mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-30 05:16:50 +01:00
f03522ea8fba2dfd3b08229bfc33a753e6cbd82c
9
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
8bc051245f |
fix(server): wake stale GitHub review repair from committed changes (#17664)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/215/changes/paperclip/215 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub checks and task admission can finish in either order. > - A check can reject an old head before admission creates its review row. > - The chat maintenance loop repeatedly scans for that late review. > - Existing cancellation and delivery receipts already identify the repair. > - This pull request wakes repair from committed changes and leaves settled history quiet. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** GitHub chat maintenance repeatedly scans all review projections. Empty instances and retained history incur database work even when no repair is owed. **What did you expect?** A committed stale-head cancellation or admitted review should wake repair. Only the exact delivery's unassessed queued/running review should become superseded. When no repair remains, this duty should stop making database calls. **Steps to reproduce** Configure a GitHub chat endpoint and leave it idle after all reviews settle. The previous maintenance callback continues to call repairSupersededReviews. A rapid push can also cancel a check before admission inserts its review, which explains why recovery must remain. Refs #17662, the merged review-check publication parent. Related #17661 and #17656 migrate terminal responses and acknowledgements. This slice owns only late stale-head projection repair. ## What Changed - Move the repair predicate and execution into the GitHub provider owner. Match the original admitted delivery and cancellation receipt. Recheck state and assessment in the update. - Register a scoped worker with the existing coordinator. Use keyset pages and fair bounded dispatch. Keep retries only for unresolved repair or failed reconstruction. - Signal before cancellation, automatic receipt insertion, automatic-review binding, and check-driven review-state writes. Preserve existing transaction ownership and outer commit behavior. - Remove the periodic provider wrapper and publication-maintenance callback. Preserve explicit manual recovery and independent missed-webhook recovery. - Add two concurrent, idempotent partial indexes. Use a guarded delivery UUID lookup and a bounded exact-receipt lookup. Add no tables. - Add ten real-database lifecycle and producer cases. Document the producer audit, failure history, and remaining limits. - Keep YAML browser reads scoped to the editor after focus changes, with the original journey assertions and deadlines. ## Verification Current source: `0886a0229b1c4f68d2f582da86aa1f248e9124f3`. - At `dd6bca0485c3444d6e3d0ee10ec4aa651e801392`, **287 distinct cases pass**: 274 complete GitHub workflow cases and 13 startup cases. The GitHub command filters out 1,485 unrelated cases. The workflow suite uses a new, pre-migrated PostgreSQL database. - Coverage includes both orders of cancellation and admission, outer commit and rollback, restart, drain, standby, failed-update retry, concurrent assessment under an observed row lock, shutdown during that wait, more than one candidate page, manual history, and settled-history quiet. - Database build, server typecheck/build, module boundaries, and target migration order pass. - Canonical migration `0403_natural_cerise.sql` preserves both original index definitions and concurrent idempotent creation. All 401 parent migration receipts remain unchanged during upgrade. One new receipt is added. Replay adds none. Both indexes are ready and valid on fresh and upgraded databases. The five newest snapshots remain. - The normal parent merge preserved the prepared tree. The later browser fixture repair changes only its central read helper and verification note. Entire server, package, and UI trees remain identical to the accepted source. - [The owning audit](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/0886a0229b1c4f68d2f582da86aa1f248e9124f3/doc/plans/2026-10-25-github-review-projection-sleep-audit.md) records the exact evidence and earlier failures. Earlier query-plan measurements retain their historical revision scope. - Fresh current-head CI and Greptile review remain required. No deployed sleep, full repository-suite, or fleet-savings claim is made. Failure accounting: browser shard 7 failed twice on `1453a4447c0d4d33f713ae3e00734c7950f95426` because the YAML helper read whole-page clipboard text while main was focused. Three isolated unchanged local passes did not resolve that failure. A controlled native focus-loss probe reproduced the same error before the repair and passed after it. The helper now clears stale clipboard data, focuses the editor, and waits within the existing expectation budget for a fresh YAML copy. All six complete YAML journeys pass with zero retries in 50.9 seconds. Journey assertions and deadlines are unchanged. The temporary fault is removed. The exact CI focus-change trigger remains unknown. [Both CI attempts](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40777754306) remain part of the verification record. Fresh new-head checks are required. Ponytail follow-up: the 4/5 review of `b3c81ba` was conditional on fixing a stale startup-test slice marker, so the merge was held. Boundary assertions reproduced the invalid -1 end index. The test now uses the existing timer declaration and checks both bounds; all 13 startup/hostname cases pass. The optional no-op coordinator cleanup is already in #17666. The six YAML journeys and all production code remain unchanged. Fresh review and CI are required for this corrected head. ## Risks - Missing a future producer signal could delay discovery until restart. Supported writers share the current database owner's process-local notification scope. Independent SQL writers and other server processes need their own integration. - The migration builds indexes concurrently. The existing migration runner handles interruption and invalid index recovery. - Direct GitHub missed-webhook discovery remains periodic. This change does not make the whole chat service idle. - Existing Cloud wake coverage and sleep blockers remain unchanged. These tests do not prove deployed host or database suspension. - Each remaining sleep slice needs its own review and CI checks before merge. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
