mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 12:04:41 +01:00
e6ec781a1abcdcddb98e712bcb00b201303e44de
21
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
4173059081 |
fix(inbox): keep advisory GitHub review waits quiet (#17318)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Mine shows a person's participation and requests that need their response. > - Automatic GitHub reviews should remain quiet until the assigned work needs human input. > - Review bots used completion requests to keep tasks in review while CI or a PR was still open. > - Those requests correctly entered Mine, despite the automatic-work filter from #16356. > - This pull request gives published reviews an existing provider-event wait in the in-review state and withdraws superseded completion requests. > - Real input requests and separate approval gates keep their current behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16356 Refs #13314 An advisory score below 5/5, pending or failed CI, or an unmerged PR does not by itself require a person's approval in Paperclip. The bot can track those conditions without adding a completion card to Mine. ## What Changed - Explain the quiet review lifecycle in the GitHub review instructions. Use a yielded provider-event wait, or an existing saved monitor, after publication. Report done when the configured completion conditions are met. - Keep a confirmed, published review in `in_review` during that wait. Reuse existing authorization and monitor delivery. Add no schema, timer, or polling loop. - Recognize the committed external wait in review attention and recovery. Shared execution receives a verified publication flag; GitHub receipt lookup stays with the GitHub module. Other chat waits keep their current status. - Withdraw an older system-created completion request only when the same bot has published both reviews and its new report has no attention request. Keep explicit cards, separate approval gates, and requests without the prior review evidence. Finish validation stays read-only; withdrawal commits atomically with the new status after checking current governance, the admitted result, and both low-risk contracts. - Update the product rule, capability maps, and regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit `7c502118eec36028d1b4537bb8797ef893940bf0`: 54 GitHub checks passed, two intentionally skipped, none pending or failed. Greptile is 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Rechecked server typecheck and build after the final authorization guard. - Passed: 195 tests across `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `status-arbiter.test.ts`, `review-instructions.test.ts`, and `issue-liveness.test.ts`. The database suite used an isolated PostgreSQL 18 container through `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL`. - Acceptance coverage: 3/5 stays in review outside Mine; 5/5 with pending completion conditions stays in review; 5/5 with satisfied conditions finishes quietly; a real repository-access request enters Mine until resolved. Also covers obsolete-card withdrawal, transaction rollback, rejected reports, separate approval gates, multiple reviewed heads, saved monitors, and revoked endpoints, repositories, or membership. - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check`. - The initial acceptance run exposed a missing authenticated user in the test fixture. Added the user required by the existing addressee authorization check. All 154 tests in that database suite then passed, including the final rerun. - Review found premature withdrawal during validation, stale repository access, and a missed receipt when a run reviewed multiple heads. The revision fixes all three and includes acceptance regressions. The saved-monitor commit guard now accepts the verified published-review state. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted but could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL failed to allocate semaphores (`semget: No space left on device`); a direct initialization probe confirmed the host resource limit. The isolated database run proves the affected suite, not the full repository suite. - These tests exercise persisted review receipts, finalization, and Mine queries. They do not prove a live model followed the new instructions or submit a live GitHub review. ## Risks - The bot must follow the new lifecycle instructions. A real explicit attention request still enters Mine. - Existing obsolete cards are withdrawn when the same bot publishes a later review and reports no human dependency. This change does not run a bulk cleanup of historical inbox entries. - Review attention now recognizes an external response path. It requires an applied current status decision, a successful bound run, and current conversation, repository, and principal authorization. - No migration or UI change. The full local test suite is unverified because of the host database limit; CI passes on the final commit. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (195 focused tests; full-suite limitation 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
|
4b05795712 |
fix(github): reuse review instructions across native turns (#16971)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub events continue an ordinary task and can reuse its provider conversation. > - Each automatic event appended the full review policy and PR description. > - Native GitHub follow-ups also repeated task history because only Slack used the compact path. > - This pull request separates admitted review configuration from commit updates. > - A verified resume sends the current messages and changed configuration. A fresh session gets full context. > - This reduces repeated input while retaining review rules and current tool checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13959, #16645, #16901. **What happened?** Opening a PR and pushing twice stored three full review prompts. A later native turn repeated all three in a retained provider conversation. **Expected behavior** A new event supplies its commit and event data. The harness delivers stable review instructions once per retained conversation and configuration. Fresh sessions receive full instructions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable automatic GitHub reviews for a repository. 2. Open a PR, let the review finish, and push two new commits. 3. Inspect task messages and the native submitted envelopes. Before this fix, the policy and old requests repeat. ## What Changed - Store compact automatic event messages. Fetch the PR description through the existing metadata tool when needed. - Load review instructions from processed deliveries bound to the company, task, agent, and source comments. Preserve each admitted policy snapshot. - Use the existing verified native continuation path for complete GitHub text batches. Deliver configuration changes using a key over endpoint, PR conversation, revision, and instructions. - Keep full bootstrap input for fresh sessions and failed resume, including board follow-ups with no new GitHub event. Retain existing framing for incomplete batches, attachments, interactions, and recovery. - Keep the same configuration identity across automatic review, discussion, and automatic review. Coalesced requests use the last accepted request's admitted policy. - Add regression and database coverage. Update the execution contract and verification recipe. ## Verification - Red: the new event-size regression failed because policy and PR body repeated. The GitHub continuation regression failed because it returned no compact prompt. - Green: focused policy, continuation, native input, and adapter prompt tests passed (231 tests). Native resume/fresh-bootstrap cases passed (9 tests). - The signed-webhook/database case passed at `6296168253`. It checks configuration edits, queued older snapshots, coalesced policy selection, discussion continuity, board follow-ups, and company/task/agent/comment boundaries. The private PostgreSQL template used 12 connections because the host reached its semaphore limit with the default settings. - The earlier broad channel/session integration run passed 1,432 tests. Later review fixes invalidated that run. The latest focused database case passed after those fixes. - Reviewer regressions failed against the previous lookup, then passed with the fix: a mixed-revision batch delivered multiple policies, and a discussion lost the configuration identity. The board wake-to-rendered-prompt regression also failed before repair. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed on the final source. - Full local `pnpm test:run` exposed follow-up/fixture failures during development. Those cases are fixed and pass separately. The stale run was stopped after source edits. Full-suite validation for the final commit passed in CI. - All required CI checks passed for `6296168253`, including tests, typechecks, build, and clean public npm install checks. The two unrelated Storybook checks were skipped. - A live two-turn Codex smoke could not start: the local macOS sandbox helper rejected execution of the installed Codex 0.153.4 binary. No live GitHub/provider acceptance or deployment is claimed. ## Risks Skipping instructions is safe only after a verified checkpoint resume with the correct previous run. The full bootstrap remains available if resume fails. Changed or previously unknown configuration is sent again. Tests cover these cases. Tool authorization and publication checks still run under the current server policy. No database migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact deployment model identifier and context window are not exposed in this session. No delegated agents were used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have 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
