mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-30 21:49:18 +01:00
e8b78cce5bb557b086bee9ca930eeaab1d09b244
26
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 scotttongandPaperclip
|
71f0c0c99e |
feat: add opt-in Coordinator workspace for chat, tasks, and decisions (#17983)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/147/changes/paperclip/147 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People coordinate work through conversations, tasks, and requests for input. > - These surfaces must share task state and preserve the context of each decision. > - The existing workspace makes people switch surfaces to follow that context. > - This pull request adds an optional Coordinator workspace with linked conversations, tasks, documents, and decisions. > - Each person can enable it in Settings > Experimental and return to the classic workspace. > - The benefit is a coherent path from a request to an assigned task and reviewed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** UI, server, shared contracts, and database. **Problem or motivation** People need a consistent way to start tasks from agent conversations, answer questions, review work, and return to the source context. Decisions and task state must agree across these surfaces. **Proposed solution** Add a personal, default-off workspace experiment. Keep one conversation per agent. Add task proposals, compact task and decision cards, contextual document panels, and a Needs You queue with search, filters, sorting, grouping, and history. **Alternatives considered** Replacing the classic workspace for everyone would remove the opt-out path. Keeping separate decision state in each surface would create conflicting answers. This change uses the existing canonical task and interaction records instead. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the existing agent chat, task management, and human review capabilities. It is an experimental presentation choice. The user requested this isolated implementation after design review. No Discord discussion is claimed. ## What Changed - Add per-person workspace preferences, a default-off setting, and an additive migration. - Add Coordinator navigation, pinned destinations, task lists, agent switching, and contextual panels. - Link task suggestions and creation to the source conversation. Default new task ownership to the current agent unless the user specifies another owner. - Share pending questions, decision receipts, exact review targets, and history across tasks, chat, and Needs You. - Preserve task access, assignment authorization, revision binding, and required output review gates. - Add compact document links, relative timestamps, composer controls, and reduced-motion support for task and decision transitions. - Add component stories, regression coverage, and capability-map documentation. ## Verification - Final head: `4b839aae1e314bd7e8635a766f1d205ff1c03ba6`, based on master `8bc051245f77a47bee0f8ba45896b8bfa5922e0a`. Verified October 29, 2026 at 00:10 UTC: **MERGEABLE, 56 checks passed, four conditional skips, no pending or failed checks**. [Current CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40790639688) passed without a rerun on this head. - Fresh Greptile **5/5**, zero new comments and zero open review threads; Superagent passed with no suspicious changes. [Checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17983/checks). - Local workspace typecheck/build passed after the latest rebase. The final account-read patch passed UI typecheck/build and all 12 related preference/settings tests, including a delayed real-client request across account changes. Earlier scoped checks cover review deduplication/replay, decision deep links, cross-surface state, access boundaries, and migration replay. - Local database/browser rechecks after the latest rebase were limited by exhausted macOS shared-memory IDs: `initdb` failed before database creation. The local run passed 31 UI/snapshot tests and skipped 24 database tests; those skips and the blocked local browser start are not claimed as passes. The independent Linux CI database and browser checks passed. No running dev database or host setting was changed. - Upstream migration 0403 is preserved. Preferences and durable review retry aliases are generated as replay-safe migrations `0404_tense_silver_sable.sql` and `0405_harsh_avengers.sql`; five newest snapshots are retained. Every detected conflict was rebased and pushed before waiting for CI/review, as requested. - The PR is unmerged. The active master ruleset still requires code-owner approval for the changed Paperclip skill; no approval or rule change was performed. <details> <summary>Earlier verification failures, integration history, and evidence</summary> These entries preserve prior checkpoints and failures; the current acceptance result is above. - Focused UI and server checks from the isolated build are recorded in the implementation plan. - Browser checks covered the opt-in shell, navigation, task/document links, and decision card states. No new live provider trial is claimed for this handoff. - Current acceptance head: `4b839aae1e314bd7e8635a766f1d205ff1c03ba6`, rebased onto master `8bc051245` immediately after its GitHub review-repair migration took 0403. Preferences are generated as idempotent `0404_tense_silver_sable.sql`, preserving upstream SQL/journal/snapshot history and five newest snapshots. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the immediate lease-protected push. Scott's updated instruction is to rebase and push every conflict resolution first, without waiting for CI or Greptile; verification follows the push. - The final reviewed feature tree was consolidated for repeatable single-commit rebases. The complete previous commit history remains reachable through local recovery ref `codex/coordinator-recovery-before-rebase-20261028` (resolved snapshot `0e1bbdf4e`). The actual rebase completed, and its tree hash exactly matches that resolved snapshot. The force-with-lease required the known remote head `0e6ef7c44`, protecting against concurrent branch changes. No PR merge or permission/runner setting change occurred. Fresh CI/review are in progress for the current head. - `2001132fa` received Greptile 5/5 with one nonblocking account-switch read finding. Current head detaches path-coalesced preference GETs and disables HTTP caching, retaining React Query's account-scoped sharing. A delayed real-client GET regression proves account B can load its saved choice before account A responds, and A's late response only updates A's cache. Preference/settings tests 12/12 and UI typecheck passed; its review thread is resolved. Fresh current-head CI/reviews are pending. The prior CI chat shard 3 ended with “The operation was canceled” and no assertion failure ([job 123171595631](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40789688333/job/123171595631), `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-chat3.log`); no code/timeout change is attributed to that cancellation. - `843e823b4` reached fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero comments/open threads and Superagent pass. All browser tests including the repaired YAML shard passed, and 54 checks passed. General server shard 9 ended with “The operation was canceled” and no failed assertion; its test step was marked cancelled (job [123164350893](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40787501761/job/123164350893), log `/tmp/pr17983-843e-server9.log`). A single unchanged-head rerun was started after the workflow completed, but master moved while it ran. A local nested-clone check timed out in its 30-second database-startup hook and then failed cleanup before the 20 database cases ran; this is retained as a local verification limit (`/tmp/pr17983-843e-nested-clone-check.log`), not claimed as a pass or proof of the CI cancellation cause. - Following Scott's instruction, the new conflict was rebased and pushed immediately without waiting for that rerun. Upstream's `0403_natural_cerise.sql` is preserved; regenerated preferences and retry-alias migrations are `0404_tense_silver_sable.sql` and `0405_harsh_avengers.sql`, replay-safe with five newest snapshots retained. The YAML helper conflict combines upstream's click and header behavior with the editor-selection guard and injected regression. Recovery ref `codex/coordinator-recovery-843e823b4` preserves pre-rebase work. Current head is MERGEABLE. Full workspace typecheck/build passed; UI and snapshot checks passed 31 tests, but 24 database tests were skipped by the local support probe, and the local browser server could not initialize PostgreSQL. A direct disposable `initdb` diagnostic established the host limitation: `could not create shared memory segment: No space left on device` (`shmget`, shared-memory IDs exhausted, not disk space). No dev database or host setting was changed. Diagnostics: `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-initdb-probe.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-db-probe.log`; checks: `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-tests.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-browser.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-types.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-build.log`. These local skipped/blocked checks are not claimed as passes; fresh CI on independent runners is in progress. - `d18f683cd` reached fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero comments/open threads and Superagent pass, but [E2E shard 7](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40785966243/job/123159719925) failed parsing an Advanced YAML clipboard read beginning with “Skip to Main Content.” The log is retained at `/tmp/pr17983-d18f-e2e7.log`. Current head hardens the test helper to verify editor focus and selection, clear stale clipboard content, and require the YAML header at the start of a fresh copy before parsing. Saved-state assertions and timeouts are unchanged. All six Advanced YAML browser journeys passed on a disposable local instance (41.0s); the exact lost-response journey also passed with a one-time injected surrounding-page copy, verifying rejection/reacquisition (17.6s). The precise browser focus/clipboard timing in CI remains unproven; the observed invalid-read path is now guarded and deterministically exercised. Logs: `/tmp/pr17983-yaml-clipboard-scope-browser.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-yaml-clipboard-injected-browser.log`. Fresh current-head CI and reviews are pending. - `19e6dcb0b` passed Superagent and Greptile 5/5, with one nonblocking deep-link finding. Current head preserves attention links using `?decisionId=`: the requested pending decision is rendered even beyond the first 40 cards, focused and scrolled into view, then only that parameter is consumed so later refreshes do not refocus. Other URL parameters remain. Needs You tests 10/10 and UI typecheck passed; its review thread is resolved. The preceding post-rebase regression run passed 45/45 tests. Fresh current-head CI/reviews are pending. - `6d772b7cc` reached Greptile 5/5 with zero comments/open threads and Superagent pass. While 32 checks had passed, master moved and caused a documentation conflict in `maps/feature-map/onboarding.md`. Rebased immediately, preserving both onboarding paragraphs. The complete four-commit branch was pushed as `19e6dcb0b` before waiting on CI/review, per Scott's instruction. A transient Git index lock interrupted the first continue; the command sequence briefly pushed intermediate `34e298c07`, then the completed rebase was immediately pushed. All feature and security/retry fixes are present; local recovery ref `codex/coordinator-recovery-6d772b7cc` preserves the pre-rebase history. The only tree differences from that ref are upstream's two smoke-test files and the combined documentation paragraph. GitHub reports MERGEABLE. Fresh current-head verification is in progress; prior-head review results are not current acceptance. - `21efa3120` passed Superagent but Greptile scored 4/5 for a valid retry-key persistence bug: an acknowledged duplicate key could reopen a resolved review. Current head adds an additive, replay-safe `0404_light_swarm.sql` migration for