PaperClipAI

Jannik/PaperClipAI

0 Fork 0

mirror of https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git synced 2026-10-30 21:49:18 +01:00

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	88bf4c6c1d	refactor(storybook): organize folders and navigation by feature map (#16049 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The feature map describes product areas and verification entry points. > - Storybook has 223 story suites that show production components, proposals, and retained history. > - The parent PR maps those suites to features, but their folders and sidebar still use unrelated groups. > - This pull request puts the existing suites under feature folders and uses the feature map's names and order in the sidebar. > - Explicit meta IDs preserve existing story links while the titles change. > - Contributors can find stories through the same product structure without losing examples. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16046. This is the requested follow-up. Parent #16046 is merged. This PR now targets master, with its single follow-up commit rebased onto the parent squash merge. The Storybook implementation is unchanged by that rebase. Related open Storybook PRs were checked; this change organizes existing suites and adds no product capability. ## What Changed - Move all 223 story files into folders named for their primary feature area. Keep useful scenario groups below the feature's sidebar label. - Order the sidebar by the eight feature-map sections. Put Overview first and shared Foundations last. Leave areas with no stories out of the sidebar. - Move 19 support files into `ui/storybook/support/` and update relative imports and active documentation. - Preserve all 2,210 story IDs and the single docs ID through explicit CSF meta IDs. Keep all entry names and story exports. - Record stable IDs and sidebar titles in the downstream catalog. Validate feature folders, title prefixes, and IDs. Update the maintenance skill and review evidence. ## Verification - Storybook build passed. Built index comparison against parent `75bd3c977cd828d5222823850339e8204f40eb47` found the same 2,211 entries, IDs, and names. - UI typecheck passed (`ui/node_modules/.bin/tsc -b` from `ui`, invoked as `./node_modules/.bin/tsc -b`). - UI Vitest project: 728 files and 8,176 tests passed. - Catalog checker and its nine tests passed. Feature-map checks, token gates, and the maintenance-skill validator passed. - Chromium: nine existing play cases and one render case reached `storyFinished: success` with no page exceptions. The guide rendered, sidebar sections followed map order, and a search for `steering/queue` opened its preserved story link. - Source comparison found only meta title/ID changes, rebased relative references, and updated fixture path text in story files. - To inspect: build Storybook, start `node scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs --port 6136`, and open the Overview guide. Expand feature folders and use existing story links. - The complete repository suite was not repeated for this organization change. The parent records a backend timeout that passed in isolation, without a complete broad-suite pass. Visual comparisons remain blocked by the unpublished empty baseline. The separate fixture-server story was not run. ## Risks - Open branches that add stories under old paths will need to choose a feature folder and update the catalog. Cross-feature suites have one primary home and retain related capability references. - Sidebar paths change; story and docs IDs remain stable. Automated references to source paths may need the new location. - This is one requested follow-up with 258 changed files, mostly moves. It exceeds the usual review-size guideline because splitting it would leave the sidebar and folder convention partly migrated. - Browser verification samples ten stories, not all 2,210. Existing production/prototype classifications and review gaps remain unchanged. - Required CI gates and a 5/5 review passed on the original head. Fresh checks and review are running for the rebased head. Catalog validation and all nine checker tests passed after rebase; UI, map, skill, and checker contents are identical to the original reviewed head. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and local browser automation. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] 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 22:29:22 +00:00
