PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-21 00:05:49 +02:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	5c7a025032	fix(ui): clear consumed messages from the pending queue (#16317 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations keep follow-up messages pending while an agent works. > - The screen combines optimistic sends, queue snapshots, and run input records. > - A late send response can restore a local queue flag after a run takes the message. > - A stale queue snapshot can then keep the same message in pending. > - This pull request matches the input record to its source queue and clears stale pending flags. > - The benefit is that consumed messages leave pending while unsent messages stay visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description What happened? A follow-up can remain in the task composer's pending row after a run takes it as input. Local queue state can outlive the send request. The old projection cleared that state for steering, but not for ordinary run-start input. A stale queue read can also retain the consumed entry. Expected behavior A message that a started run takes as input appears once in history and leaves pending. Other pending messages remain available. A message assigned to a run that has not started remains pending. Steps to reproduce 1. Send a follow-up while a task has a live run. 2. Let a started run record that message as input before or after the send response arrives. 3. Let a queue read still include the consumed message. 4. Observe the message remain pending on the base revision. Paperclip version or commit Reproduced against master at `33d24e48ad` with controlled request ordering. Deployment mode Source checkout. Browser verification used the production task screen with a simulated native runner and delayed API responses. It did not run a live model or change a deployed instance. Related: [PR #15030](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15030) addresses acknowledgement matching in the runner console. This change addresses the task-detail composer and does not modify that console. ## What Changed - Clear local pending flags when a started run records the comment as input. - Use live-run input IDs while the run-history query catches up. - Match stale queue entries by their primary or coalesced source wake ID, even when the snapshot targets the previous run or has no target. - Retain coalesced source queue IDs in run context and include receipt IDs in compact task run reads. - Keep unstarted run inputs and authoritative retries pending. Cover send ordering, same-run and successor delivery, queued snapshots, coalesced inputs, and retry consumption. - Add the delivery-race checks to the steering feature map. ## Verification - Before the fix, the first four request-order regressions failed with the consumed message still in pending. Coverage now includes 16 combinations of receipt source, send-response order, and stale snapshot kind. - Focused UI checks: 5 files and 233 tests passed. These cover task detail, queue projection, optimistic comments, queued-message controls, and the task-chat adapter. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Server receipt checks: 5 files and 139 tests passed with `PAPERCLIP_TEST_POSTGRES_TEMPLATE=0`. These exercise real database reads, coalesced heartbeat input, and polling routes. The default cached-template path timed out during setup on this host; the fresh-cluster path passed without longer timeouts. - Token gates and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Browser: sent a follow-up with a delayed response in the production task screen. The consumed message moved into history. A second unsent follow-up stayed queued. Reload preserved both states. The API and runner were simulated. - `pnpm build` passed. - The full local repository test run was started, then stopped to isolate database setup timeouts. All 55 GitHub CI checks passed on `4ec6820cf1f89880b801fd5f938d72f54591c5e2`, including the full test matrix. One serialized server shard passed on its single rerun after a 15-second route-test timeout; the same 97-test route suite also passed locally. - Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Queue display depends on matching comment IDs, source queue IDs, and a recorded start time. Rows without start evidence stay pending. Newer queues remain visible until their own input receipt arrives. - Run context gains additive receipt metadata. No schema migration is required. Dispatch order, stored queue state, company access, and steering authority stay unchanged. - Browser evidence covers controlled response ordering. It does not establish deployment or live-provider behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 16:11:29 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	fc3b15537b	fix(runner): match call_api to existing agent REST permissions (#16040 ) Route native call_api through existing agent REST permissions. Preserve admitted credentials across restarts, protect sensitive replies and private snapshots, and compare saved completion with provider history through the same redaction projection. Add permission, privacy and recovery regressions and update the access map and run-log guide. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-13 07:34:15 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	7d9b93aee2	docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product capabilities. > - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission boundaries. > - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared capability IDs. > - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance ownership of both maps. > - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product behavior or permissions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288 added the original feature map. Issue type Missing documentation and maintenance contract. Where is the issue? The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the verification skills. What's wrong? There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points, permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it. Suggested fix Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the maintenance skill. ## What Changed - Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion links. - Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths, policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`. - Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence, agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately. Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability operation-reviewed. - Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the shared contract. - Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency. - Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI, runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes. ## Verification - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171 matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve. - Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests. Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed verification. - Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license blocks are unchanged. - Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is retained. - Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and contains only this contract change. - Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are pending. ## Risks - The companions are representative source baselines. They are not complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys. - The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context. - External links to the old product-map directory may need updates. Repository references have been updated. - Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This contract does not change authority or implement missing paths. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size, or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits, shell commands, and structural regression tests. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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>	2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

