20-tool classification test passed. - The server typecheck passed on the governance head. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed on the rebased head. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the security follow-up. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t \u0027DCR|refresh tokens|invalid_grant|abandoned lease\u0027` passed 10 focused security tests. - `pnpm build` passed on the rebased head. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t 'OAuth|oauth'` passed 14 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/app-definitions.test.ts` passed 5 tests. - The complete server group passed 3,686 tests with 4 skipped. - The complete UI group passed 3,656 tests. - The full local runner found one environment-only CLI failure because this agent runtime injects static AWS credentials into a test that expects `AWS_PROFILE` only. `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts` passed all 8 tests. - The prior UI verification passed 55 focused tests, `pnpm check:token-gates`, the Storybook build, and review of six 1440 x 1000 screenshots. - OAuth request sequence: protected-resource metadata `GET https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp`; authorization metadata `GET https://mcp.notion.com/.well-known/oauth-authorization-server`; dynamic registration `POST https://mcp.notion.com/register`; authorization `GET https://mcp.notion.com/authorize`; token exchange and refresh `POST https://mcp.notion.com/token`; MCP traffic `POST https://mcp.notion.com/mcp`. - The live metadata and registration probe confirmed that Notion accepts HTTPS and loopback HTTP redirects. It rejects a plain HTTP private hostname. - A later QA task owns the full browser consent and managed gateway tool-list dry run against a configured HTTPS deployment. ## Risks - Notion can add tools. Unrecognized names use the generic classifier, and new or changed risky tools stay quarantined after connection activation. - A deployment that uses a private non-loopback hostname must configure HTTPS before it can connect Notion. - Dynamic registration creates a provider-side client. Paperclip reuses it because registration does not provide a standard delete operation. - Refresh coordination uses a database CAS lease across service instances. An unclean crash leaves an uncertain lease and requires reconnect instead of risking refresh-token replay. - The current Apps surface overlaps with PR #10910. Merge order can require a small conflict resolution if that PR lands first. > 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 on a GPT-5 runtime. The exact deployment ID and context window are not exposed. The runtime used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and network 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f258b34bbd |
fix(ui): unify cloud-managed sign-out (#10994)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip can run as a self-hosted app or as a Cloud-managed tenant. > - These modes need different sign-out sequences because Cloud owns three sessions. > - Several visible controls implemented sign-out separately and could choose different paths. > - This pull request adds one Cloud-aware sign-out action and moves every visible control to it. > - The benefit is one safe sign-out path in Cloud and unchanged local sign-out in self-hosted deployments. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #2073. That older PR adds a separate company-settings sign-out surface. This change centralizes the existing account, company, and instance-settings surfaces and preserves the self-hosted behavior described there. **What happened?** Visible sign-out controls used separate implementations. A Cloud-managed control could call the app-local sign-out endpoint and open the local auth page. That path did not enter the Cloud-owned logout sequence for the tenant, Cloud, and identity sessions. **Expected behavior** Every visible sign-out control must use one action. Cloud-managed instances must navigate the top-level window to the same-origin `/cloud/logout` route without a local sign-out call first. Authenticated self-hosted instances must keep the local sign-out API and cache invalidation behavior. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open a Cloud-managed tenant. 2. Use the account menu, company menu, or instance-settings sign-out control. 3. Observe that independently implemented controls can enter different sign-out paths. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem reproduces at `656ecfa585b31938e2685ffab3db22e794474803`. **Deployment mode** Cloud-managed tenant built from source. The regression tests also cover authenticated self-hosted mode. ## What Changed - Added `useSignOut` as the shared Cloud-aware sign-out action. - Navigated Cloud-managed sessions to `/cloud/logout` exactly once without calling local auth first. - Preserved local API sign-out and cache invalidation for authenticated self-hosted sessions. - Migrated the account menu, company menu, and instance general settings to the shared action. - Added focused tests for mode selection, menu closure, pending state, failure state, and settings behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/hooks/useSignOut.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarAccountMenu.test.tsx ui/src/components/SidebarCompanyMenu.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceGeneralSettings.test.tsx` — 26 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk. The change centralizes existing behavior and adds no schema, API, telemetry, or style-token changes. - Cloud mode depends on the existing health decision. Tests pin both mode branches. - The change does not alter Fetch Metadata, CSRF, cookie, prefetch, or return-URL protections owned by the Cloud logout route. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. The agent used high-reasoning mode, shell tools, and API 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandClaude Fable 5
|
52b8741b8e |
perf(server): cut steady-state DB hot paths in dashboard, attention, and productivity sweeps (#10992)