DottaandPaperclip	a7a244ab33	feat: add company decision models with permission and cost controls (#15473 ) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Optional product features need small, typed model decisions. > - Each company needs to choose which shared API connection pays for those decisions. > - Calls must retain user and task permissions, budget limits, and cost attribution. > - This pull request adds a managed decision service, setup UI, and request history. > - Features can check availability cheaply and keep their existing behavior when decisions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Subsystem affected Server services, shared contracts, database accounting, Company Settings, and Costs. Problem or motivation Paperclip has no common decision-model service. Adding provider calls within each feature would duplicate credential access, permission checks, and billing rules. Proposed solution Let a connection manager configure one company decision model. Support OpenAI Decisions and Jev through OpenRouter. Provide a fixed setup test and metadata-only history. Default company-sponsored background decisions to on during setup, and preserve a saved off setting. Alternatives considered Per-feature credentials would duplicate existing connection management. Personal overrides and provider fallback chains add permission and billing complexity; they remain deferred. Roadmap alignment Reviewed ROADMAP.md and searched open PRs. This extends existing connection access and budget accounting. Product features that call the service remain outside this change. No matching decision-model service PR was found. ## What Changed - Add company settings, an internal `decisionModelService`, local availability checks, and trusted human, agent/run, and system contexts. - Pin Vercel AI SDK provider dependencies and adapt boolean, choice, and ordered-score decisions for both providers. Bound requests and time; disable paid retries. - Add durable invocation metadata and agentless decision ledger charges. Preserve fractional cents, pricing evidence, dispatch identity, and unresolved billing holds. - Share the company accounting lock and apply company, agent, and project budgets. Settle charges once, retain unknown holds, and recover interrupted calls without resubmission. - Reuse connection setup and management UI. Add a Decisions view under Costs, production-component Storybook coverage, database migration, and service documentation. ## Verification - Passed 166 current-code tests covering the decision service/provider, setup component, Costs, OpenAPI, and every failure from the earlier broad run. Coverage includes native SDK wire formats, refusals, billed malformed responses, permission and secret-rotation races, identity changes, concurrent budget admission, unresolved holds, agent/task deletion, and stale setup feedback. - Passed 170 existing connection, cost, budget, heartbeat-accounting, and profile regression tests. - Passed repository typecheck, production build, and design token gates after integrating master. Verified the generated migration on a fresh test database and upgraded the populated preview database from the branch's earlier migration without losing settings or usage. - Ran the required full `pnpm test:run`: its general phase completed with 16,354 passed and 10 failures across five files while this branch was still being updated. Every reported failure passes in the current-code rerun; the serialized phase did not run after that failure. The full GitHub CI suite passed on `b1b856a88`: general and serialized tests, browser shards, runner checks, typecheck, production build, packaging/canary, and policy gates. [CI evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37673106360). - Passed the full-shell Storybook setup-to-history interaction test again after integrating master. Greptile rates the final revision 5/5 with zero unresolved threads. - Walked through the running app: empty setup, add each provider, save, reload, run all three sample questions, inspect fractional charges in history, switch provider while sponsorship is off, disable, and reconnect. Checked mobile settings. These tests used the actual UI, vault, server, SDKs, and database with simulated upstream responses. - Live paid setup tests remain unverified: this environment has no authorized OpenAI/OpenRouter credentials available. No mocked test is presented as live provider evidence. Reviewer journey: Company Settings → General → Decision model. Add/select a shared API connection, save, run the billed sample, open View usage, then disable decisions and verify Run test is disabled after reload. ## Risks - The SDK decision interface is experimental. Pinned versions and wire-format tests limit upgrade drift. - The migration allows agentless service charges and reservations. Existing agent cost-reporting APIs still require an agent, and decision receipts stay separate from run reconciliation. - Timeouts can have unknown provider charges. Holds remain until an audited accounting correction resolves them. - OpenAI prices use a versioned Decisions rate snapshot; OpenRouter costs use provider receipts. Unknown pricing is retained as unknown. - A configured company authorizes background spending by default. Setup explains this, and managers can turn it off. - Live provider account/model availability still needs the two credentialed acceptance checks. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The exact serving revision and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-07 15:53:13 -05:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