|
bc091f0a21 |
fix(recovery): recover retained workspaces before saved messages (#16906)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A stopped run can leave useful files in its original sandbox. > - The server keeps that sandbox when it cannot confirm file copyback. > - The task can then save new user input but offers no safe way to recover the files. > - A retry of the old agent turn can repeat work that already finished. > - This pull request recovers files through the existing workspace owner and delivers only saved human input. > - The user can recover a task without certifying infrastructure facts or losing completed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16883 and #16835 for publication receipts and verified process termination. Related: #16478 clears stale holds after copyback already succeeded. This change performs the missing export and records its proof. #16901 manages the main GitHub response comment and does not perform workspace repair. **What happened?** A failed run retained its workspace. A later user message stayed saved behind a file-repair hold. The task asked the user to verify process termination and file recovery but offered no repair control. Sending a message could show an optimistic Working state and move the task to Todo before admission succeeded. **Expected behavior** The harness should recover the original files when it can prove ownership and termination. It should preserve newer edits and completed operations. Only waiting user input may start another turn. Missing evidence must keep the source held with a specific explanation. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Interrupt a sandbox run before workspace finalization succeeds. 2. Retain its exact allocation and save a user follow-up. 3. Observe the file-repair hold and missing end-user repair path. ## What Changed - Add source-bound background recovery for native and legacy runs. An accepted native result is not required. - Share the physical copyback lock and durable owner. Resume only the exact stopped allocation, export files, verify persistence and obtain a fresh stop receipt. - Persist retry limits and idempotent requests on the existing recovery record. Limit each server to two background exports. Add an indexed candidate scan and a separate cleanup obligation. - Add a task-editor recovery endpoint. Deny agents and viewers. Reject caller-supplied stop or repair claims. - Deliver waiting human input once through ordinary admission. Preserve pause, approval, budget and assignment gates. Require historical conversational-adapter evidence for legacy-to-Runner continuation. - Include exact GitHub publication receipts in continuation context. Preserve unknown effects and the original failed run. - Show observed recovery progress, a transient-failure retry action and specific service blockers. Keep saved messages visible. Suppress false startup feedback and implicit Todo promotion behind a file hold. Hide unavailable workspace links. - Update execution semantics, capability maps and production-component stories. ## Verification - Red: the original read model failed the new recovery-progress assertion; the other 23 checks in that file passed. - Passed: recovery regressions with 28 cases with real PostgreSQL, files, tar and Git operations. Lifecycle provider calls are controlled test boundaries. Coverage includes native/legacy export, concurrent owners, rollback after export, interrupted archive export with a new database connection, lost replies, historical discovery, durable retry limits, separate cleanup and saved-input delivery. The actual candidate query uses its partial index with 3,000 unrelated history rows. A first automatic repair can bind verified old-controller stop proof without an accepted native result. Review also reproduced and fixed export-only continuation and cleanup lost after a committed repair. Cleanup remains discoverable without waiting input and after task reconciliation. - Passed: two GitHub integration cases verify that continuation context carries the existing publication receipt and does not write another response. Company and task boundaries are checked. - Passed: 293 continuation, workspace-sync, platform-receipt and OpenAPI checks. After file repair, actual dispatch retains pause, cancellation, approval, real budget-policy and assignment gates. - Passed: 174 route checks, including editor admission, agent/viewer denial and rejection of fabricated repair claims. - Passed: 351 task detail, workspace properties and comment-reopen checks after updating the new read boundaries and asynchronous workspace-link expectations. Two new route cases keep held tasks Blocked when a comment is saved. - Passed: 265 task-thread and recovery-notice checks. The broader continuation suite also passed; its new legacy migration case first exposed a gap that the focused recovery suite now covers. - Passed after rebase: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. The later master merge adds an unrelated permission migration; recovery migration generation and safety checks passed after the merge. - Passed: token gates, module boundaries, map structure and migration checks. The recovery index is migration 0360 after current master. - Browser: inspected the production recovery component and its retry-to-queued transition with fixture data. The first dev dependency load failed; a reload after optimization resolved it. This is UI evidence, not a live provider recovery claim. - Every test shard passed on final commit `bbbc09efb4`. The older local `pnpm test:run` was stopped after the complete CI test matrix passed. Local full typecheck and production build passed. The first CI build compiled and booted, then lost its runner during the clean public npm-install check. An isolated retry passed the build, production boot and clean public npm-install verification. - Greptile reviewed final commit `bbbc09efb4` at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. - The change is not deployed. Hosted recovery remains unverified until the served revision includes this change. ## Risks - Recovery crosses process, provider and persistence boundaries. Missing or mismatched ownership, stop, descriptor or file evidence keeps the hold. It never selects a replacement allocation or silently starts over. - File recovery does not certify external action outcomes or authorize replay. New input still uses normal execution admission. - Historical sources without sufficient durable evidence can remain blocked. Destructive reconstruction stays separate. - The index migration is idempotent. It changes no task data. Snapshot pruning follows repository policy. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, `gpt-6.1-sol`, with code execution and browser tools. `gpt-6-astra` assisted earlier investigation. The runtime does not expose the context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3b8324a233 |
fix(github): keep one main PR review comment and reconcile stopped work (#16901)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub connections send review requests to an assigned agent. > - A PR needs one main comment that shows its current review state. > - The response ledger used one comment per incoming request. Pushes and follow-up messages created more placeholders. > - Thread subscriptions also accepted requests addressed to external bots. Recovery could leave an acknowledged request without a final notice. > - This pull request shares the main PR comment, filters other recipients, and reconciles stopped work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16874 showed the repeated placeholders. #15416 introduced the per-request response path. The prior summary path used one PR-level marker. **What happened?** Repeated pushes created new main PR comments. A subscribed `@greptile review` message also woke the Paperclip bot. If execution stopped before staging a milestone, its comment could keep claiming that work was active. **Expected behavior** One bot keeps one main comment per PR. Progress and review results update it. A message addressed to another recipient does not wake the bot unless it also explicitly mentions this bot. Stopped work gets an accurate notice. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept two review requests in one PR conversation. 2. Add `@greptile review` to that subscribed conversation. 