65fa1cd617 |
fix(server): schedule GitHub review checks from committed changes (#17662)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/213/changes/paperclip/213 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review checks report the state of admitted agent work. > - The chat maintenance loop searches for check work even when none remains. > - Existing action rows already record unfinished publication and retry deadlines. > - Committed changes can wake those rows through the shared coordinator. > - An unresolved check must still detect a remote head change when a webhook is missed. > - This pull request schedules only outstanding checks and leaves settled history quiet. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The GitHub chat maintenance callback repeatedly queries review-check actions. Empty queues and completed history still incur database reads. Local state changes wait for the maintenance callback. **Expected behavior** Committed check creation, review binding, run changes, and publication-lease release wake the worker. Existing retry and remote-head deadlines apply only to unfinished checks. A settled worker makes no recurring database or provider calls. **Steps to reproduce** Configure a GitHub bot with no outstanding checks, or finish all of its checks. Leave the instance idle. The old maintenance callback continues to call the check service. Refs #17661, the merged terminal-response parent. Related #17656 migrates response acknowledgements. Related #16385 changes branch-policy admission; this PR preserves that separate policy boundary. Late stale-head projection repair remains a separate follow-up slice. ## What Changed - Move the existing check-state reader into the GitHub provider owner. Preserve current authority, run selection, assessment ownership, and check replacement behavior. - Register a scoped worker with the existing coordinator and scheduler. Existing received and retryable-failed actions remain durable truth. No new table is added. - Signal check enqueue, task review receipts, manual review insertion/binding, run lifecycle changes, and publication-lease release through existing transaction ownership. - Preserve the saved failure backoff, eight-attempt policy, and competing lease expiry. Keep five-second remote-head reconciliation only while a received check remains unresolved. - Check admission before each HTTP request. Shutdown leaves durable work recoverable without spending a provider failure attempt. - Remove check dispatch from the periodic GitHub callback. Keep the separate late-projection repair and the manual combined recovery method compatible. - Add an idempotent concurrent partial index for unfinished check selection. Retain the newest five generated snapshots. - Add eleven real-database worker cases and startup wiring coverage. Document producer coverage and the external reconciliation limit. ## Verification Current reviewed source: `2bba08403b195bf646eda48992b46d6f5cebf756`. - Normal merges preserve the complete review-check patch, the landed terminal-response parent, and current master changes. No landed SQL migration or journal entry changes. - At `6995f84b240a14a7b8660e1cf095b3aa1e1e3168`, **331 distinct tests pass**: 264 complete GitHub workflow cases, 30 completion cases, eight issue-tree producer cases, 16 login-cleanup cases, and 13 startup cases. The GitHub command filters out 1,485 unrelated cases. Login cleanup uses its real embedded PostgreSQL fixture. - Combined-master acceptance: **277 distinct tests pass** at `9c538aed1251fd7f7cecb829a0ecbce6110fb1ed`: 264 complete GitHub workflow cases and 13 startup cases. The GitHub command filters out 1,485 unrelated cases. A new PostgreSQL database receives all migrations through 0402.. - Migration `0402_ancient_malice.sql` preserves the original partial index definition and concurrent idempotent creation. All 400 prior migration receipts stay unchanged during upgrade. One new receipt is added. Replay adds no receipt. The index is ready and valid on fresh and upgraded PostgreSQL databases. The five newest snapshots are retained. - A rollback-only query probe adds 10,000 processed actions and one pending action. The actual parameterized candidate predicate selects the one pending row through the partial index, with two shared buffers and 0.007 ms execution time. This measures candidate discovery, not all lease or provenance reads. - Database build, server typecheck and build, module boundaries, migration safety and migration order pass. Audit: [GitHub review-check scheduling](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/2bba08403b195bf646eda48992b46d6f5cebf756/doc/plans/2026-10-25-github-review-check-sleep-audit.md). - Fresh checks and Greptile review are required for this head. Prior scores do not count. These checks do not prove deployed host suspension or fleet savings. ## Risks - Unresolved queued/running checks still make remote-head requests at the existing five-second deadline. GitHub webhook receipt does not prove future pushes cannot be missed. This PR does not claim active reviews become network-idle. - Run and configuration hints rebuild outstanding checks for the affected company. Enqueue, review, and lease hints narrow to the affected endpoint/repository/PR. Startup and scope reconstruction read existing pending rows; they are not constant-cost operations. - Delivery admission failures remain discoverable through the unresolved check's external reconciliation deadline. Not every shared delivery mutation gains a new immediate signal. - Notifications use the existing process-local database ownership contract. Independent SQL writers and other replicas need their own supported integration. - Provider markers, publication leases, and saved actions preserve recovery after uncertainty. This change does not expand Cloud alarm coverage or prove deployed host/database suspension. - Each remaining sleep slice needs its own review and CI checks before merge. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f8226b0515 |