indexed, task-scoped aliases from acknowledged retry keys to the canonical interaction. Alias registration and retry lookup occur under the existing task lock; payload/actor mismatch still conflicts, and each canonical review permits at most 100 aliases. Original and acknowledged keys replay the terminal result rather than creating a new gate. Five newest migration snapshots are retained. Service/routes tests 165/165 passed; final quality review plus migration replay/snapshot checks 25/25 passed; server typecheck passed. The P1 thread is resolved in code; fresh current-head reviews and CI are pending. - `69c2c7543` passed 55 checks and Greptile 5/5 with no open Greptile findings, but Superagent check [123140675812](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17983/checks?check_run_id=123140675812) correctly flagged unbounded pending quality-card creation. Current head fixes that under the existing task-row lock: equivalent requests with fresh idempotency keys reuse the pending card; conflicting requests for an unresolved deliverable return the existing interaction ID; pending cards are capped at ten per task across all reviewers. Distinct outputs remain independent, and already-answered items in a partially pending batch can receive a fresh review. Added real-database concurrency, cross-card duplicate, partial-answer, and hard-cap regressions. Quality review 22/22 tests and final server typecheck passed; earlier service/routes 163/163 tests passed before the final partial-answer refinement. One added assertion initially expected a service HTTP error, but duplicate keys are rejected earlier by the existing shared schema; the assertion now verifies that validation. Fresh current-head CI/reviews are pending; the action-required security result is not treated as passed. - `c9c575e5f` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, Greptile 5/5, and Superagent pass. Its two P2 review findings are fixed in the current head: independently bound quality approvals now each remain visible in attention; changing/clearing URL-backed assignee/status filters updates the URL and survives task navigation. Both review threads are resolved. Regression evidence: attention service 34/34 tests passed, CoordinatorTasks 20/20 passed, UI and server typechecks and the full workspace build passed on `69c2c7543`. The first new UI test run caught an assertion racing React Router's transition; waiting for the navigation before asserting passes without weakening the navigation/remount checks. These older-head green checks are not claimed for the new fix commit. - Preceding `0e6ef7c44` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, fresh Greptile 5/5 and no open findings, and passed Superagent. A fifth migration-metadata collision arrived before the final Runner job finished. Those green results are preserved as prior-head evidence, not current acceptance. - Previous fully verified migration head: `0e6ef7c44696a377f35e69521b93587576374bd0`, integrating master `f8226b051` after the fourth migration-number collision. Master added terminal GitHub-response migration 0401 while the final native check ran; upstream 0401 SQL/journal/snapshot is preserved unchanged, and preferences are generated as idempotent `0402_yielding_blink.sql` on top. Exactly the five newest snapshots remain. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. All 1,155 relevant migration/review/interaction/native-execution/remote-assets tests, workspace typecheck/build, migration guards and whitespace checks pass. Fresh exact-head CI/Greptile/Superagent are pending. - Immediately preceding head `36c67cf03` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, fresh Greptile 5/5 and no open findings, plus passed Superagent security. No retry was needed for that head's CI. Master advanced and introduced only a migration-metadata conflict while its final native check ran, so that green result does not establish acceptance of the current integration. Four consecutive collisions (0398, 0399, 0400, 0401) during verification are retained as concrete integration churn; a brief pause of competing migration merges was requested, without assuming it happened or changing any repo setting. The PR has not been merged. - Prior fully verified head: `36c67cf03`, on the clean `30059c0ed` integration of master `efd65c112`. The last Greptile P2 is fixed: Needs attention retains the participant-agent scope through authoritative server membership queries for each pending task, including historical participation when another agent currently owns the task. It does not approximate participation with current assignment or enumerate every company task. The actual view-switch regression and all 31 focused task/routing/collection tests, UI typecheck/build, token gates and whitespace checks pass. Greptile completed a fresh 5/5 review on this exact head (review 19) with zero new comments and no open review threads. CI and Superagent remain in progress; no current-head CI failure has been reported. - Head `30059c0ed` received Greptile 5/5 with that one nonblocking participant finding, now fixed. Superagent passed that head. Current-base integration restored the ephemeral RunsOn fleet after a superseded workflow retained queued aggregate jobs: normal cancellation was insufficient; the single force-cancel request was interrupted but readback confirmed that obsolete run cancelled and current CI began on the trusted fleet. No cancellation retry or runner/security/workflow changes were made. Its partial CI was superseded by the necessary participant fix and is not current acceptance. - Previous compatibility/base-sync head: `30059c0ededc0eab4e04e8299a884f36db8b292f`, integrating master `efd65c112` and the Inbox/workspace compatibility fixes. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. Coordinator keeps Inbox standalone under More without rewriting the instance's Combined Inbox preference; opting out restores that preference. Saved merged-Inbox URLs resolve to their original owner, task status presets remain usable, and canonical repeated `workspace` parameters retain scoped, deduplicated pagination (including Needs attention). All 192 broader routing/Inbox/sidebar/privacy/review tests and the final 16 task-page tests pass, as do workspace typecheck/build, token gates and whitespace checks. The two review threads are resolved. Fresh exact-head CI, Greptile and Superagent results are pending. - The preceding `d5b9be5bd` remained mergeable but its CI routing gate intentionally fell back to GitHub-hosted runners: “stacked base merge commit does not contain the current base branch.” All 45 downstream jobs stayed queued. Current master was merged cleanly to refresh the pinned base; no runner/security settings or workflow logic were changed. Greptile scored that preceding head 4/5 with the two compatibility findings fixed here. Its automatic Superagent scan was inconclusive at checkout; the documented retry was still pending when superseded. Those results do not establish acceptance of this current head. - Previous approval/migration head: `d5b9be5bd3b8d6b0437e42bf48138377f34fa67d`, integrating master `ba5bba86d` and the stale-output approval correction. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. The fresh P1 finding is fixed: every submitted item now validates and locks its bound output inside the resolution transaction, whether or not it carries a required-quality-review binding. Real database regressions verify that an advanced document revision or deleted attachment refuses the entire batch without recording approvals, and current ordinary output reviews still resolve. All 272 combined migration/review/interaction tests pass; workspace typecheck/build passed. Fresh exact-head Greptile and CI are pending. The automatic Superagent scan ended inconclusive at checkout; one documented on-demand retry is pending. These are explicit verification limits, not passed security results. The P1 thread is resolved. - Master consumed the next migration slot three times during this verification pass: confirmation recovery took 0398, continuation recovery took 0399, and GitHub acknowledgement recovery took 0400. Each upstream SQL/journal/snapshot is preserved unchanged. Preferences are now generated as idempotent `0401_white_lenny_balinger.sql` from upstream 0400; exactly five snapshots remain, and replay coverage locates this migration by table content. This is recorded concurrent integration churn, not a claim that older green results apply to the latest base. - Head `ed3b68da9` fixed the two history/URL findings with 26 focused regression tests, server/UI typechecks, workspace build and token gates passing. Greptile then scored that head 4/5 with the stale-output P1 corrected in the current head. Its partial CI is superseded, not counted as current acceptance. - Previous filter-fix head: `ed3b68da9`, based on the `8458d39d9` merge of master `063cfd438`. The two fresh Greptile findings are fixed: history outcome filters now match recorded per-item verdicts in SQL before pagination (mixed reviews remain in both applicable outcomes), and same-page URL assignee changes/back/forward navigation update that filter without clearing independent filters. All 26 focused database/navigation/collection tests, server/UI typechecks, workspace build, token gates and whitespace checks pass. The two review threads are resolved. Fresh exact-head CI, Greptile and Superagent results are pending. - The `8458d39d9` migration integration also passed all 328 targeted migration/interaction/confirmation tests, workspace typecheck/build and Superagent security scan. Greptile scored that head 4/5 with the two functional gaps fixed in the current head; those prior-head checks are not current acceptance. - Migration integration head: `8458d39d9721f4cb312c2390070a0609f8cddd1a`, integrating master `063cfd43813cabf18417605fb9eefb9aacf95c8d`. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. Master advanced twice during this conflict-resolution pass: first its confirmation-recovery migration took 0398, then its continuation-recovery migration took 0399. Both upstream migrations and journal entries remain unchanged; Coordinator preferences are now generated as idempotent `0400_sad_guardian.sql` from upstream's latest snapshot. Exactly the five newest snapshots remain. The replay regression now locates the table migration by content instead of hardcoding a renumbered filename. - All 328 targeted question/review/confirmation/migration tests passed again after the second merge. Workspace typecheck/build and fresh exact-head CI/reviews are in progress. The preceding `0c46f46d6` passed workspace typecheck/build and Superagent security scan, but was superseded because master consumed migration 0399 while those checks ran. That prior-head result is not acceptance of the current head. No production settings or runner/security permissions were changed, and the PR has not been merged. - Previous integration head: `0c46f46d6f2b23417ab872ce3cb6ff2673647287`, integrating master `287b04d72f1b9fca1412e05435c75b8302ba0710`. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. The renewed conflicts were `0398_snapshot.json`, `_journal.json`, and the top imports in `issue-thread-interactions.ts`. Upstream's `0398` confirmation-recovery index and journal history are preserved unchanged; Coordinator preferences were regenerated as idempotent `0399_bouncy_miek.sql`, with replay coverage updated and exactly the five newest snapshots retained. Both terminal confirmation notifications and Coordinator task assignment/required review behavior are preserved. - All 328 targeted interaction/review/confirmation/migration tests pass, as do workspace typecheck, map validation and whitespace checks. The workspace build and fresh exact-head CI/Greptile/Superagent checks are pending. The first migration-generation attempt hit the sandbox's local IPC restriction before generating files; the unchanged authorized local generation completed successfully. Prior-head green checks below do not establish acceptance of this merge. - Previous acceptance head: `8b7dcf739ed15afc51351fdfa0e0e5fbc75ab788`, with master `1aa3a21ac` integrated and GitHub reporting MERGEABLE. Greptile completed a fresh 5/5 review on this exact head with zero new actionable findings and no open review threads. The [fresh CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40752864319) completed SUCCESS on attempt 2 at 19:40:08 UTC, including all eight E2E shards. Final completed check set: 55 succeeded, four conditional checks skipped, zero pending/queued/running checks, and one neutral/inconclusive Superagent scan. The auxiliary commitperclip review and isolated native Runner compilation/cache-reuse check both passed. This is not a claim that Superagent produced a passed security verdict. GitHub still reports MERGEABLE against current master `60b8089a44b4eaa37e627adbfdf2f130bda13335`. - Current-head E2E: all eight shards and the aggregate passed, including the previously failing YAML browser journey. Serialized server shard 9/9 failed: the protected YAML projection test exceeded its original 15-second timeout; its late update request then reached the next test's reset mock (the captured payload is the prior test's model/label update). All 88 tests in that exact unchanged file passed locally in 38.03 seconds, with no timeout or assertion changes. The original slow-request cause remains unproven. CI failure log: `/tmp/pr17983-8b7-serialized9.log`; local recovery: `/tmp/pr17983-adapter-yaml-repro.log`. The single bounded unchanged shard rerun passed, and the workflow completed SUCCESS. Rerun log: `/tmp/pr17983-8b7-serialized9-rerun.log`. The initial failure is retained; a passing retry does not establish its original slow-request cause. - Greptile scored preceding head `4873704be` 5/5 with one valid P2: opened task decision records missed company-scoped live invalidation. The current head uses the existing company decision prefix for resolution and effect-completion events, and resets private record payloads on access changes. Its thread is resolved. All 107 focused record/live-update tests, UI typecheck/build, token checks and whitespace checks pass. - CI on `4873704be` failed E2E shard 7/8 in the Advanced YAML lost-creation-response journey: its clipboard helper selected page text starting with “Skip to Main Content” instead of YAML. The exact unchanged journey passed in a disposable local browser instance (1 test, 17.1 seconds). No assertion, timeout or production behavior was weakened; the original failure cause remains unproven. Failure log: `/tmp/pr17983-487-e2e7.log`; local check: `/tmp/pr17983-agent-yaml-repro.log`. The full unchanged Advanced YAML browser suite also passed locally (6 tests, 37.8 seconds). Fresh current-head CI subsequently passed this journey and all other E2E shards. - Both the automatic and one supported on-demand Superagent scan on `4873704be` ended neutral/inconclusive: “Pinned PR scan merge-base checkout failed or timed out.” These do not count as a passed security verdict. The current head's automatic scan and one documented on-demand retry also returned the identical neutral checkout failure, with zero annotations or further diagnostics. This is an external scanner blocker, not a passed security verdict. No security settings or permissions were changed. - Recorded decision links now render and focus the full source-task record in both Classic and Coordinator, including recorded choice, submitted inputs, and the existing effect-result resolver. Fresh terminal records take precedence over older open-decision cache entries. Context and account checks keep mismatched or inaccessible records out of the DOM; no decision-history tab was added to tasks or chat. The shared company live-run feed now drives live-only filtering, including ended runs and terminal tasks with stale run entries. All 213 focused tests, UI typecheck/build, token and whitespace checks pass; the final focus follow-up passed all 188 task-detail tests and UI typecheck. The first new navigation test failed because its test host omitted company context; the host was corrected before the passing run. - Previous integration head: `375c5e89516705050d94bab99336212841b2e6e1` merges master `1aa3a21ac` after four additional upstream commits. The sole conflict was competing imports in `server/src/services/issues.ts`; both quality-review policy and inbound wake-notice notifications are preserved. The PR-specific review import now sits beside execution-policy imports instead of the frequently changing first line. GitHub mergeability is rechecked after the push. - On the combined master tree, workspace typecheck/build, all 153 affected UI tests, map validation, and whitespace checks pass. Four server suites passed 77 tests; the fifth suite's module-import hook timed out while broad verification was running. Its unchanged isolated run passed all 41 tests in 7.2 seconds with the original timeout. This records recovery without claiming the original import-timeout cause is proven. CI on `375c5e895` passed every substantive job, including all eight E2E shards and Superagent; Greptile found the two functional gaps fixed in the current head. A short-lived `669d90876` commit added the main fixes before the focused navigation follow-up. - Immediately preceding head `9d9737b49` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, Greptile 5/5 and no open findings, plus a successful Superagent scan. The signoff E2E shard passed on its single accepted rerun; its initial cancellation/timing failure is retained below. Master moved again while those checks ran, requiring this final integration rather than treating the prior head's green result as current acceptance. - Previous head `9d9737b496911a6054d0ea22d1b42b28b115e9ab` includes master `d30c8f42b842327ee1c18c41a2efd6ba623da5cd`; that head was subsequently conflicted by moving master. The master merge preserved durable account-bound writes and Coordinator UX. Workspace typecheck/build, 416 focused UI tests, and 142 affected comment-route tests passed. A stable full UI run on preceding head `938ad1665` passed all 9,833 tests across 836 files; its final full workspace build also passed. - Greptile found nested proposal project inheritance and Classic bound-revision links on `91be74952`. Both were fixed with 142 interaction-route tests, 113 focused UI tests, and UI/server typechecks. Its next review identified a valid draft-preservation bug in the new Classic loading UI. Head `9d9737b49` keeps loading/error notices outside editors and annotations while preserving dirty drafts; 115 focused review UI tests pass, including pending/failed revision loads and continued draft editing. All related threads are resolved. Greptile completed a fresh 5/5 review of `9d9737b496911a6054d0ea22d1b42b28b115e9ab` with no open findings. - CI on `938ad1665` exposed an integration regression with the newly merged durable startup saves: the personal preference gate blocked the task page before its first session lookup. The guarded title editor now mounts while that lookup is pending, with presentation-specific tools still gated. All 216 affected component tests pass. The unchanged five-test `disconnect-write-recovery.spec.ts` browser suite passes against a newly launched disposable local-trusted PostgreSQL instance on port 33219, including the exact failed startup-save journey. No live provider, hosted authentication or production proof is claimed. The helper-owned test server exited and the port has no listener. UI typecheck, built-browser assets, token and whitespace checks pass. - Initial durable-write merge tests found duplicate imports and unscoped draft fixtures, fixed before 416 focused tests passed. A sandbox typecheck could not create its IPC socket; the supported rerun passed. The first revision-link test used a wrong Return to latest button assertion, corrected before the 113-test pass. The startup E2E reproduction initially still failed because an outer shell gate also blocked the page; the subsequent fix passed all five cases without changing the test or its timeouts. A focused loading-header assertion initially used an incorrect fixture title; correcting it preceded the 216-test pass. These failures remain recorded. - Earlier routing gates fell back to GitHub-hosted runners while master was moving or conflicted. Superseded queued runs were cancelled, then the `938ad1665` routing gate explicitly selected the ephemeral RunsOn fleet. Its CI actively executed and completed most tests; only the diagnosed startup E2E shard and aggregate failed, alongside the valid Greptile finding. Auxiliary GitHub-hosted workflows also completed successfully on earlier heads, so queueing alone is not an administrative blocker. Fresh [CI on `9d9737b49`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40744012678) is the acceptance target; the previously failing startup E2E shard now passes. A different signoff E2E shard failed during executor resubmission when its fixture run was cancelled as `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review`. The exact unchanged journey passed locally (1 test, 46 seconds), and the preceding head with identical server/signoff code passed that CI shard. This supports a bounded rerun but does not establish the timing failure's root cause. After the workflow finished, GitHub accepted one rerun of that failed shard and its dependent aggregate; both passed, completing all checks on that head. The failure log is retained at `/tmp/pr17983-9d9737-e2e7.log` and the local reproduction at `/tmp/pr17983-signoff-repro.log`. No assertion or timeout was weakened. - On the first merge, full workspace typecheck/build, all 9,622 UI tests, 267 tests across seven affected server suites, two migration checks, map validation, token gates, and the PR diff whitespace check passed. Greptile then found duplicate local task-search filtering and lost completed item-review detail. Both are fixed, with 42 passing focused UI tests and passing UI typecheck/build. - A subsequent Greptile review found attachment confirmations without working links and mobile history without a visible host. Confirmation layouts now derive the authenticated immutable-content endpoint from the attachment ID, and Needs You uses the existing full-screen mobile sheet. All 119 focused tests pass, including missing/stale display URLs, both review layouts, and both mobile history entry buttons. UI typecheck/build and token checks pass. Full workspace typecheck/build also pass after the second master merge. - Greptile gave head |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b43073d11f |
feat(connections): sync and group accounts managed by aggregators (#15254)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connections give agents governed access to external tools. > - Aggregator gateways can expose accounts that users already connected upstream. > - The Apps catalog did not show those accounts or their current provider status. > - Separate cards and setup tasks also made account ownership unclear. > - This pull request discovers upstream accounts and groups them under one app card. > - Users can find connected apps while each provider keeps control of its accounts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Connections across the database, shared contracts, server, and board UI. **Problem or motivation** Users cannot see which apps are connected through a saved aggregator gateway. Native and upstream accounts need one app card. Discovery must preserve company, user, gateway, and credential boundaries. **Proposed solution** Sync account metadata from Composio, Arcade, and supported Executor gateways. Keep upstream account management in each provider. Use source chips and search to browse the catalog. Preserve native setup and the gateway's existing access policy. **Alternatives considered** Creating a local executable connection for each upstream account would duplicate authorization state. Using an agent task for routine Composio setup would add an unnecessary step. The board now calls the saved gateway directly for that setup. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the shipped Connected Apps and MCP Tool Gateway features in ROADMAP.md. The duplicate search found no open PR for managed account discovery. Related work: Refs #13755, Refs #13941, Refs #14725, Refs #13855. Open PR #12906 covers adjacent toolkit routing work. ## What Changed - Add provider-neutral discovery, sync, and refresh APIs. Preserve the Composio API paths. - Cache observations by company, saved gateway, viewing user, and credential version. Retain stale observations after failed or incomplete scans. - Add optional Arcade account sync credentials in the vault. Discover Executor accounts through its supported inventory interface. - Group native and upstream accounts in one app card. Imported account menus open their provider. Gateway menus own refresh and sync setup. - Add Paperclip, Composio, Arcade, Installed, and All chips. Show 50 catalog entries per page. Keep connected accounts above discovery. Keep explicit provider searches scoped. - Simplify Composio app setup and refresh its connected app list on the gateway Permissions page. - Add a compact agent access card and task creation defaults for connection setup. Preserve explicit blocks and approval policies. - Add two replay-safe migrations, service and UI tests, Storybook journeys, and acceptance stories. ## Verification - Passed the repository typecheck, full build, token gates, and migration ordering check. - Passed the focused provider adapter, connection interaction, and catalog tests after rebasing onto master. - Passed all nine database sync and migration replay tests using a disposable database on the test-drive PostgreSQL cluster. Removed that database after the run. - Verified Arcade cursor pagination against its official Go SDK and passed all eight adapter tests, including short and incomplete pages. - Passed all 45 interaction tests after making the exact requested tools and their Allowed/Ask first permissions visible before granting access. Verified the compact card in Storybook. - Passed the complete UI suite on the final code: 683 files and 7,432 tests, including the corrected Composio destination assertions. Passed 130 focused tests for the UUID, management-link, and health-status corrections. - Passed 22 Composio setup/sync tests, 23 connection-intent service tests, and the connection migration test in separate disposable databases. Database startup alone was substituted; the suites exercised their real SQL and services. - Passed all 10 OpenAPI route checks and the full-stack connection-intent browser test, including scoped consent, agent continuation, and task completion. - The local full runner encountered embedded PostgreSQL startup failures on this loaded macOS host. The earlier in-flight run also held the pre-fix Arcade transform; a fresh run of the final provider suite passes. The final-head CI is queued during GitHub’s active Actions incident: https://www.githubstatus.com/. The previous run also lost several runners simultaneously; its real catalog assertion failures are fixed and the fresh complete UI suite passes. - Tested the real test-drive server in the embedded browser with a live Composio gateway. Detected Airtable and Circleback. Verified refresh progress, account rows, source chips, search scope, and 50-entry pagination. - Arcade and Executor coverage uses provider fixtures. Live credentials were unavailable. - Storybook builds successfully and includes grouped native/provider accounts, stale and unavailable discovery, optional Arcade setup, and mobile states. The acceptance document records the simulated and live coverage separately. - Greptile reviewed final commit `217b024c27b5933e773ce9419c4e92b1032042c6` at 5/5. All six review threads are resolved, security scans pass, and the PR has no merge conflicts. The outstanding remote checks are `ci / Select trusted runner` and `review`, queued by GitHub. They need to complete before merge. ## Risks - Provider response changes can break inventory discovery. Failed scans retain observations and show stale status. - Composio scans only the supported catalog and can take time. Large inventories run in the background with progress and a bounded lease. - Arcade requires a project API key and user ID when the gateway cannot supply them. This key is used only for discovery. - Executor discovery depends on the server's exposed inventory tools. Unsupported servers report unavailable discovery. - Cached account rows do not grant access or create executable connections. Gateway policies still govern tool use. Account deletion and per-app authorization remain upstream. - The migrations add tables and one nullable column. Replay preserves existing rows and company-scoped foreign keys. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The session does not expose a more specific serving model ID or context limit. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] 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
|
3b03c4b9eb |
perf(ui): keep long task chat responsive during streaming (#13229)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets operators manage agent work through tasks. > - Task chat keeps responses and run history together. > - A live update rendered every historical bubble and hidden tool row again. > - New image callbacks also forced unchanged markdown to parse again. > - Long conversations saturated the browser main thread. > - This change reuses unchanged history and mounts folded tools on first inspection. > - Operators can read and reply while work continues. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Chat-style tasks with substantial scrollback became almost unusable. A deterministic browser reproduction with 200 long responses and 4,000 tools consumed 97.8% of the main thread during live updates. It delivered only 8 updates during the sample. **Expected behavior** The task should remain responsive during streaming. Historical markdown and unopened run details should not repeat expensive render work. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Install dependencies with `pnpm install`. 2. Run `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/perf/task-chat/playwright.config.ts`. 3. Compare the attached performance JSON. The new test fails against the original rendering code. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced at `a05b828bc`. The branch is rebased on current master. **Deployment mode** Local Chromium and Vite with deterministic fixtures. No database or agent credentials are required. Related work: #10463 reduces the issue-page bundle. This change addresses repeated rendering after the page loads. No duplicate scrollback fix was found. ## What Changed - Keep the bubble image callback stable so unchanged markdown can skip parsing. - Memoize the settled history separately from the header and streaming tail. Keep the brief renderer and default attachment array stable. - Mount folded tool history on first expansion. Keep it mounted afterward to preserve child state and closing motion. Runtime request receipts remain visible. - Add deterministic rendering tests to the normal Vitest suite and an opt-in Chromium regression fixture. - Document the reproduction, commands, scope, and local measurements. ## Verification - Browser reproduction: 97.8% main-thread utilization before; 11.6% after for tail-only updates; 31.5% after when projection recreates history objects. Both fixed cases delivered 32 updates. - Browser checks pass for scroll-position retention, typing, return to latest, tool inspection, and retained expansion state. - Focused component suite: 155 tests passed. Post-rebase thread/performance rerun: 101 tests passed. - Recursive typecheck, build, Storybook build, and token gates passed. UI typecheck passed after the final edits. - Local UI/CLI lane: 5,910 tests passed; ten files hit worker-start timeouts, then all ten passed with two workers (20 tests). Shared/adapter lane: 3,128 tests passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and is **not green**: its server lane recorded 10,517 passes and 11 failures plus fixture/setup errors. Queue (31 tests), Cursor/Git-load (9 tests), and missing-binary failures cleared on isolated reruns / building the runner test binaries. Two native suites still cannot initialize embedded PostgreSQL on this host. - The remaining native-session recovery assertion was reproduced in a clean worktree at base `a20ecce40` (1 failed, 67 passed across the native/queue suites). It expects a settled-session error but receives a semantic-tool-input digest error. No server or runner files changed in this PR. - All substantive CI jobs have passed, including build, typecheck, all server/workspace test shards, all three e2e shards, and the canary dry run. The unchanged Slack ordering test exhausted its one-second wait on the first run; its shard passed on rerun. Final aggregate verification passed: **31 passing checks**, no failures or pending checks; two optional Storybook deployment/visual checks were skipped. Greptile is **5/5**, with no unresolved review threads. - The supplemental local serialized route run was stopped after CI passed all five serialized shards; it had reported no failures. - The browser fixture uses the real chat rendering components with a plain textarea. It does not test the full composer or server transport. Timing results are local samples; deterministic render-count tests provide normal CI coverage. ## Risks - Closed tool content becomes available to DOM search only after first expansion. Visible run summaries and runtime request receipts remain available immediately. - Opened run history remains mounted to preserve child state. The first full markdown render still scales with conversation size. - Memo dependencies must stay current when adding render inputs. Tests check content edits and replacement gallery callbacks. - No API, database, or permission changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex). Exact serving variant and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. No sub-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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — targeted/UI/workspace checks pass; the full local server suite has the baseline/host failures documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c90d904779 |
feat(apps): add connection intent setup experience (#12347)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The backend now turns agent requests into durable connection intents. > - Operators need a clear path to inspect, configure, and finish those requests. > - The experience must preserve identity, agent access, and interrupted setup state. > - This pull request adds the connection intent setup experience across the app UI. > - The benefit is one guided flow from agent request to governed connection. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 9 of 11. It depends on stack 8 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add connection intent cards and setup flow integration. - Add browse, connection, app detail, and sidebar experience updates. - Preserve exact draft identity and access choices across resume and OAuth recovery. - Add focused UI, architecture, policy, and end-to-end coverage. - Keep transient retained-connection lookup failures retryable instead of misclassifying them as missing targets. - Align the dark-mode E2E contract with the intentionally hidden Gateways and Profiles sidebar tabs. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - Focused UI result: 372 tests passed across 20 files. - AppsConnect regression suite: 80/80 passed, including failed connection and application lookups during retained reconnect. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/components/AppsSidebar.test.tsx` (1 passed) - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - An interrupted OAuth flow can leave a durable draft that needs resume. - The UI resumes the exact draft and keeps its identity and agent access settings. - Retained reconnect retries refetch connections and applications together to avoid mixing partial snapshots. - Gateways and Profiles remain route-accessible but intentionally absent from the sidebar until their existing ship gate is lifted. - The change does not add a database migration. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have linked the public source pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run 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
|
b3343dbd64 |