3. Fail the assigned run before it stages a milestone. Run channel maintenance. ## What Changed - Add a durable main PR response target. Keep per-request receipts and the existing publication lease. - Recover the target from App-owned provider markers. Adopt older placeholders and point verified duplicates to the current review. - Use a queued notice before a PR run starts. Preserve version ordering and final responses. - Filter leading mentions addressed to another recipient. Explicit mentions of this bot take precedence. Incidental mentions keep normal thread behavior. - Reconcile acknowledged requests after terminal execution. Show paused state for saved requests on a blocked task. Preserve newer work and confirmed or uncertain tool delivery. - Keep a request open when its stale acknowledgement is suppressed. Close placeholders after replies published elsewhere. Retire old coalesced placeholders before replacing their receipts. Resolve native request identity when legacy wake fields are absent. - Update guidance, connection documentation, and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: all three behavioral regressions failed on the original code. A second review created a second comment; an external-bot request was processed; stopped execution retained its working placeholder. - Green: the same three cases passed after the fixes. - Review regressions also failed before their repairs: a delayed acknowledgement closed a new request; normal and stored formal-review receipts left a live placeholder; coalesced completion lost a duplicate receipt; native terminal work without legacy wake fields stayed queued. All 13 combined regression and safety cases passed after repair. - The same legacy receipt-loss bug was also reproduced in the superseded-acknowledgement branch. Its four affected cases passed after adding retirement before that receipt replacement. - A further review regression reproduced paused requests rejecting resumed progress and skipping stopped-run cleanup. Four cases failed before repair; all eight resume and neighboring safety cases passed afterward. Both paused-notice branches keep the request open. - Repeated paused maintenance reproduced two needless GitHub edits. The writer now skips an identical complete comment body. Nine affected cases passed, covering repeated maintenance, resumption, stopped work, final assessment preservation, and main-comment reuse. - Safety cases cover lost receipts, legacy adoption, newer progress, published assessments, provider-verified mention aliases, and old replies that must not complete new requests. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, map validation, and module boundaries passed. The server TypeScript check passed after the final repair. The broader local GitHub workflow and policy run passed 188 tests. Full CI passed on the final commit (`554979d79285b68bcbf90cd639e3d2d053f4ea4b`), including all three chat shards, server/workspace/Runner suites, typecheck, build, and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 with no open review findings. One serialized job received a runner shutdown signal mid-test; its single retry passed. - Preserved failure evidence: the first CI run exposed an overbroad recipient filter and an old queued-text assertion. The next commit passed all three CI chat shards. Greptile then found the receipt transitions covered by the new regressions above. Local full-suite runs were stopped when those defects required source changes; no clean full local pass is claimed. - Tests use real PostgreSQL and controlled provider responses. They do not establish a live GitHub App rollout. The original instance needs the fixed server before its comments change. ## Risks - Leading mentions now select a recipient even when that account has no Paperclip connection. A leading human mention also selects that person. Mid-message incidental mentions retain normal subscription behavior. - Existing comment adoption edits only comments proven by this endpoint's request ledger or prior summary marker and App identity. Deleted and replaced comments remain protected. - Failure cleanup uses current authority and does not replace newer progress or unresolved provider writes. It does not restart failed execution. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## 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
|
7df55f3dcc |
refactor(server): isolate provider webhook lifecycle decisions (#16283)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn external messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still contains some provider decisions. > - These decisions belong with the existing channel modules. > - This pull request moves webhook recovery and payload-scope decisions to their provider modules. > - Shared authorization, persistence, and runtime ownership keep their current order. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16235. Stack part 2/3. Base: `master`. #16276 is merged. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Provider ownership and readability in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The entry point combines shared workflows with provider decisions. **Proposed behavior** Provider modules own their decisions. Shared modules own product state and authorization. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find provider behavior in its channel folder. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service methods and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Move GitHub revoked-installation recovery classification to `github/webhook-scope.ts`. - Move Teams payload-scope validation to its message module. - Record normalized GitHub, Telegram, and Teams lifecycle events through one shared durable call. - Keep Slack callback ordering and persistence failures outside parser catches. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3,598 to 3,570 lines. ## Verification - The same 86 selected webhook/lifecycle integration cases passed before and after in an owned Linux container. - The same 17 selected Telegram edit and Teams edit/delete/restore cases passed before and after in that container. - The same 94 SDK adapter and lifecycle-normalization tests passed locally before and after. - Server typecheck and module-boundary checks passed. - Token comparison confirms the shared recording payload and runtime fence, plus the Teams scope and parser inputs. - The host database baseline failed before assertions because System V shared-memory IDs were exhausted. No other PostgreSQL server or host setting was changed. Database verification used an isolated container under its unprivileged user. - The extraction rebased without conflicts after #16276 merged. Git range-diff reports the same patch. The 94 SDK/lifecycle tests and server typecheck passed on this base. All CI gates pass on rebased head `d835d7c3815c168226fa646aec6370b6a8ac94c1`. Greptile reviewed that exact head at 5/5, with no inline findings or unresolved review threads. - Cumulative `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. All 1,321 channel integration cases passed. The normal UI, CLI, database, adapter, plugin, and serialized API test selections ran. - The first Linux `pnpm test:run` returned 1. Original-source runs reproduced the local failures. Container-only repairs supplied missing tools, process reaping, and sufficient Node heap. The existing mocked-fetch CLI telemetry fixture passed with the image opt-out flag overridden only for that fixture. - One local venue limitation remains: adapter-utils T24 fails unchanged on both original and final source in the Linux container. Its entire 56-case suite passes before and after on the host. All other failed or aborted suites passed in repaired reruns. No test assertion or timeout changed. - These fixtures exercise application state and the service entry point. They do not prove live provider execution. ## Risks - A scope or ordering error could record an event for the wrong provider context. - The selected parser returns normalized data. The shared service keeps durable recording and runtime fencing. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f69c6a8a35 |
fix(github): retry and recover review publication (#16284)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results.
> - GitHub review bots publish task-bound assessments through governed
tools.
> - A review can survive a caller timeout because its publication intent
is durable.
> - A transient provider failure still returned a failed receipt before
recovery.
> - Gateway replay could return an empty cached result, and publication
retries had no dedicated scheduler deadline.
> - This pull request adds bounded retries, receipt recovery, and an
independent durable worker.
> - A temporary GitHub failure can recover without another review or
duplicate publication.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #16275. That change increased the GitHub tool deadline. This change
repairs retry and recovery behavior.
**What happened?**
A one-off GitHub HTTP 503 or 429 left the caller with a failed
publication receipt. The saved retry did not have its own scheduler
worker. An identical gateway call after a timeout could return an empty
cached result instead of the saved publication receipt.