DottaandPaperclip

88bf4c6c1d

refactor(storybook): organize folders and navigation by feature map (#16049 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The feature map describes product areas and verification entry
points.
> - Storybook has 223 story suites that show production components,
proposals, and retained history.
> - The parent PR maps those suites to features, but their folders and
sidebar still use unrelated groups.
> - This pull request puts the existing suites under feature folders and
uses the feature map's names and order in the sidebar.
> - Explicit meta IDs preserve existing story links while the titles
change.
> - Contributors can find stories through the same product structure
without losing examples.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #16046. This is the requested follow-up. Parent #16046 is merged.
This PR now targets master, with its single follow-up commit rebased
onto the parent squash merge. The Storybook implementation is unchanged
by that rebase. Related open Storybook PRs were checked; this change
organizes existing suites and adds no product capability.

## What Changed

- Move all 223 story files into folders named for their primary feature
area. Keep useful scenario groups below the feature's sidebar label.
- Order the sidebar by the eight feature-map sections. Put Overview
first and shared Foundations last. Leave areas with no stories out of
the sidebar.
- Move 19 support files into `ui/storybook/support/` and update relative
imports and active documentation.
- Preserve all 2,210 story IDs and the single docs ID through explicit
CSF meta IDs. Keep all entry names and story exports.
- Record stable IDs and sidebar titles in the downstream catalog.
Validate feature folders, title prefixes, and IDs. Update the
maintenance skill and review evidence.

## Verification

- Storybook build passed. Built index comparison against parent
`75bd3c977cd828d5222823850339e8204f40eb47` found the same 2,211 entries,
IDs, and names.
- UI typecheck passed (`ui/node_modules/.bin/tsc -b` from `ui`, invoked
as `./node_modules/.bin/tsc -b`).
- UI Vitest project: 728 files and 8,176 tests passed.
- Catalog checker and its nine tests passed. Feature-map checks, token
gates, and the maintenance-skill validator passed.
- Chromium: nine existing play cases and one render case reached
`storyFinished: success` with no page exceptions. The guide rendered,
sidebar sections followed map order, and a search for `steering/queue`
opened its preserved story link.
- Source comparison found only meta title/ID changes, rebased relative
references, and updated fixture path text in story files.
- To inspect: build Storybook, start `node
scripts/serve-storybook-static.mjs --port 6136`, and open the Overview
guide. Expand feature folders and use existing story links.
- The complete repository suite was not repeated for this organization
change. The parent records a backend timeout that passed in isolation,
without a complete broad-suite pass. Visual comparisons remain blocked
by the unpublished empty baseline. The separate fixture-server story was
not run.

## Risks

- Open branches that add stories under old paths will need to choose a
feature folder and update the catalog. Cross-feature suites have one
primary home and retain related capability references.
- Sidebar paths change; story and docs IDs remain stable. Automated
references to source paths may need the new location.
- This is one requested follow-up with 258 changed files, mostly moves.
It exceeds the usual review-size guideline because splitting it would
leave the sidebar and folder convention partly migrated.
- Browser verification samples ten stories, not all 2,210. Existing
production/prototype classifications and review gaps remain unchanged.
- Required CI gates and a 5/5 review passed on the original head. Fresh
checks and review are running for the rebased head. Catalog validation
and all nine checker tests passed after rebase; UI, map, skill, and
checker contents are identical to the original reviewed head.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context-window
size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository
inspection, code execution, and local browser automation.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [ ] 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 22:29:22 +00:00

DottaandPaperclip

a7a244ab33

feat: add company decision models with permission and cost controls (#15473 )

## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Optional product features need small, typed model decisions.
> - Each company needs to choose which shared API connection pays for
those decisions.
> - Calls must retain user and task permissions, budget limits, and cost
attribution.
> - This pull request adds a managed decision service, setup UI, and
request history.
> - Features can check availability cheaply and keep their existing
behavior when decisions are unavailable.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**Subsystem affected**

Server services, shared contracts, database accounting, Company
Settings, and Costs.

**Problem or motivation**

Paperclip has no common decision-model service. Adding provider calls
within each feature would duplicate credential access, permission
checks, and billing rules.