feat(connections): add self-serve intent runtime (#12345)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need a governed way to request app connections during issue work. > - The catalog now describes the available providers and setup methods. > - A request must become a durable, company-scoped intent before an operator acts on it. > - This pull request adds that intent runtime across server, agent, CLI, and shared contracts. > - The benefit is a safe bridge from agent need to operator-approved setup. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 7 of 11. It depends on stack 6 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add connection intent types, validation, service logic, and routes. - Add agent runtime tools and CLI support for connection requests. - Add issue-thread interaction support for connection intents. - Add runtime, route, adapter, and contract tests. - Hold the final resolved-continuation row lock through asynchronous adapter preparation until an actual process spawn, so parking or reassignment cannot cross that boundary. - Report Hermes Gateway's first remote run request through the shared dispatch hook so the resolved-intent lock is released at the true dispatch boundary. - Revalidate the addressed user's live non-viewer membership and connection-management authority for every intent mutation, including OAuth completion. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - Result: 176 tests passed. - `pnpm build` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` (32 passed; includes non-process dispatch lock-release coverage) - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/connection-intents-service.test.ts -t "addressed-user mutation"` (1 passed) - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts -t "binds OAuth callback completion to the initiating board session"` (1 passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter test -- src/gateway/server/execute.test.ts` (23 passed; includes dispatch-hook ordering and exactly-once coverage) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/hermes-paperclip-adapter typecheck` ## Risks - A malformed intent could create an unusable operator request. - Validators and company checks reject invalid or cross-company requests. - The final continuation gate holds the issue row lock through adapter preparation until process or remote dispatch; later operator changes use the normal active-run interruption path. - The change does not add a database migration. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have linked the public source pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run 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
|
20ccf3f476 |
feat(apps): add connection grants and delegated identities (#12341)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - External tools need explicit identity and access boundaries. > - Shared connection credentials cannot represent every user-scoped use case. > - Grants must stay company-scoped and support safe delegation. > - This pull request adds connection grants, identity rules, and their database contract. > - The benefit is durable control over which identity an agent may use. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11965 This is stack 3 of 11. It depends on stack 2 and replaces another reviewable part of #11965. ## What Changed - Add company and user connection grants. - Add delegated identity and membership rules. - Synchronize database, shared, server, and UI contracts. - Register the grant-member replacement route in the OpenAPI surface in the same layer that mounts it. - Add migration 0231 with replay-safe guards and coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/tool-access-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` (5 passed) - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm build` ## Risks - Incorrect grant selection could expose the wrong credential scope. - The service enforces company and subject boundaries before credential use. - Migration 0231 is generated, ordered after 0230, and safe to replay. > I checked `ROADMAP.md`. This stack continues the existing app connection work from #11965 and does not duplicate another planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime model ID and context window were not exposed. The model used reasoning, tool use, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked a public issue or pull request with `Refs #` - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run 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> |
||
|
scotttong
|
4d82f5eaea | copy: unify user-facing "company" wording to "organization" (#12243) | ||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f572e08678 |
fix(recovery): stop automatic stranded-task takeovers (#11961)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The recovery service restores execution when a task loses its live path. > - The service retries the original agent for a limited number of attempts. > - The old fallback could select a manager or an executive and wake that agent. > - That fallback changed the effective recovery owner without a board decision. > - This pull request keeps the source owner and gives the exhausted recovery decision to the board. > - The benefit is a clear ownership rule with no automatic task takeover. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #11807 Refs: #11817 **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves stranded-task recovery in the server and the recovery action card in the board UI. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server recovery orchestration, recovery observability, board UI, and execution documentation. **Current behavior** Paperclip retries the original agent for a limited number of attempts. After the retry limit, it can select a manager, task creator, CTO, or CEO as a recovery owner. It can then wake that substitute agent. The source task keeps its assignee, but the automatic substitute wake creates an implicit takeover path. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip keeps the limited retry path for the original agent. If recovery is exhausted or unsafe, Paperclip creates one board-owned source recovery action. It keeps both source assignee fields. It does not wake a substitute agent. The board can repair, retry the original owner, explicitly reassign, or resolve the task. **Reason and benefit** Source task ownership must remain stable until a person or an approved policy changes it. The new rule removes implicit manager and executive takeover. It also gives operators clear evidence through the `board_escalation_no_takeover_v1` routing marker. **Breaking changes** Automatic recovery no longer wakes a manager or executive after the original-agent retry limit. Existing active agent-owned recovery actions remain visible and can resolve. Paperclip does not schedule a new takeover wake for those legacy actions. ## What Changed - Route exhausted and unsafe stranded recovery to a board-owned source action. - Preserve agent and user assignee fields during automatic escalation. - Keep limited same-agent continuity repair and provider quota monitoring. - Stop new manager, creator, CTO, and CEO recovery wakes. - Keep legacy agent-owned recovery actions readable and resolvable. - Add the routing marker to new board escalation evidence and observability. - Update recovery notices, the board UI card, tests, and execution documentation. ## Verification - Run `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Run `pnpm build`. - Run `pnpm check:token-gates`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts`. - Run `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-branch-containment.test.ts`. - Run the focused recovery and UI Vitest files changed by this pull request. - Confirm that a paused or over-budget source owner creates one board action, keeps the source assignee, and creates no substitute wake. ## Risks - Operators must now make the final recovery decision after the original-agent limit. - Legacy agent-owned actions use their stored contract. This avoids a rollout-time ownership rewrite. - No database migration or API response shape changes are included. - The tests cover concurrent escalation, paused and over-budget owners, legacy actions, provider quota monitoring, and UI presentation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5. The hosted exact model revision and context window are not exposed. Reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6b8e42168e |
Add governed secret alias confirmation cards (#11486)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents need scoped secret bindings to use external services safely. > - Agents could not request an existing secret under a new config name without an internal secret identifier. > - Existing binding proposals were only visible in Settings and did not create an issue-thread approval path. > - A confirmation card could record acceptance without proving that the binding was created. > - This pull request extends the existing secret proposal system with safe source references and governed issue-thread confirmation cards. > - The benefit is a one-click flow that creates the binding or shows a clear failure without exposing secret material. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related prerequisite: #11482. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server REST APIs, shared interaction contracts, database proposal schema, and issue-thread UI. **Problem or motivation** An agent can need an existing bound secret under a second config name. The agent cannot safely discover the internal secret identifier. The existing proposal is also easy for the operator to miss because it only appears in Settings. A generic confirmation can record acceptance without executing the binding. **Proposed solution** Let an agent create a binding proposal from one of its existing config paths. Mint a server-owned, human-only confirmation card on the checked-out issue. Recheck the operator's target-agent permission under the proposal row lock. Execute the existing proposal transaction after card acceptance. Store an `executed` or `failed` result on the card. Render the complete lifecycle in the issue thread and attention resolver. **Alternatives considered** A new alias subsystem would duplicate proposal quotas, expiry, authorization, and binding synchronization. A text-only issue comment would not provide a governed action or an execution result. An agent-supplied card payload would permit metadata smuggling. This change uses the existing proposal transaction and a server-owned payload instead. **Roadmap alignment** This change extends the completed "Secrets Manager with per-agent access" roadmap item. It preserves scoped bindings and audited resolution. The required GitHub search found no other open duplicate issue or pull request. ## What Changed - Added safe source-config-path binding proposals and preserved user-secret ownership checks. - Added a proposal-to-interaction link and an idempotent database migration. - Minted human-only `request_confirmation` cards with server-owned `secretProposal` metadata. - Rejected agent-supplied governed metadata and agent addressees. - Rechecked `agent_config:update` authority under the proposal lock before execution. - Recorded `executed` or `failed` results and posted a failure comment when no binding was created. - Settled failed accepted proposals atomically and mirrored rejection, withdrawal, and expiry in both directions. - Emitted `secret.binding.created` for new agent binding writes. - Added a dedicated issue-thread card for pending, executed, failed, rejected, withdrawn, and expired states. - Showed only the source label, target agent, config path, skeptical justification, expiry, and safe failure code. - Replaced resolved attention-query entries immediately with the stitched server result. - Added focused server, database, UI, and state-transition tests. - Added Storybook fixtures for every review state and documented the API and agent behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/AttentionInteractionResolver.test.ts` — 58 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - `pnpm build-storybook` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secret-proposals-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agents-service-secret-bindings.test.ts` — 142 passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db exec vitest run src/company-secret-proposals-migration.test.ts --silent` — 1 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` — server 4,175 passed, UI 4,109 passed; the CLI AWS-doctor case passes 8/8 with runtime-injected static AWS credential variables unset. - `pnpm build` - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` ## Risks - Migration `0221` adds one nullable foreign key and one index. It uses idempotent guards. - The accept route performs a governed write after it records card acceptance. A failed write is visible and settles the proposal as rejected. - Concurrent proposal and card resolution must use proposal-before-interaction lock order. A race test covers direct approval against card rejection. - The new audit event increases activity rows for newly added agent bindings. It does not include secret values or fingerprints. - The card includes only safe proposal metadata. It does not include secret value, fingerprint, version, or internal secret identifiers. - The UI uses the stitched resolution result. Focused tests cover immediate cache replacement and every terminal state. > This work extends an existing completed roadmap capability. The GitHub duplicate search returned no other open related work. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with model ID `gpt-5`. The runtime did not expose its context-window size. Reasoning, repository tools, code execution, database integration tests, UI rendering, and GitHub tools were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