**Expected behavior**
Temporary failures should retry under current authority. Pending work
should resume at its saved deadline after restart. Exact retries should
return the current receipt. Lost responses must not create duplicate
comments, findings, or checks.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Admit an advisory PR review request and begin its assessment.
2. Return HTTP 503 or 429 for the first summary-comment PATCH, then let
GitHub succeed.
3. Submit the assessment through the run-scoped tool gateway.
4. On master, the result says publication failed. With this change, the
same call returns the processed receipt and neutral check.
5. For receipt recovery, use a shorter caller deadline and repeat the
exact call after publication finishes.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at `6cb6ac3b8e40cb90d734ba115a2f22f850ff9477`.
## What Changed
- Classify transient transport, server, and rate-limit failures. Honor
Retry-After and primary reset deadlines. Stop retries for permanent
permission and validation errors.
- Retry safe reads and installation-token issuance within a bounded call
window. Retry publication writes through the existing outbox and
provider receipt checks.
- Wait for up to three publication attempts within a 45-second retry
window. Keep the durable eight-failure cap and enforce saved deadlines
on explicit retries.
- Register an independent GitHub publication worker with
transaction-owned wake notifications, startup recovery, and per-PR lease
deadlines.
- Recover exact comment, progress, and assessment gateway calls from
their stored publication. Require the same company, agent, task, run,
connection, tool, arguments, and current policy. Clear stale timeout
errors after recovery. Approved exact retries read the current receipt
through the existing signed replay path; the worker retains the verified
approval for deferred writes and still rejects revocation.
- Add regression coverage and update the connector guide and
feature/access maps.
## Verification
- Red: both one-off HTTP 503 and 429 regressions failed on master with a
failed publication receipt.
- Green: the same tests passed after the change.
- GitHub review workflows: 133 covered against isolated PostgreSQL 18.
The final combined run passed 132 and hit one fifteen-second timeout
under concurrent build load. All three variants of that workflow passed
in isolation. The earlier combined run passed all 131 workflows before
the two approval regressions were added.
- Retry policy and delivery coordinator tests: 35 passed.
- Additional focused checks passed for the actual eight-failure cap,
exact-argument conflicts, policy revocation, and timeout receipt
recovery. The approved deferred-publication and revocation regressions
failed before the review repair and passed after it, with one approval
request preserved.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. `pnpm build`: passed. `node
scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed.
- The broad local `pnpm test:run` path remains blocked by the host's
exhausted PostgreSQL shared-memory slots. The changed database-backed
workflows use an isolated Docker database instead. All Paperclip CI jobs
passed at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2c17d3ca52 |
fix(github): recover webhook verification in attention state (#16263)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots require signed webhook delivery before activation. > - Cloud can deduplicate an old ping after a connection repair. > - A fresh event could verify active connections, but an attention-state connection discarded it before authentication. > - This pull request allows signed delivery verification while the connection needs attention. > - It discards ordinary work until the manager completes the existing reconnect and activation checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16259. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization failures. **What happened?** Live verification of #16259 found that a GitHub App already marked as needing attention remained stuck waiting for a signed ping. The Cloud relay had already delivered that ping. New signed events were discarded by the attention-state ingress gate before they could verify delivery. **Expected behavior** A fresh valid event from the bound installation verifies delivery. It does not activate the connection, change repository access, or start work. The manager can then complete the normal reconnect flow. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Put an existing App connection into attention state with webhook verification cleared after repair. 2. Deliver a fresh signed comment event for its bound installation. 3. Continue setup. Before this fix, webhook verification remains missing and reconnect cannot proceed. ## What Changed - Use a content-free verification path for signed ordinary GitHub events while the connection needs attention. - Allow a fresh signed event from the same installation to verify webhook delivery. - Verify delivery even from disabled or unavailable repositories. Discard the event before content storage, resource reconciliation, or runtime creation. - Keep newly verified connections in the provider-setup step. Later installation events cannot activate them before reconnect. Preserve normal installation recovery for existing qualified connections. - Extend recovery regressions to cover attention state, foreign installations, invalid signatures, missing installation IDs, unchanged resources, no wakeups, and successful reconnect after verification. - Document the recovery behavior. ## Verification - The targeted regression reproduced the attention-state failure before the change. - All ten recovery cases pass after the change. The tests cover disabled and unavailable repositories, content-free verification, and installation events after verification. - Server typecheck passed. - All 260 GitHub integration tests passed after the review fixes. Final server typecheck also passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - The full local suite is running. One unrelated workspace-runtime conflict-reference test failed and then passed on its isolated rerun. Final totals and CI/review outcomes will be updated before merge. - Live verification will use the existing advisory review bot after deployment. ## Risks - Attention-state ordinary events authenticate under the current credential lease without creating a durable content record. They return before resource reconciliation or runtime creation. - Verification is still bound to the current credential lease, runtime generation, valid signature, and installation ID. It does not activate the bot or replace normal setup checks. - Paused, revoked, archived, and unconfigured connections retain their existing ingress rules. No schema changes or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a8b652b085 |
fix(github): preserve review delivery through reconnect (#16259)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots turn authorized repository events into agent tasks and publish the result on the pull request. > - Cloud Apps send callbacks through a relay, but the direct callback recovery worker reported that URL as broken. > - Reconnecting the same App then prevented a new authorized publication from updating its existing working comment. > - Report-only runs could also produce an action-required check when no complete assessment was available. > - This pull request preserves comment identity across reconnects, verifies fresh signed delivery after repair, and keeps report-only results neutral. > - Users can receive the review without changing repository access or making an advisory bot block their pull request. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A review could be saved in Paperclip while GitHub kept showing “Working on this…”. A same-App reconnect changed the runtime generation and the existing response receipt then failed with “GitHub response binding changed”. Cloud callback recovery also compared the relay URL with a direct tenant URL. An incomplete or failed report-only run could produce an action-required check. **Expected behavior** A fresh authorized attempt updates the same App-owned comment after reconnect. Stale attempts and revoked people remain denied. Cloud relay delivery does not produce a direct-callback mismatch. Report-only checks remain neutral and explain incomplete work honestly. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept a GitHub request and publish its working comment. 2. Reconnect the same App before the agent publishes its result. 3. Submit the result and inspect the working comment and check. 4. Separately, let a report-only run end without an assessment and inspect its check conclusion. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization errors as provider credential failures. This change fixes the response binding and report-only paths themselves. ## What Changed - Bind durable response comments to the App and agent. Keep per-attempt runtime generation checks and provider comment ownership checks, including legacy receipts. - Exclude Cloud-managed Apps from the direct webhook recovery scan and its stale callback-mismatch warning. The Cloud inbox owns relay retries. - Let a fresh authenticated event from the bound installation verify webhook delivery after repair. Keep signature, runtime epoch, installation, and credential lease checks. - Keep report-only assessment and terminal-run checks neutral. Preserve incomplete/error text and gated-review behavior. - Add integration regressions for reconnect races, legacy comments, failed runs, Cloud recovery, and foreign or forged webhook traffic. Update connector documentation. - Correct the assigned-tool search guidance to name the actual input fields (`offset` and `schemaOffset`) and show valid arguments. The failed automatic review had an input-schema rejection before tool execution; this clarifies recovery without expanding tool access. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - GitHub policy and integration suite: 291 tests passed (`vitest run server/src/services/chat-github-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub|github'`). - The report-only policy regression failed before the fix and passed after it. - `pnpm build` passed. - Assigned tool discovery: 24 tests passed. Its guidance now maps returned pagination offsets to the correct input fields and tells the model to omit unused optional fields. - Full `pnpm test:run` is running. It encountered a 15-second timeout in the unrelated authenticated Workspace calendar-write test. That test passed on one isolated rerun. - After the review-requested module extraction, server typecheck and both direct/Cloud recovery activity integration checks passed. - All 55 non-skipped CI checks passed for `32e690279d847e44a6946b6c7cfb110fb11aff79`. Greptile scored that commit 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Live staging publication verification follows deployment. ## Risks - A durable response can now survive a same-App reconnect. Fresh authorization, runtime generation checks for each publication attempt, App ownership, and the publication lease still fence writes. - Report-only failures intentionally become neutral. The check still reports the failure; it does not claim a complete assessment. - Cloud-managed callbacks rely on their existing durable relay inbox. The direct callback recovery worker remains unchanged for direct installations. - No schema migration or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
75189b8762 |
refactor(server): isolate channel runtime admission and maintenance (#16235)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves Discord runtime command capture and root receipts, Speko runtime and authority, and GitHub maintenance scheduling behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 5/5. Depends on #16233. Base: `master` (parent PR merged). **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements Discord runtime command capture and root receipts, Speko runtime and authority, and GitHub maintenance scheduling inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract Discord runtime command capture and root receipts, Speko runtime and authority, and GitHub maintenance scheduling into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3715 to 3649 lines. ## Verification - The same 167 selected chat-runtime cases and 87 voice ownership cases passed before and after extraction. Full workspace typecheck and build passed. Token parity checks passed for six moved control-flow blocks. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c1994056f9 |
refactor(server): isolate channel registration and setup services (#16233)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves Slack registration, account linking, test-message setup, GitHub setup progress, and Telegram webhook URL restrictions behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 4/5. Depends on #16232. Base: `master` (parent PR merged). **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements Slack registration, account linking, test-message setup, GitHub setup progress, and Telegram webhook URL restrictions inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract Slack registration, account linking, test-message setup, GitHub setup progress, and Telegram webhook URL restrictions into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3813 to 3715 lines. ## Verification - The same 97 selected setup integration cases passed before and after extraction. The cases cover Slack installer linking and welcome eligibility, GitHub registration, and Telegram webhook restrictions. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
875943ac83 |
refactor(server): isolate provider webhook lifecycle processing (#16232)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves GitHub webhook runtime deadlines and Slack lifecycle processing behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 3/5. Depends on #16231. Base: `master` (parent PR merged). **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements GitHub webhook runtime deadlines and Slack lifecycle processing inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract GitHub webhook runtime deadlines and Slack lifecycle processing into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3906 to 3813 lines. ## Verification - The same 61 selected webhook/lifecycle integration cases passed before and after extraction. They cover cold GitHub runtime startup, signed ingress, installation recovery, Slack lifecycle effects, and Telegram/Teams edits. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f6608f382f |
refactor(server): isolate GitHub task preparation and review containment (#16231)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn provider messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still implements provider details beside common authorization and persistence. > - These details belong in the existing channel folders. > - This pull request moves GitHub task prompts, review provenance, and shared guest containment behind explicit typed functions. > - The service keeps its shared workflow and selects the provider implementation directly. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16192. Stack part 2/5. Depends on #16230. Base: `codex/chat-channel-inbound-policies`. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of provider behavior in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The service implements GitHub task prompts, review provenance, and shared guest containment inline. **Proposed behavior** Channel modules own these details. The core calls their typed functions. Runtime and database effects retain their current order. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find channel behavior in its channel folder without following a generic provider framework. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service entry points and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Extract GitHub task prompts, review provenance, and shared guest containment into the existing channel folders. - Keep shared company scope, authorization, and transaction ownership in their current workflow. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3970 to 3906 lines. ## Verification - The same 130 selected GitHub and low-trust integration cases passed before and after extraction. Existing transactions still own containment, authority receipts, and review rows. - Server typecheck passed. - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed. - Full workspace typecheck and build passed on the cumulative stack. All current-head CI gates passed. Greptile completed at 5/5 with no findings. - The full local `pnpm test:run` command exited with three database fixture-startup hook timeouts. It reported 19,529 passing tests and 250 skipped tests. No assertion failed. Its later test groups did not run because the driver stops on the first failing group. - The timed-out files were `environment-custom-images-service.test.ts`, `generic-mcp-connection.test.ts`, and `modules/wake-queue/adapters/postgres.test.ts`. All 166 tests in these files passed in isolation on both baseline `edcfcaf3f6` and stack head `faaca26d46`, with existing timeouts and assertions. The tests and database-startup helper are unchanged. - Provider fixtures prove application integration. They do not prove live third-party execution. ## Risks - Incorrect inputs or changed await order could affect provider handling and recovery. - Existing integration tests exercise the assembled service before and after extraction. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7eea9d8214 |