**Proposed solution**

Let a connection manager configure one company decision model. Support
OpenAI Decisions and Jev through OpenRouter. Provide a fixed setup test
and metadata-only history. Default company-sponsored background
decisions to on during setup, and preserve a saved off setting.

**Alternatives considered**

Per-feature credentials would duplicate existing connection management.
Personal overrides and provider fallback chains add permission and
billing complexity; they remain deferred.

**Roadmap alignment**

Reviewed ROADMAP.md and searched open PRs. This extends existing
connection access and budget accounting. Product features that call the
service remain outside this change. No matching decision-model service
PR was found.

## What Changed

- Add company settings, an internal `decisionModelService`, local
availability checks, and trusted human, agent/run, and system contexts.
- Pin Vercel AI SDK provider dependencies and adapt boolean, choice, and
ordered-score decisions for both providers. Bound requests and time;
disable paid retries.
- Add durable invocation metadata and agentless decision ledger charges.
Preserve fractional cents, pricing evidence, dispatch identity, and
unresolved billing holds.
- Share the company accounting lock and apply company, agent, and
project budgets. Settle charges once, retain unknown holds, and recover
interrupted calls without resubmission.
- Reuse connection setup and management UI. Add a Decisions view under
Costs, production-component Storybook coverage, database migration, and
service documentation.

## Verification

- Passed 166 current-code tests covering the decision service/provider,
setup component, Costs, OpenAPI, and every failure from the earlier
broad run. Coverage includes native SDK wire formats, refusals, billed
malformed responses, permission and secret-rotation races, identity
changes, concurrent budget admission, unresolved holds, agent/task
deletion, and stale setup feedback.
- Passed 170 existing connection, cost, budget, heartbeat-accounting,
and profile regression tests.
- Passed repository typecheck, production build, and design token gates
after integrating master. Verified the generated migration on a fresh
test database and upgraded the populated preview database from the
branch's earlier migration without losing settings or usage.
- Ran the required full `pnpm test:run`: its general phase completed
with 16,354 passed and 10 failures across five files while this branch
was still being updated. Every reported failure passes in the
current-code rerun; the serialized phase did not run after that failure.
The full GitHub CI suite passed on `b1b856a88`: general and serialized
tests, browser shards, runner checks, typecheck, production build,
packaging/canary, and policy gates. [CI
evidence](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37673106360).
- Passed the full-shell Storybook setup-to-history interaction test
again after integrating master. Greptile rates the final revision 5/5
with zero unresolved threads.
- Walked through the running app: empty setup, add each provider, save,
reload, run all three sample questions, inspect fractional charges in
history, switch provider while sponsorship is off, disable, and
reconnect. Checked mobile settings. These tests used the actual UI,
vault, server, SDKs, and database with simulated upstream responses.
- Live paid setup tests remain unverified: this environment has no
authorized OpenAI/OpenRouter credentials available. No mocked test is
presented as live provider evidence.

Reviewer journey: Company Settings → General → Decision model.
Add/select a shared API connection, save, run the billed sample, open
View usage, then disable decisions and verify Run test is disabled after
reload.

## Risks

- The SDK decision interface is experimental. Pinned versions and
wire-format tests limit upgrade drift.
- The migration allows agentless service charges and reservations.
Existing agent cost-reporting APIs still require an agent, and decision
receipts stay separate from run reconciliation.
- Timeouts can have unknown provider charges. Holds remain until an
audited accounting correction resolves them.
- OpenAI prices use a versioned Decisions rate snapshot; OpenRouter
costs use provider receipts. Unknown pricing is retained as unknown.
- A configured company authorizes background spending by default. Setup
explains this, and managers can turn it off.
- Live provider account/model availability still needs the two
credentialed acceptance checks.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code
execution, and browser tools. The exact serving revision and
context-window size are not exposed in this session.

## Checklist

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

---------

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

2026-10-07 15:53:13 -05:00