2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	b3c0fadd63	feat(routines): add date variable controls (#8655) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Scheduled routines can prompt agents with variables that are filled in at dispatch time. > - Existing routine variable handling supported plain text-like values, but date inputs need a structured contract so routines can pass consistent date values. > - Operators also need date variables to be easy to configure and override from the routine UI. > - This pull request adds a date variable type across shared validation, server dispatch, and UI editing/run dialogs. > - The benefit is that routine authors can define date inputs once and agents receive validated ISO-style date values when routines run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #219 Feature request: - Problem/motivation: Scheduled routines need first-class, typed date variables so operators can configure dates without relying on free-form text conventions. - Proposed solution: Add an `x-date` routine variable type with shared parsing/validation, server dispatch support, and UI date-picker controls in routine variable editors and run dialogs. - Alternatives considered: Continue treating dates as plain text, but that leaves validation and formatting to individual operators and agents. - Roadmap alignment: This is a focused improvement to the completed Scheduled Routines milestone and does not duplicate an active roadmap item. Related PR search: - Searched existing PRs/issues for `routine date picker`, `date variables`, and `scheduled routine date variable`; no direct duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Added the shared `x-date` routine variable contract, parsing, defaults, and validation coverage. - Extended routine dispatch to validate and pass date variable values. - Added date input controls to the routine variable editor and routine run variables dialog. - Added focused tests for shared validation, server dispatch, and the UI date controls. ## Verification - `git diff --check public/master...HEAD` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/RoutineVariablesEditor.test.tsx` - 5 test files passed - 68 tests passed ## Risks Low to medium risk. This adds a new routine variable type across shared/server/UI paths, so the main risk is compatibility with existing routine variable payloads. The change keeps existing variable types intact and adds targeted validation tests for the new date behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with terminal, git, GitHub CLI, and local test execution capabilities. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-06-26 12:00:16 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	d6d7a7cea6	Add routine revision history and restore flow (#5285) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Routines are the scheduled/recurring work surface that keeps a company operating without manual kicks. > - Operators need routine edits to be auditable and recoverable, especially when routines control assignments, prompts, triggers, and webhook secrets. > - Documents already have revision-style safety, but routines did not have equivalent history or restore semantics. > - This pull request adds append-only routine revisions across the database, shared contracts, server routes, and board UI. > - The benefit is safer routine iteration: users can inspect history, compare changes, restore older definitions, and avoid overwriting newer edits. ## What Changed - Added `routine_revisions` storage, latest revision pointers on routines, shared types, validators, and API docs for routine revision history. - Added server service/route support for listing routine revisions, conflict-aware routine saves, and append-only restore operations. - Added a History tab on routine detail with revision preview, structured change summaries, description line diffs, dirty-edit blocking, restore confirmation, and restored webhook secret surfacing. - Extracted the line diff helper from `DocumentDiffModal` into `ui/src/lib/line-diff.ts` for reuse. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and renumbered the routine revision migration to `0077_unusual_karnak` after upstream `0076_useful_elektra`. - Made the `0077` routine revision migration idempotent so installs that already applied the branch-local `0076_unusual_karnak` can safely advance. - Updated the plugin SDK test harness routine fixture with the new revision fields required by the shared `Routine` contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/lib/line-diff.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` passed after updating the SDK test harness fixture. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` passed; this refreshed local generated SDK output needed by plugin example typechecks. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds routine revision storage and backfills existing routines. The migration is ordered after upstream `0076` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards to tolerate earlier branch-local migration application. - Restore behavior intentionally appends a new revision instead of mutating history; callers expecting an in-place rollback need to follow the new latest revision pointer. - Restoring webhook triggers recreates webhook secret material, so users must copy newly surfaced secrets after restore. - Conflict-aware saves now reject stale routine edits when the client sends an older `baseRevisionId`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with shell/tool use in a local git worktree. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Screenshots: not attached in this draft PR; the new UI flow is covered by component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-05 11:54:52 -05:00