TonioandClaude Opus 5
|
40e7add71c |
test(ui): make the suite independent of the machine timezone (#11478)
Several suites asserted local-time renders from UTC instants, or built date fixtures from the real clock, so they only held where local time happened to match. CI runs in UTC and never reported it; a contributor anywhere else saw failures on a clean checkout. Seven files, anchored to the clock under test rather than to the machine's. The set grew twice while being fixed: the two tests the issue named surfaced three more at UTC+9, and those surfaced two more at UTC+14. `StatusCards/format` is the interesting one. `rollupUpdatesToday` filters on the UTC calendar day to match the server token cap, while the fixtures were built on the local day. West of UTC that lands `iso(0)` in the previous UTC day for the stretch between UTC midnight and local midnight - about seven hours a day at UTC-7 - and east of UTC+12 "today at local noon" is already yesterday in UTC outright. Either way the rows it means to count drop out. A run crossing midnight UTC splits the same way. Fixes #11476. Deliberately left: IssueProperties.test.tsx:1515-1517 still pin the minute of three timestamps against a UTC fixture. They pass at every offset tried, including UTC+5:45, and the minute there is load-bearing - it distinguishes Created from Started from Completed - so it wants more care than mechanical anchoring. Full ui suite 4113 pass. The TZ pin added by #11480 is still in place here and is now redundant; #11508 removes it, stacked on this branch so it cannot land without the anchoring it depends on. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
10d0555189 |
fix(interactions): authorize resolvers consistently (#11376)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Issue interactions give agents and people a structured decision record. > - Resolver routes used different authorization rules. > - Some routes blocked valid agents, including task watchdogs with normal issue access. > - The API did not show who could resolve a pending interaction. > - This pull request gives every interaction kind one resolver policy evaluator. > - The benefit is a clear decision path with consistent governance and company isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #8087 Refs: #7403 Related PR: #11082 proposes board-only confirmation rules. This change keeps human-only review as an explicit policy. **What happened?** Agents could create issue interactions. Some resolver routes still required board access. This left valid agent confirmations pending. Task watchdogs could see the same problem without board identity. **Expected behavior** Every interaction kind must use one resolver policy contract. The contract must support `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. It must also apply all normal governance controls. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a `request_confirmation` interaction as an agent. 2. Resolve it with another authorized agent. 3. Observe the board-only denial. **Paperclip version or commit** The problem exists on `master` before this change. **Deployment mode** Local development with `pnpm dev`. ## What Changed - Add canonical policies for `anyone`, `not_creator`, and `human_only`. - Use one server evaluator for every interaction kind. - Apply named addressees, company limits, review rules, and task watchdog scope. - Charge cross-issue resolutions to the existing per-run action limit. - Return the effective resolver audience in attention and interaction data. - Show the audience, governance choices, and denial reasons in the board UI. - Add telemetry, API documents, product documents, and regression fixtures. - Add migration provenance for safe legacy behavior. - Make migration `0218` safe for complete replays and partial prior runs. ## Product Rules - An interaction records a response. It does not grant authority for the next action. - `anyone` lets any authorized issue participant respond. - `not_creator` requires a responder other than the interaction creator. - `human_only` requires an authorized person. - A named addressee, company policy, or governed action can narrow the audience. - These controls cannot widen the audience. - A task watchdog uses the same rules as an ordinary agent. - A task watchdog does not receive board authority. - An agent resolution on another issue uses the shared cross-issue action limit. - Legacy pending interactions keep their earlier restrictions. - The UI shows the effective audience and a permanent denial reason. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/issue-thread-interaction-resolver-policy-migration.test.ts` - The focused PostgreSQL test applies migration `0218` twice. - The test also completes a partial prior run and preserves existing provenance. - The latest GitHub head has 29 successful checks. - The opt-in Storybook visual check skipped as expected. - Greptile reports 5/5 with no open comments. ## Risks - New interaction writes use `anyone` by default. - Callers must select `not_creator` or `human_only` when they need stricter review. - Legacy pending interactions keep the old creator and human restrictions. - Migration `0218` fills only missing provenance fields during recovery. - Cross-issue resolutions can reach the existing action limit. - The shared evaluator affects every interaction kind. - Route, service, database, shared contract, and UI tests cover these rules. > This work matches the Agent Reviews and Approvals direction in `ROADMAP.md`. It does not duplicate a planned item. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, shell commands, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either linked public issues or described the issue with the required labels - [x] I have not referenced internal Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented the risks - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open comments - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
scotttong
|
815e49bb7c | feat: make chat-style tasks the default experience (#11101) | ||
|
|
ded813ad6f |
feat(interactions): add governed agent addressees (#10252)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that lets humans govern companies of AI agents. > - Issue-thread interactions are the structured handoff point for confirmations, questions, suggested tasks, and other governed decisions. > - Those interactions previously assumed that only board users could resolve them, preventing one agent from explicitly addressing another agent for a response. > - Agent resolution needs company-level governance, auditable resolver identity, safe terminal-state handling, and attention routing so authorization is enforced server-side rather than inferred from UI behavior. > - This pull request adds governed agent resolution, withdrawal and terminal expiry semantics, explicit agent addressees, lifecycle reconciliation, and attention-feed filtering. > - The benefit is that agents can participate in structured decisions without weakening board control, company isolation, wake behavior, or audit invariants. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Subsystem affected Issue-thread interactions across database, shared contracts, server authorization/services, adapter callbacks, agent skill guidance, API docs, and UI governance surfaces. ### Problem or motivation Structured interactions were board-only, had no explicit agent addressee, and lacked durable withdrawal/terminal-expiry semantics. That made peer-agent decisions impossible to authorize and audit safely. ### Proposed solution Persist requested/effective resolver policy and addressee identity, enforce company governance and eligible agent resolution, reconcile addressee lifecycle changes, expose withdrawal and terminal expiry, and route attention to the intended active agent with board fallback. ### Alternatives considered Implicitly authorizing the issue assignee or mentioned agents was rejected as ambiguous and difficult to audit. Using comments alone was rejected because it loses structured outcomes and continuation behavior. ### Roadmap alignment Supports the ROADMAP direction for lightweight leadership-agent communication that still resolves into governed decisions and work objects. ### Additional context Public GitHub issue/PR search found no duplicate implementation; open PR search for interaction resolver governance and agent addressees only returned this PR. ## What Changed - Add company-scoped interaction resolver governance contracts and persistence. - Add requested/effective resolver policy, resolver identity, withdrawal, and terminal-expiry behavior. - Add explicit `addresseeAgentId` validation, authorization, persistence, lifecycle reconciliation, API documentation, and skill guidance. - Route pending addressed interactions to the intended invokable agent and fall back to board attention when that agent becomes ineligible or is deleted. - Preserve sandbox callback identity fields required by governed resolution paths. - Add migrations `0193` and `0194` plus route, service, attention, adapter, CLI, and UI coverage. - Add governance state and company settings UI, including responsive mobile behavior and distinct withdrawn/expired audit presentation. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering and safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — feature/server and UI workspace suites passed; one unrelated CLI AWS doctor test observed injected static AWS credentials and warned instead of passing. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts --project paperclipai` — 8 tests passed, confirming the failure was environment-sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Latest rebased head `e24cece6be9f1877bdbac7691bcb44fd583c0161` completed all GitHub CI jobs successfully. ## Risks - Migrations add interaction and company-governance fields; numbering is conflict-free on current `master`, additive statements are idempotent, and migration safety checks pass. - Agent authorization behavior expands beyond board-only resolution, but defaults remain board-only and coverage exercises company boundaries, resolver eligibility, lifecycle invalidation, wake behavior, withdrawal, expiry, and attention fallback. - Attention routing depends on current agent invokability; reconciliation and read-time filtering prevent stale addressees from retaining visibility or resolution authority. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.6-sol` with reasoning, terminal tool use, code execution, Git/GitHub integration, and Paperclip control-plane tools. Context-window metadata was not reported by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a116713b9a |