5c7a025032

fix(ui): clear consumed messages from the pending queue (#16317 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task conversations keep follow-up messages pending while an agent
works.
> - The screen combines optimistic sends, queue snapshots, and run input
records.
> - A late send response can restore a local queue flag after a run
takes the message.
> - A stale queue snapshot can then keep the same message in pending.
> - This pull request matches the input record to its source queue and
clears stale pending flags.
> - The benefit is that consumed messages leave pending while unsent
messages stay visible.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

A follow-up can remain in the task composer's pending row after a run
takes it as input. Local queue state can outlive the send request. The
old projection cleared that state for steering, but not for ordinary
run-start input. A stale queue read can also retain the consumed entry.

**Expected behavior**

A message that a started run takes as input appears once in history and
leaves pending. Other pending messages remain available. A message
assigned to a run that has not started remains pending.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Send a follow-up while a task has a live run.
2. Let a started run record that message as input before or after the
send response arrives.
3. Let a queue read still include the consumed message.
4. Observe the message remain pending on the base revision.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced against master at `33d24e48ad` with controlled request
ordering.

**Deployment mode**

Source checkout. Browser verification used the production task screen
with a simulated native runner and delayed API responses. It did not run
a live model or change a deployed instance.

Related: [PR
#15030](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15030) addresses
acknowledgement matching in the runner console. This change addresses
the task-detail composer and does not modify that console.

## What Changed

- Clear local pending flags when a started run records the comment as
input.
- Use live-run input IDs while the run-history query catches up.
- Match stale queue entries by their primary or coalesced source wake
ID, even when the snapshot targets the previous run or has no target.
- Retain coalesced source queue IDs in run context and include receipt
IDs in compact task run reads.
- Keep unstarted run inputs and authoritative retries pending. Cover
send ordering, same-run and successor delivery, queued snapshots,
coalesced inputs, and retry consumption.
- Add the delivery-race checks to the steering feature map.

## Verification

- Before the fix, the first four request-order regressions failed with
the consumed message still in pending. Coverage now includes 16
combinations of receipt source, send-response order, and stale snapshot
kind.
- Focused UI checks: 5 files and 233 tests passed. These cover task
detail, queue projection, optimistic comments, queued-message controls,
and the task-chat adapter.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- Server receipt checks: 5 files and 139 tests passed with
`PAPERCLIP_TEST_POSTGRES_TEMPLATE=0`. These exercise real database
reads, coalesced heartbeat input, and polling routes. The default
cached-template path timed out during setup on this host; the
fresh-cluster path passed without longer timeouts.
- Token gates and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed.
- Browser: sent a follow-up with a delayed response in the production
task screen. The consumed message moved into history. A second unsent
follow-up stayed queued. Reload preserved both states. The API and
runner were simulated.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- The full local repository test run was started, then stopped to
isolate database setup timeouts. All 55 GitHub CI checks passed on
`4ec6820cf1f89880b801fd5f938d72f54591c5e2`, including the full test
matrix. One serialized server shard passed on its single rerun after a
15-second route-test timeout; the same 97-test route suite also passed
locally.
- Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5. All review threads are
resolved.