fix(github): use bot names in review summaries (#16212)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A GitHub bot can send a pull request to an agent and publish its review. > - Each bot has its own GitHub App identity, but every summary currently starts with "Paperclip Review". > - A generic heading makes it harder to identify reviewers when several bots review the same pull request. > - This pull request uses the bot display name in review summary headings. > - Users can identify each reviewer while required checks keep their existing name. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heading of a GitHub bot's published pull request review summary. **Current behavior** Every summary uses "Paperclip Review", regardless of the bot's name. The check also uses "Paperclip Review" and must keep that name for existing branch rules. **Proposed behavior** Complete and incomplete review summary headings use the GitHub bot display name. The heading falls back to the bot login, then the assigned agent name, when old connections have no display name. Separate GitHub Apps keep independent checks with the same name. **Reason and benefit** Readers can identify each bot's review. A regression test confirms that publishing a review does not update a check owned by another App or endpoint. **Breaking changes** The summary heading changes. Consumers that parse the old heading must accept bot names. No API, prompt configuration, database schema, or check name changes are included. No duplicate PR was found in the GitHub bot title search. ROADMAP.md does not contain a duplicate of this change. ## What Changed - Use the bot display name in complete and incomplete review headings. - Escape Markdown in names and fall back to the bot login or agent name. - Verify the heading through the publication workflow and keep check updates scoped to the App and endpoint. - Document bot-named summaries and independent checks. Update both access maps. ## Verification - Focused policy, heading, and existing UI tests: 67 passed. - Database-backed regression cases: 2 passed, including bot-name publication and independent checks. - Map checks, token gates, and git diff --check passed. - Typecheck and build passed on the final rebased branch. The final focused run passed 44 tests; the two database-backed regression cases also passed in a separate run. All final-head CI checks passed, including full test suites, build, typecheck, E2E, and security scans. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks - Consumers that parse the old summary heading must accept bot names. - The GitHub check remains Paperclip Review. Multiple-bot check isolation was tested with provider fixtures; a live two-bot GitHub test was not run for this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f18247b7e7 |
refactor(server): isolate durable chat wakeup workflows (#16187)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip accepts chat messages as durable task input. > - Wakeups must preserve current company, identity, and task permissions. > - The main service mixes those shared checks with provider message rules. > - Shared wakeup workflows should own persistence and queue ordering. > - This pull request extracts wakeup authorization, processing, and notices. > - Slack and GitHub rules move into their provider folders. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16185. Refs #16183 and #16180. Review against the parent branch. Related open #13620 covers durable chat wakeup feature work; this PR only moves existing behavior. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The structure of durable inbound wakeup processing. **Current behavior** The service contains authorization, durable wake receipts, queue notices, and provider authority details. **Proposed behavior** Use three cohesive inbound modules and provider-owned authority functions. **Reason and benefit** The shared transaction and company checks stay together while provider rules have a clear home. ## What Changed - Move wakeup authorization, processing, and notices into inbound modules (245, 418, and 377 lines). - Move Slack mention checks and GitHub automatic-event admission and acknowledgements into provider folders. - Preserve lock order, durable receipt ordering, notice cursor lifetime, and the live heartbeat dependency. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 6,340 to 5,337 lines, including blank-gap cleanup. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh local integration and wiring checks passed (1,318 tests). The dedicated Photon suite passed 18 before and 18 after the conflict resolution. This slice was replayed onto merged #16185 with its chat-channel source unchanged. Current-head CI and review are running. Earlier verification below describes previous stack commits. - Existing wakeup, queue, retry, and authorization integration cases: 212 passed before and 212 passed after; 1,083 other cases excluded. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax-tree audit compares all 12 moved functions, cursor state, retained service functions, and public API after explicit provider delegations. - The first three stack PRs have 55 passing CI checks and current-head 5/5 reviews. - Final stack checks are recorded below. The first broad local run encountered a PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture limit and was interrupted after that failure. - Greptile rates current head 1462819f53 5/5 with zero inline findings. All 55 CI checks now pass. Initial CI failures: the first workspace job hit EADDRINUSE in sandbox-callback-bridge.test.ts, and cloud-auth.spec.ts hit a disposed Playwright response. Both jobs passed on retry without source changes. Integration uses local PostgreSQL and fixture provider transports, not live providers. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Authorization and wakeups must retain the same locks and transaction scope. Factories receive narrow dependencies and initialize before their consumers. The notice cursor stays per service. Shutdown and heartbeat reads remain live. Provider helpers do not own transactions. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ba00e9ef1a |
refactor(server): isolate provider webhook handling (#16183)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip connects provider messages to governed agent work. > - Webhooks must authenticate and persist messages before acknowledging them. > - The shared service still contains GitHub and Slack protocol details. > - The platform-boundary rule places those details in provider folders. > - This pull request extracts provider webhook handling behind typed methods. > - The service retains dispatch, runtime selection, and durable lifecycle recording. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Depends on #16180; review this PR against its parent branch. Refs #16080. Related open work: #16163 changes GitHub automatic-author policy. This extraction preserves that policy implementation. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The ownership and readability of GitHub and Slack webhook handling. **Current behavior** The shared service implements GitHub signatures, replay fences, automatic event messages, and Slack callback verification. **Proposed behavior** Place those details in the respective provider folders and keep the common dispatcher small. **Reason and benefit** Provider code can be reviewed without reading the shared task service. ## What Changed - Extract GitHub request-local deadline and replay scope (60 lines). - Extract GitHub authentication and durable-ingress coordination (280 lines). - Extract GitHub event admission, message construction, and policy-skip receipts (140 lines). - Extract Slack workspace validation and authenticated callback observation (131 lines). - Keep the same service-owned background task set and GitHub provenance maps. Forward late-initialized callbacks without reading them during construction. - Reduce chat-channels.ts from 7,383 to 6,880 lines: 503 net lines removed. ## Verification - Merge preparation: replayed this stack onto current master after #16180 landed. Preserve master's new Telegram scheduling methods and connection-scoped Photon notifications. Server typecheck, callback syntax audit, and module-boundary check passed. Fresh integration, CI, and current-head review are running. Earlier verification below describes the previous stack commits. - Parent baseline: 544 selected GitHub, Slack, and webhook integration cases passed; 751 other cases excluded. - Initial extracted run: 543 passed and one idle-queue scan assertion failed. The idle-queue case passed separately on both the parent and extracted code. Its publication implementation is unchanged. The full selected-suite retry passed all 544 cases; the initial failure remains documented and its cause is not established. - Server typecheck, module-boundary check, and git diff --check passed. - Syntax-tree comparison verifies unchanged request-scope logic, durable ingress, leased authentication, event handling, workspace validation, and callback recording. All unrelated service functions remain unchanged. - Repository typecheck and production build passed for the parent extraction. Full-stack verification will run at the final handoff. The first broad local run hit a macOS PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture limit and was interrupted after that failure. - All 55 current-head CI checks passed. Greptile: 5/5 on f74ecb5094, with zero inline findings. No live third-party execution is claimed. - Previous stack validation on #16192 (55417debfe): repository typecheck and build passed; all 1,295 chat integration cases plus 14 source-wiring checks passed locally (1,309 total). All five PRs have current-head 5/5 reviews and 55 passing CI checks. The broad local pnpm test:run hit PostgreSQL shared-memory fixture failures and was interrupted after 868 seconds (exit 130); it is not a local full-suite pass. ## Risks Moving callback code can change initialization timing or lose request-scoped state. The new factories retain live option getters, the exact runtime context and provenance maps, and typed forwarding for late initialization. Authentication stays inside the existing credential lease. The common lifecycle write still completes before returning provider success. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with code execution and repository tools. The precise serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