feat(mcp) [split 6/8]: add Tools and Profiles UI foundation (#9561)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters, UI surfaces, and operator verification > - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated or human review > - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs stay below the 100-file review limit > - This pull request is split 6/8 and focuses on UI API, shared components, and Tools/Profile surfaces > - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Related parity reference: #9534 - Problem: Operators need typed clients and administration surfaces that compile independently before navigation exposes them. - Proposed solution: Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new company-scoped API. - Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves. - Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate roadmap initiative. - Stack position: base branch is `pap10341-split/05-runtime-integration`. - Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate remains empty. - Requested review: UXDesigner sanity pass on Tools/Profile surfaces; Greptile on every PR. ## What Changed - Adds UI APIs, hooks, libraries, shared components, Tools/Profiles pages, and the plugin settings consumer required by the new company-scoped API. - Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable. - Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven stack levels. ## Verification - `pnpm typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean - Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 28 files, 183 tests passed ## Risks - Large dead-code UI additions can drift from activation routes; PR 7 supplies the registration layer and top-level parity catches omissions. - Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers; mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy. - Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from #9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and code-execution tools enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link explicitly required for this coordinated split stack - [x] My branch name describes the change 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 ## Stack Coordination - Internal execution plan: [PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan) - Parity reference: #9534 - Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563 - Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff at #9563. ## UI Evidence QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and verified clean rendering:    --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
36ec79c196 |
feat: add attention queue and Decisions surface (#9380)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, where operators need a reliable way to find and act on work awaiting their input. > - The attention and issue-thread interaction subsystems expose those decision points across server APIs and the board UI. > - The previous navigation and interaction presentation left these actions fragmented and did not offer a controlled rollout for the Decisions surface. > - This branch adds the attention feed, richer interaction cards, grouping, dismiss/snooze behavior, and a gated Decisions sidebar entry. > - It also keeps experimental settings and API contracts synchronized, with an idempotent migration for the new dismissal state. > - This pull request delivers the complete, tested attention/Decisions experience as one reviewable unit. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Adds an operator-focused attention queue and Decisions experience: grouped decision cards, semantic interaction actions, dismiss/snooze handling, resilient interaction states, and an experimental flag to control the Decisions navigation entry. ## Feature Context ### Problem or Motivation Operators currently have to hunt across approvals, interactions, failed runs, and budget alerts to find decisions that need their action. ### Proposed Solution Provide a gated Decisions attention queue that groups actionable items, supports direct resolution, and preserves operator control through dismiss and snooze actions. ### Alternatives Considered Keep separate, source-specific views only; this leaves cross-cutting operator decisions fragmented and harder to prioritize. ### Roadmap Alignment This improves the V1 control-plane operator workflow by making pending governed actions discoverable in one company-scoped surface. ## What Changed - Added server attention-feed services, routes, interaction handling, dismiss/snooze support, and an idempotent `0145` inbox-dismissal migration. - Added shared attention, inbox-dismissal, and experimental-settings contracts. - Added Decisions/attention UI, interaction-card states, sidebar badge/navigation integration, grouping, keyboard support, and Storybook coverage. - Added tests for attention behavior, thread interactions, settings normalization, dismissals, and API behavior. - Removed generated screenshots from the final PR diff and rebased the branch onto current `master`. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/attention-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/inbox-dismissals.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/attention.test.ts ui/src/components/AttentionQueueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/pages/InstanceExperimentalSettings.test.tsx` — passed: 158 tests across 9 focused files. - GitHub Actions for `ad636f560`: build and typecheck/release-registry have passed; remaining general-server and Greptile checks are in progress. ## Risks - Moderate: this is a cross-layer attention/interaction feature with a new migration and navigation behavior. - The `enableDecisions` experimental setting defaults to off, limiting rollout impact. - Existing dismissal data is backfilled to `dismiss`; the migration is idempotent and uses guarded constraint creation. > ROADMAP.md was checked; no duplicate planned core feature was identified. Related open pull requests were searched before opening this PR. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with tool use and local code execution. Context-window size unavailable in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My public PR branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally; focused tests pass and the remaining unrelated AWS test failure is documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
cc81eefb60 |
Make plan-approval continuations durable after failed wakes (#9331)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents often work from reviewed plans that are approved through issue-thread interactions. > - Accepting a plan is not just a UI decision; it must reliably resume the assignee so approved work continues. > - A failed continuation wake could leave an approved plan stranded in review with no durable retry or visible recovery path. > - This pull request makes approved plan continuations retryable, recoverable, and visible when resume fails. > - The benefit is that operators can trust plan approval to either resume the agent or produce an explicit actionable failure instead of silent limbo. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline bug report follows the repository bug template. ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in my agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. ### What happened? When a plan-confirmation interaction was accepted, the assignee continuation wake could fail before useful agent execution. In that case the issue could remain in review even though the plan had been approved, because the failed wake was fire-and-forget and there was no durable retry or recovery path for accepted continuations. ### Expected behavior Accepted plan continuations should either wake the assignee successfully, retry bounded infrastructure failures, recover dropped wakes, or surface an explicit failure state that operators can act on. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create an issue with an assignee and a plan confirmation that wakes the assignee on accept. 2. Accept the confirmation. 3. Simulate a pre-flight continuation failure, such as process loss before agent start or workspace validation failure. 4. Observe that the approved issue can remain in review without an active assignee wake or visible retry/failure state. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproducible on `master` before this PR's retry/recovery changes. ### Deployment mode Local dev (`pnpm dev`) and server-side recovery paths. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm install`, `pnpm dev`, test runner). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core continuation/recovery bug. The tests cover local-agent failure shapes without relying on a provider-specific API. ### Database mode Embedded Postgres test database for verification. The affected logic is database-backed and applies to normal Postgres deployments as well. ### Access context Board accepts the interaction; agent execution resumes through the assignee wake path. ### Relevant logs or output No sensitive logs are needed. The regression tests simulate the failed wake and recovery states directly. ### Relevant config No special config is required beyond an assignee with wake-on-demand enabled. ### Additional context This PR also prevents a stale workspace-validation payload from quarantining another issue's active workspace and prevents unrelated successful runs from masking a continuation that never resumed. ### Privacy checklist - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII, usernames, file paths, API keys, tokens, and company names, and redacted where necessary. ## What Changed - Added bounded infrastructure retries for failed accepted-interaction continuation wakes. - Extended stranded issue recovery so dropped accepted-plan continuation wakes are requeued. - Recorded and rendered explicit resume-failure state on accepted confirmation cards. - Added clean-workspace fallback for workspace-validation failures while preventing cross-issue workspace quarantine. - Tightened recovery so unrelated successful runs do not mask an accepted continuation that never resumed. - Added focused server/UI coverage for retry scheduling, recovery, visible failure state, and interaction card rendering. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` — 106 tests passed. - Earlier branch verification also covered the issue-thread interaction card tests for the visible resume-failure UI. - GitHub CI is green on the replacement PR head, and Greptile reports 5/5 with no blocking issues. ## Risks - Medium behavioral risk: this changes recovery behavior for accepted continuation interactions and workspace-validation retries. - Mitigation: retries are bounded, scoped to same-company issue context, and workspace quarantine now requires ownership by the issue being retried. - Existing stored confirmation results remain compatible because the new resume-failure field is optional. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled terminal workflow. The runtime does not expose an exact context-window value to the agent. ## 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> |
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ac9a883f8b |