<!-- ASD-STE100 --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server keeps fleet health with periodic sweeps and shows a dashboard with run activity > - The Paperclip instance became slow again after the first round of recovery-sweep indexes landed > - Live profiling found four steady-state hot paths that read much more data than they use > - This pull request bounds the dashboard recursion, adds the missing taskKey index, and narrows two wide reads > - The benefit is a large drop in constant database load and a responsive server ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Describe the bug** The server becomes slow while agents work. Live query sampling shows four hot paths: 1. The dashboard run-activity recursive CTE reads every run a company ever had on each call. One call takes 2.85 seconds. The UI calls it after almost every fleet event through the dashboard and sidebar-badges routes. 2. The productivity-review sweep runs each 30 seconds. Its run-scope filter is `issueId OR taskId OR taskKey` on the run context JSONB. No index exists for `taskKey`. The planner must detoast every run snapshot for the agent. One query takes 444 ms and the sweep makes one for each of ~152 candidate issues. 3. The attention failed-run section selects the full `context_snapshot` for every run newer than the oldest exhausted run. That fetch moves 29 MB for each feed build. 4. The retention sweep pages the attention feed with a cursor. Each page makes a full feed rebuild. **Expected behavior** Periodic sweeps and dashboard queries read only the data they use, and use indexes. **Actual behavior** The database stays saturated. Users see a slow server. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/dashboard.ts`: bound both arms of the `recovered_runs` recursive CTE to the chart window. A retry is always newer than the run it retries, so the bound cannot change visible chart data. Live time went from 2,852 ms to 54 ms. - `packages/db/src/migrations/0210_heartbeat_context_taskkey_index.sql`: add the `taskKey` expression index that completes the issueId/taskId/taskKey trio. With all three, the planner uses a BitmapOr. Live time for the productivity run-scope query went from 444 ms to 1.9 ms. - `packages/db/src/schema/heartbeat_runs.ts`: mirror the new index in the Drizzle schema. - `server/src/services/productivity-review.ts`: select only the seven run fields the evidence code reads. Before, the query pulled full rows with `result_json` (up to 43 kB per row, 100 rows per issue). - `server/src/services/attention.ts`: project `issueId`/`taskId` text fields instead of the full `context_snapshot` in the failed-run newer-runs query (29 MB per feed build before). - `server/src/index.ts`: the retention sweep now builds the attention feed once per company with `all: true` instead of one full rebuild per cursor page. - `packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts`: cover the new index and re-run migration 0210 statements to prove idempotency. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` (includes migration numbering and safety checks) — pass. - `npx tsc --noEmit` in `server/` — pass. - `npx vitest run packages/db/src/heartbeat-context-snapshot-index-migration.test.ts` — pass (embedded Postgres, full migration chain, planner assertions, idempotent re-run of 0209 and 0210). - `npx vitest run` on attention, dashboard, productivity-review, decision-retention, issue-blocker-attention, and issue-review-attention test files — 72/72 pass. - Live EXPLAIN ANALYZE before/after numbers are in the What Changed list. ## Risks - Migration 0210 builds one btree index without CONCURRENTLY inside the transactional migration runner. The table is not in the large-table bucket. The 0209 twin built in seconds on a 100k-row live table. - The CTE bound excludes retry ancestors that are older than the chart window. Those rows are not visible to the chart query, so chart output does not change. - The attention projection changes JSONB scalar handling in one edge case: a non-string `issueId`/`taskId` value now casts to text instead of reading as absent. These keys are always strings in practice. - The retention sweep now holds one full feed in memory per company. The cursor loop already accumulated all pages into one array, so peak memory is unchanged. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic, Mythos-class tier, extended thinking + tool use) via Paperclip agent runtime. - [x] I searched existing PRs and issues and this change is not a duplicate. Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
656ecfa585 |
fix(server): keep Date fields intact through secret redaction; harden chat notice timestamps (#10984)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The task chat thread renders issue comments, system notices, and run
transcripts
> - The server routes comment payloads through the run-secret redaction
walker before it sends them
> - The walker rebuilds each object with `Object.entries`, and this
collapses `Date` instances to `{}`
> - The chat renderer then calls `.toISOString()` on an invalid date and
throws, and the thread falls back to the error banner
> - This pull request keeps `Date` instances intact in redacted
responses and makes the renderer safe against bad timestamps
> - The benefit is that task threads with system notices render
correctly again
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened**
Task threads that contain a system notice showed the banner "Chat
renderer hit an internal state error." in place of the conversation.
This occurred on many tasks.
**Expected behavior**
The thread renders all comments and system notices with correct
timestamps.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Open a task that has at least one system notice comment (for example
a "Workspace ready" notice).
2. `GET /api/issues/{id}/comments` returns `createdAt: {}` for every
comment because the secret-redaction walker collapses `Date` objects.
3. The system-notice row calls `new Date({}).toISOString()`. This throws
`RangeError: Invalid time value` and trips the thread error boundary.
**Version / deployment**
Regression from #9934 (`e43f187ca`). It applies to all deployments that
include that commit.
## What Changed
- `server/src/services/run-secret-redaction.ts`:
`redactRegisteredSecretValues` now returns `Date` instances as-is. Dates
hold no redactable text, and the `Object.entries` rebuild turned them
into `{}`.
- `ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.tsx`: the system-notice row formats
its timestamp with a new `toValidIsoString` helper. A value that does
not parse as a date now degrades to "no timestamp" instead of a render
crash.
- Regression tests at three layers:
- Walker unit tests: `Date` values survive with and without registered
secret values.
- Route test: `GET /issues/:id/comments` serializes `createdAt` /
`updatedAt` as ISO strings.
- Render test: a system notice with a malformed `createdAt` renders
without the error boundary.
## Verification
- `npx vitest run --root server
src/__tests__/run-secret-redaction.test.ts` — 5 passed.
- `npx vitest run --root server
src/__tests__/issue-comment-redaction.test.ts` — 4 passed (embedded
Postgres route test).
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx
src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts` — 121 passed.
- Each new test was run against the unfixed code and failed there, which
confirms it guards the regression.
- A local sweep rendered 47 real issue threads through
`IssueChatThread`: 7 tripped the boundary before the fix, 0 after.
## Risks
- Low risk. The server change only preserves `Date` objects that the
walker destroyed before. String redaction behavior does not change, and
the registry-key stripping does not change.
- The UI change only affects the timestamp of system-notice rows and
omits it when the value is invalid.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`), Anthropic. Agentic coding session
with tool use (file edits, shell, Vitest). No extended-context or
special reasoning mode.
## 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: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
|