eb06c9fedd |
refactor(server): split chat channel workflows into provider and shared modules (#16080)
Move provider operations into channel folders and shared chat work into named interaction, setup, admission, delivery and publication workflows. Consolidate reviewed PRs #16085, #16089, #16096 and #16105. Preserve upstream execution-default and recovery behavior. The main service is 7,917 lines. All 55 current-head CI checks pass, with two optional Storybook skips. Greptile is 5/5 with no findings. All 1,294 current chat integration cases, repository-wide typecheck and build pass locally. Broad local tool-route timing/socket failures are recorded in the PR. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d837b65be8 |
refactor(server): move provider setup, inventory and delivery into channel folders (#16058)
Consolidate the ten reviewed provider-folder extractions. Preserve the verified source tree and current master changes. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a2ac5c2715 |
refactor(chat): isolate Telegram, Slack, GitHub and Discord workflows (#15976)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Chat channels connect that work to external conversations. > - The shared chat service still contains provider-specific workflows. > - Those workflows are hard to inspect in a 34,000-line file. > - This stack extracts Telegram, Slack, GitHub and Discord workflows into their channel folders. > - Shared authorization and service lifetime remain explicit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15823, #15834, #15836, #15844 and #15845. Root of the second behavior-preserving channel-folder refactor stack. The dependent PRs #15979, #15981, #15985 and #15987 have merged into this branch; this PR lands all five extractions on master. ## What Changed - Move Telegram maintenance and subscription repair into `chat-channels/telegram/maintenance.ts`. - Move Slack session stopping and task starts into `chat-channels/slack/session-stop.ts` and `task-start.ts`. - Move GitHub webhook intake and recovery into `chat-channels/github/webhook-ingress.ts`. - Move Discord command registration and handling into `chat-channels/discord/commands.ts`. - Share type-only runtime records while preserving shared authorization, transactions, live lease checks and worker ownership. - Reduce the original service from 34,603 to 29,897 lines, removing 4,706 lines (13.6%). ## Verification - All 205 selected integration cases passed before and after their respective extractions: Telegram 41, Slack session stop 2 multi-step scenarios, GitHub 84, Slack task start 25 and Discord 53. Each dependent PR records its focused reproduction command. - Server typecheck, module boundaries and whitespace checks passed. - Per-slice syntax comparisons passed for moved declarations and remaining service statements, allowing only the documented live callback substitutions. - Tests exercise the public service with disposable databases and fixture provider transports. They do not claim live third-party execution. - Cumulative workspace typecheck and build passed on the final stack. - Current-head CI passed on the combined stack commit `d5b37dbe512e3e199932b6608cdc17639eda555a`; Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - The [original serialized shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38266518817/job/114870022249) timed out in unchanged `adapter-auth-signal-routes.test.ts`. The exact case passed locally without changes, and the [single job retry](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38266518817/job/114874019933) passed. The original timeout remains recorded. Reproduce the original Telegram slice’s focused suite: ```sh pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'Telegram durable private draft Stop|Telegram maintenance|Telegram webhook|Telegram.*(pause|remove)|Telegram.*commands' ``` - Cumulative local `pnpm test:run` exited 1: the first server group had **18,770 passed, 105 skipped, and one timeout** in unchanged `server/src/services/workspace-git-snapshot-streaming.test.ts:56` (300,000 ms on macOS). The fail-fast runner did not reach its later workspace and serialized groups. An unchanged isolated rerun passed using the existing timeout; this does not turn the original full run green. The test and its Git utility code are outside this refactor; all current-head CI jobs passed. - Reproduce that diagnostic alone: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/workspace-git-snapshot-streaming.test.ts`. ## Risks - Credential lease ownership and provider-confirmation ordering must remain unchanged. Existing rotation, lease-loss, recovery and durable Stop cases pass. - The channel factories create no workers or timers and preserve live runtime, shutdown and gateway-ownership reads. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate agent was used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have 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
|
de79750939 |
refactor(chat): extract identity linking (#15836)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip connects provider identities to company members. > - A confirmed identity determines whose permissions apply to chat messages. > - Token consumption and membership checks must remain atomic. > - These operations currently share the large chat channel service. > - This PR moves identity linking into one module with explicit runtime callbacks. > - Reviewers can inspect the complete identity-link flow together. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15834 and #15823. Stack slice 3 of 5, based on `codex/chat-resource-reconciliation`. Merge the predecessor first, then retarget this PR. Do not merge the stack out of order. Stack order: #15823 (provider messages) → #15834 (resource reconciliation) → #15836 (identity links) → #15844 (publication replacement) → #15845 (failed-run retries). GitHub native stack merging preserves this order and automatically restacks the remaining branches. ## What Changed - Extract company-scoped identity linking into shared `identity-links.ts`. - Move Slack connect receipt queries, access requests and confirmation-notice staging into `slack/identity-links.ts`. - Move GitHub identity fields into `github/identity-links.ts`. - Preserve shared token consumption, link locks, membership checks and revocation. - Stage the Slack notice inside the original confirmation transaction. Schedule delivery after commit. Keep runtime and public URL callbacks live. - Restack on the revised resource PR #15834 and record the architectural reassessment in the plan. ## Verification - Four existing service integration cases passed before and after. The Slack connect case covers discovery, preview, access requests, duplicate requests, member confirmation, provider notice, consumed tokens and endpoint isolation. - Receipt queries, the access-request transaction and notice payload match the previous implementation with explicit parameter substitutions. - Server typecheck, module-boundary and whitespace checks passed. - These are local database and fixture transport tests, not live Slack execution. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on `7b44962f09fe8043c77ed40e05f761f31c64b33c`, with a successful check and no open review threads. - Final-stack `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed at `57ec5ba94aecd860471f9b14db46f99120c7c790`. - All CI checks passed on `62ee045a4728da2d756be3d2e40d13e592a0b5a9`. - The [original workspace shard](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38256203686/job/114834873234) timed out waiting for the CLI import/export test server health endpoint. Its [single unchanged rerun passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38256203686/job/114838954081). The original timeout remains part of the evidence. - The final full-local-suite outcome for this cumulative stack is recorded in #15845; do not infer that gate from the focused tests above. - Merge verification on the restacked tree: 118 focused identity, publication, Photon and retry integration tests passed; server typecheck and module-boundary checks passed. GitHub’s rebased trees exactly match the previously reviewed file contents. - All current-head required checks passed on `7b44962f09fe8043c77ed40e05f761f31c64b33c`: full CI; Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. ## Risks - Confirmation must retain transaction and token ownership. The Slack helper receives the existing transaction and stages the same effect; scheduling remains after commit in the shared coordinator. - This PR depends on #15834. Merge predecessors and retarget before merging this PR. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate agent was used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have 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