## Risks

- Queue display depends on matching comment IDs, source queue IDs, and a
recorded start time. Rows without start evidence stay pending. Newer
queues remain visible until their own input receipt arrives.
- Run context gains additive receipt metadata. No schema migration is
required. Dispatch order, stored queue state, company access, and
steering authority stay unchanged.
- Browser evidence covers controlled response ordering. It does not
establish deployment or live-provider behavior.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The
exact serving model ID and context-window limit are not exposed in this
session.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-14 16:11:29 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

fc3b15537b

fix(runner): match call_api to existing agent REST permissions (#16040 )

Route native call_api through existing agent REST permissions. Preserve admitted credentials across restarts, protect sensitive replies and private snapshots, and compare saved completion with provider history through the same redaction projection. Add permission, privacy and recovery regressions and update the access map and run-log guide.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>

2026-10-13 07:34:15 -05:00

DottaandPaperclip

7d9b93aee2

docs: establish paired feature and agent access maps (#16025 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Contributors use the feature map to understand and verify product
capabilities.
> - Agents need APIs and usable entry points within their permission
boundaries.
> - Product recipes and agent access need separate records with shared
capability IDs.
> - This pull request establishes that contract and gives maintenance
ownership of both maps.
> - The benefit is repeatable access review without changing product
behavior or permissions.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #15983, which added the portable verification skills and updated
the feature map. This is its contract-only follow-up. Related: #15288
added the original feature map.

**Issue type**

Missing documentation and maintenance contract.

**Where is the issue?**

The product map, its missing agent access companions, and the
verification skills.

**What's wrong?**

There is no shared convention for API presence, agent entry points,
permission boundaries, access gaps, or evidence. An API declaration does
not prove that a permitted native or remote agent can use it.

**Suggested fix**

Keep the product and agent access maps as siblings under `maps/`. Reuse
capability IDs. Record representative source inventory separately from
operation review and live proof. Keep both maps aligned through the
maintenance skill.

## What Changed

- Move the existing product map to `maps/feature-map/`. Preserve its
recipes and Poteto format. Update relative links and add companion
links.
- Add `maps/agent-access-map/` with 35 area files and 171 matching
capability IDs. Seed representative API operations, agent paths,
policies and known gaps from the reviewed source inventory. Mark entries
as `baseline`, `source-only`, and live verification `not-run`.
- Define the shared contract in `maps/README.md`. Track API presence,
agent availability, policy, evidence and review depth separately.
Require operation enumeration before marking a broad capability
operation-reviewed.
- Extend `maintain-verification-skill` to reconcile both maps and
inspect actual route policy and production tool admission. Update
creation, verification, notices and contributor references to use the
shared contract.
- Add `scripts/check-maps.mjs` and ten regression tests. Check matching
areas/IDs, indexes, references, contract fields, API method/path
examples, justified exceptions and evidence-state consistency.
- Keep the coverage inventory unchanged. Preserve skill invocation
policies and both MIT license blocks. No product API, permission, UI,
runtime helper, migration, dependency or workflow changes.

## Verification

- Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` reports 35 paired areas and 171
matching capability IDs. All local map references resolve.
- Passed: `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs` runs ten tests.
Fixtures cover missing companions, renamed/orphan/duplicate IDs, broken
references, missing operation fields, empty exceptions, missing API
examples, empty policy fields, and verified evidence without passed
verification.
- Passed: metadata validation for all three verification skills. Skill
and contributor links resolve. Invocation policies and both license
blocks are unchanged.
- Compared relocated recipes with current master. Contents differ only
in relative links and companion links. `coverage.json` is byte-for-byte
unchanged. Master's updated read-only interaction test reference is
retained.
- Passed: `git diff --check`. The branch starts from current master and
contains only this contract change.
- Repository-wide typecheck, tests and build were not run locally for
this documentation and Node structural-check scope. Live agent access
was not exercised. Those gaps are explicit in the baseline entries; the
structural check does not certify behavior. CI and automated review are
pending.

## Risks

- The companions are representative source baselines. They are not
complete operation inventories or passed agent journeys.
- The checker cannot establish actual permissions, native tool
admission, operation completeness or truthful live evidence. Maintenance
must inspect source and verify with the actual permitted agent context.
- External links to the old product-map directory may need updates.
Repository references have been updated.
- Existing access gaps and board/user restrictions remain recorded. This
contract does not change authority or implement missing paths.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted with this change. The session does
not expose the exact serving model ID, configured context-window size,
or reasoning setting. Capabilities used: source analysis, file edits,
shell commands, and structural regression tests.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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>

2026-10-12 14:52:28 -05:00