Expire ask-user questions superseded by comments (#8799)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issue-thread interactions are how agents ask board users for typed decisions and structured answers inside an issue thread > - Confirmation interactions already become stale when a later board/user comment supersedes the pending decision > - Question interactions had the same workflow risk, because a board/user could answer in a comment while the old question card stayed pending > - This pull request extends the supersede-by-comment lifecycle to ask-user-question interactions and makes that status visible in the UI > - The benefit is agents get a clear continuation signal and users do not see stale question forms after the discussion has moved on ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No exact public GitHub issue was found. Bug report: **Pre-submission checklist** - [x] I have searched existing open and closed issues and this is not a duplicate. - [x] I am on the latest released version of Paperclip, or can reproduce on `master`. - [x] I have confirmed the error originates in Paperclip itself, not in an agent adapter, API provider, or local configuration. **What happened?** Pending `ask_user_questions` interactions could remain open after a later board/user comment changed or answered the request in-thread. That left a stale form visible and kept the interaction in a pending state even though the discussion had moved on. **Expected behavior** Question interactions should follow the same default supersede-on-comment behavior as confirmation interactions, with an explicit expired result that points to the superseding comment. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an `ask_user_questions` interaction on an issue. 2. Add a board/user comment created at or after that interaction. 3. Observe that before this change, the question interaction stayed pending instead of expiring as superseded by the comment. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` before this PR. **Deployment mode** Self-hosted server or local dev. The bug is in shared issue-thread interaction lifecycle handling. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific. This is a core issue-thread interaction bug. **Database mode** Applies to the normal Paperclip database-backed interaction lifecycle. **Access context** Board user comments supersede agent-created questions. **Relevant logs or output** No crash output. The stale pending interaction was visible in the issue thread state. **Relevant config (if applicable)** None. **Additional context** Confirmation-style interactions already supported this stale-by-comment behavior. This PR brings question interactions into the same lifecycle model. **Privacy checklist** - [x] I have reviewed all pasted output for PII and included no private instance links, local ticket ids, secrets, logs, or screenshots. ## What Changed - Added `supersedeOnUserComment` support to `ask_user_questions` payloads, defaulting it to `true` during interaction creation. - Expire pending question interactions when a later board/user comment supersedes them, including a result with `expirationReason: "superseded_by_comment"` and the superseding `commentId`. - Updated interaction summaries and cards so expired question requests show a clear amber state with a jump link to the comment and correct singular/plural copy. - Updated agent onboarding guidance to describe the new default and how to opt out. - Added shared, server, and UI test coverage for the new lifecycle behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts --reporter=dot` passed: 5 files, 73 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts --reporter=dot && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed after the final type-safety cleanup. - Confirmed the branch is rebased on current `origin/master`. - Confirmed the diff does not touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`, `.github/workflows`, or database migrations. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: `ask_user_questions` now defaults to expiring after later board/user comments. Existing callers that need questions to stay open through discussion can set `supersedeOnUserComment: false`. - Expired question interactions store an empty `answers` array, so downstream consumers should treat the explicit `expirationReason` as the meaningful outcome. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Paperclip CodexCoder runtime, with terminal and repository tool use. Exact context window is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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
|
4d5322c821 |
[codex] Add checkbox confirmation issue interactions (#7649)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent work is coordinated through issues, comments, interactions, and approval-style handoffs. > - Existing issue-thread interactions could ask questions, suggest tasks, and request confirmation, but they did not support a structured checkbox confirmation payload for choosing one or more options. > - That gap made board/user confirmations harder to validate consistently across API callers, plugin helpers, CLI tooling, and the UI. > - This pull request adds the shared checkbox confirmation contract, server handling, client helpers, and issue-thread UI needed to render and submit structured selections. > - The benefit is that agents can request bounded multi-select confirmations in the same audited issue-thread flow as other Paperclip interactions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - No public GitHub issue found for this exact branch. Internal Paperclip issue: PAP-10415 / PAP-10441 requested creating this PR for the checkbox confirmation issue-thread UI component work. - GitHub duplicate search performed for checkbox confirmation / issue-thread interaction PRs; no matching open PR was found. - Related issue search result `#7497` was unrelated company file cleanup work, so it is not linked as a related issue. ## What Changed - Added shared types, validators, constants, and tests for `request_checkbox_confirmation` interactions. - Extended server issue-thread interaction service and routes for checkbox confirmation creation, validation, expiration, and response handling. - Added CLI, MCP, and plugin SDK helper coverage so external callers can create the new interaction shape consistently. - Updated the issue-thread interaction UI to render checkbox confirmations with min/max bounds, selection summaries, stale-target states, and accept/decline flows. - Documented the checkbox confirmation interaction contract in the Paperclip skill/API reference. ## Verification - Rebased cleanly on `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` fetched into `public-gh/master` at `a4fa0eaf5`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Ran focused tests with `NODE_ENV=test`: ```sh NODE_ENV=test pnpm run preflight:workspace-links NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/issue-subresources.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/project-goal.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts ``` Result: 8 test files passed, 78 tests passed. - CI on latest head `63b9e55` is green. - Greptile Review passed on latest head; GraphQL review-thread check shows all Greptile threads resolved. ## Risks - Medium surface area because the interaction contract touches shared validators, server routes/services, UI rendering, CLI, MCP, plugin SDK helpers, and docs. - No database migrations are included. - `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally excluded per repository lockfile policy. - UI screenshots are not attached because the task explicitly requested not to add design screenshots or images unless they were part of the work; component tests cover the new rendering and interaction states. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository file access, shell command execution, git/GitHub CLI tooling, and Paperclip control-plane API access. Exact hosted model ID/context-window metadata is not exposed inside this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] 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
|
454edfe81e |
Add recovery handoff system notices (#5289)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Agent runs can end productively while the source issue still lacks a durable final disposition. > - That leaves the control plane unsure whether to resume, escalate, or close the work. > - Issue comments also need a presentation contract so system-authored recovery notices can render as first-class thread messages without overloading normal comments. > - This pull request adds successful-run handoff recovery, comment presentation metadata, and system notice rendering. > - The benefit is stricter task liveness with clearer operator-facing recovery state. ## What Changed - Added successful-run handoff decisions, wake payloads, escalation behavior, and recovery tests. - Added issue comment presentation metadata with migration `0078_white_darwin.sql` and shared/server/company portability support. - Rendered recovery/system notices in issue chat with dedicated UI components, fixtures, tests, and storybook/lab coverage. - Included the current recovery model-profile hint patch so automatic recovery follow-ups use the cheap profile. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/recovery/successful-run-handoff.test.ts ui/src/components/SystemNotice.test.tsx ui/src/lib/system-notice-comment.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueChatThreadSystemNotice.test.tsx` ## Risks - Migration-bearing PR: merge this before any other branch that might later add a migration. - The branch touches both recovery services and issue-thread rendering, so review should pay attention to recovery wake idempotency and comment metadata compatibility. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6b7f6ce4b8 |
[codex] Split PR #4692 UI/QoL updates (#4701)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a company-scoped control plane. > - The affected surface is the board UI for issue threads, issue lists, routines, dialogs, navigation, and issue review indicators. > - Closed PR #4692 bundled backend, schema, docs, workflow, and UI/QoL work into one oversized change set. > - Greptile could not keep reviewing that broad PR because it exceeded the 100-file review limit and mixed unrelated concerns. > - This pull request extracts the UI/QoL slice into a fresh branch under the review limit while leaving workflow and lockfile churn out. > - The benefit is a focused review path for the board UI performance and workflow improvements without reopening the oversized PR. ## What Changed - Added long issue-thread virtualization, scroll-container binding, anchor preservation, latest-comment jump targeting, and related regression/perf fixtures. - Improved issue list scalability with scroll-based loading, server offset parameters, and pagination-focused UI tests. - Reduced new issue dialog typing churn and split dialog action subscriptions so broad layout/nav surfaces avoid unnecessary renders. - Added routine variables help and routine description mention options for users, agents, and projects. - Added productivity review badge/link UI and fixed the badge to use Paperclip's company-prefixed router link. - Kept the split PR below Greptile's review limit and excluded `.github/workflows/pr.yml` and `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --no-frozen-lockfile` in the clean worktree to install `@tanstack/react-virtual` locally without committing lockfile churn. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx src/pages/Routines.test.tsx src/pages/Issues.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 83 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed. - Split-scope checks: 53 changed files; no `.github/workflows/pr.yml`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Screenshots were not captured in this heartbeat; the changes are primarily virtualization, routing, pagination, and editor behavior covered by focused regression tests. ## Risks - Moderate UI risk because issue-thread virtualization changes scroll behavior on long conversations; regression tests cover anchor jumps, latest-comment targeting, row metadata, and short-thread fallback. - Moderate integration risk because the issue-list offset parameter and productivity review field depend on matching API behavior. - Dependency risk: the UI package adds `@tanstack/react-virtual` while repository policy keeps `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of PRs, so CI must resolve dependency changes through the repo's normal lockfile policy. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled local repository and GitHub workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
a957394420 |
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dotta
|
03dff1a29a | Refine issue workflow surfaces and live updates | ||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
627fbc80ac |
Polish issue chat chain-of-thought rendering
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
3fea60c04c |
Polish issue chat layout and add UX lab
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
6e4694716b |
Add a run transcript UX fixture lab
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