|
3a213ab987 |
refactor(chat): extract resource reconciliation and availability (#15834)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Chat resources control which provider destinations can admit that work. > - Inventory updates and lifecycle callbacks must preserve company scope and operator choices. > - These rules share a large service with runtime and credential ownership. > - This PR extracts resource reconciliation and its availability transaction. > - Reviewers can inspect resource changes together while the service retains runtime control. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15823 (merged). Slice 2 of 5 now targets `master`. Remaining order: #15834 → #15836 → #15844 → #15845. ## What Changed - Extract shared resource inventory, audited selection and availability settlement from the large service. - Put GitHub repository parsing, rename/transfer repair, webhook recovery and listing in `github/resources.ts`. - Put Telegram group migration in `telegram/resources.ts`, using the coordinator's existing transaction and timestamp. - Put Slack labels, Teams IDs and Photon participant parsing in their channel folders. - Keep lease assertions, delivery settlement and the resource upsert between Telegram migration steps in the shared coordinator. - The shared module is 598 lines; provider resource modules total 409 lines. Update the dated plan with this reassessment. ## Verification - On updated master, 15 existing resource integration cases and one Telegram migration case passed before this folder move. The same 16 cases passed after. Other cases were excluded by the filter. - Eight moved declarations and three transaction blocks match the prior implementation. The GitHub provider guard remains in the caller. - Server TypeScript, module-boundary and whitespace checks passed. Rebuilt plugin SDK types after rebasing onto current master. - Historical browser shard 8 timed out on inbox retry; its unchanged [rerun passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38134430238/job/114457529315). [Original failure](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38134430238/job/114455332214). - Tests use local disposable databases and fixture provider transports. No live third-party execution is claimed. - Fresh Greptile review is 5/5 on `e914f532ca66c429125492c1723df38afc6e13d7`, with a successful check and no open review threads. - Final-stack `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed at `57ec5ba94aecd860471f9b14db46f99120c7c790`. - All CI checks passed on `e914f532ca66c429125492c1723df38afc6e13d7`. - The final full-local-suite outcome for this cumulative stack is recorded in #15845; do not infer that gate from the focused tests above. ## Risks - Resource identity and migrations depend on lock and write order. Provider modules use the original transaction; statement order and credential fencing remain unchanged. - Shared selection and availability still contain provider dispatch predicates. They coordinate common state transitions and should remain shared. - Full local tests and current-revision CI remain required for a green handoff. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate agent was used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have 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
|
fb21a3f30a |
refactor(chat): extract provider message normalization (#15823)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and keeps their work attached to company tasks. > - Chat providers deliver messages and corrections into those tasks. > - The chat channel service has grown to 39,155 lines. > - Provider message normalization has no database or worker ownership of its own. > - This pull request moves that responsibility into one module while preserving the service body. > - Reviewers can now find provider identities, timestamps, and edit revisions together. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintenance of inbound chat message normalization in the server. **Subsystem affected** Server chat channels. **Current behavior** Provider message parsers and identity rules share a 39,155-line file with credentials, runtime ownership, database admission, and publication workers. **Proposed behavior** Move provider message normalization into `chat-channels/provider-messages.ts`. Keep service exports and runtime behavior unchanged. **Reason and benefit** This creates a clear first boundary for an incremental refactor. A dated plan ranks the next four larger extractions. No duplicate chat refactor was found in the GitHub title search. **Breaking changes** None intended. No schema, endpoint, transport, or public service API changes. Stack order: #15823 (provider messages) → #15834 (resource reconciliation) → #15836 (identity links) → #15844 (publication replacement) → #15845 (failed-run retries). Merge in this order; retarget each child after its predecessor lands. ## What Changed - Move provider message parsing into `chat-channels/telegram/messages.ts`, `slack/messages.ts`, `discord/messages.ts`, `microsoft-teams/messages.ts` and `github/messages.ts`. - Keep shared actor normalization, actor data and the inbound text limit in `chat-channels/message-lifecycle.ts`. These six modules total 566 lines / 19,534 bytes. - Import provider modules directly. Follow this provider-folder convention for future extractions. - Preserve exact actor IDs, edit hashes, timestamp provenance, and Telegram message identity rules. - Narrow two input types to the Teams parser method and the retained delivery fields actually read. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 39,155 lines / 1,509,090 bytes to 38,643 lines / 1,491,703 bytes. - Record five ranked extraction candidates and verification evidence in the dated plan. ## Verification - The original extraction passed complete CI and 5/5 review at `cbba30a526`. Those results are historical; the updated head is `90ac517e6c310c8cf194dbbd668006f740e58f3a`. - Structural comparison: all 21 moved declarations match the base after normalizing exports and two type-only changes. All remaining non-import declarations, including the complete service body, match the base. - Provider-folder update: the same 48 public service integration cases passed locally before and after the move on PR #15823. They cover Slack/Discord revision identity, Teams edits, GitHub edits, Telegram rich messages and provider chronology. - All 22 message declarations retain identical bodies; the service changes imports only. The four dependent extractions rebased without conflicts. - Final-stack workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Module-boundary and whitespace checks passed. - Final-stack `pnpm build` passed. The fresh `pnpm test:run` was interrupted after PostgreSQL startup failures recurred. An isolated `native-status-arbiter-corpus.test.ts` run failed during database initialization after five attempts; all 45 tests skipped. All 32 host shared-memory slots were occupied. The full local gate remains unverified; only the task-owned run was stopped. - Greptile rated updated head `90ac517e6c310c8cf194dbbd668006f740e58f3a` 5/5 with no inline review threads. - Updated-head CI passed: 53 successful checks and two skipped checks, including all chat integration shards, typecheck, build and browser suites. - Tests use disposable databases and fixture provider transports. No live third-party execution is claimed. ## Risks - A wrong module import or changed revision identity could affect message admission. Existing service-path tests and the declaration comparison cover those risks. - Authentication, company-scoped transactions, leases, background workers, and shutdown remain in the original service. - The service closure remains large. Resource reconciliation is the recommended next extraction. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, local code execution, and repository tools. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. No separate planning or review agent was used. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have 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> |