fix(server): wake GitHub terminal responses from committed changes (#17661)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/210/changes/paperclip/210 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agent work and presents results in chat. > - GitHub acknowledgements already persist the response action and provider receipt. > - A terminal run can still owe a final response after acknowledgement. > - Periodic maintenance searches those rows even when no relevant state changed. > - Committed run, issue, presentation, lease and publication changes identify when recovery can advance. > - The owner should recover from those events and real deadlines, then become quiet. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17656, which is merged. This existing terminal-response slice targets master. **Problem:** A saved GitHub response can remain nonfinal while its run, native presentation, publication or source is unresolved. Removing maintenance without covering those producers loses recovery. Polling settled history keeps the tenant active. **Expected behavior:** Committed supported changes wake the terminal owner. It reconstructs existing actions, preserves provider authority and pending publication ownership, waits at saved deadlines where needed, and becomes quiet after settlement. ## What Changed - Register terminal GitHub response work with the shared scoped deadline coordinator, using existing action/delivery/publication/run rows. - Notify response availability from supported run milestones, native identity, recovery resolution, issue updates and tree/workspace restoration writes. Preserve outer transaction commit/rollback. - Keep GitHub response interpretation in its platform owner. Use the bounded run projection for both direct authorization and scheduling, including native presentation guards and deliberate passive outcomes. - Retain the existing publication lease, markers, source/principal checks and final receipt precedence. A publication owner or uncertain outcome keeps its existing authority; the worker does not replay it. - Remove only recurring terminal-response recovery, preserving the manual path and neighbouring duties. Add no table or scheduler service. - Regenerate the original sparse terminal-work index as `0401_yummy_ultimates.sql`, concurrently and idempotently through the existing top-level migration runner. Preserve all prior SQL/journal entries and the five newest snapshots. ## Verification Published head: `88a209e28b969b5229e9a621aeddfd3cbae9b0cd`, integrated with landed #17656 (`ba5bba86dcdde32b14d4d7dec1b51898e5f6f22d`) and master `52b86c2032a189b0ea259c5b0cb7158b07ef788c`. - **74 distinct current cases pass:** 17 terminal-response lifecycle/producer cases (1,721 other chat cases skipped), all six queued-comment consumption regressions for the new upstream query optimization, all 30 heartbeat completion cases, all eight real/unit issue-tree control cases and all 13 startup cases. Database build, server typecheck/build, module boundaries and four fresh migrations through 0401 pass. - The earlier **304-case** prepared-parent matrix passes at `aa72f32641b2e2c680342cd49477272349aca9db`: all 253 GitHub workflow cases, 30 completion cases, eight issue-tree cases and 13 startup cases. It retains that revision scope. Repeated cases are not added to the current 74. - The terminal matrix covers finalized-history quiet, deleted Board sources, pending presentation/passive outcomes, outer rollback/commit, paused/new runs, restart/drain/standby, committed native identity, lease waits, full-page unrelated history, uncertain publication ownership and tree/workspace/exhausted-recovery producers. - A populated 0400 database upgrades to 0401 with all 399 prior migration receipts identical, exactly one added, and none added on replay. The terminal index is valid/ready on fresh and upgraded databases. Its SQL matches the original draft after whitespace normalization; generation keeps snapshots 0397–0401. - Normal integration `3c8339a541bf68bc9957b9d5a8df80d3a7c3452d` preserves the complete 24-path owned binary patch and all five new master paths. The landed parent tree also equals the previously published parent tree byte for byte. Both normal merge parents and the exact composition tree are checked. No force push or rebase occurs. - [The owner audit](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/88a209e28b969b5229e9a621aeddfd3cbae9b0cd/doc/plans/2026-10-25-github-terminal-response-sleep-audit.md#acceptance-on-the-landed-github-parent-and-current-master) preserves the original producer, quietness, failure-isolation, skipped-suite and presentation-wait results with their scopes. Current passes do not erase earlier failures or turn skips into passes. - The audit-only follow-up leaves all owned source/test/migration hashes unchanged. **Fresh exact-head CI and Greptile 5/5 with no actionable findings remain required.** No full local repository suite, live GitHub tenant or deployed sleep result is claimed. ## Risks - Process-local notifications cover supported application writers and shared pools. Independent SQL writers and other replicas gain no new wake guarantee. - Native terminal status alone does not authorize fallback publication. Pending presentation and existing publication ownership remain separate obligations. - Stop can leave an in-flight provider request settling; admission fences stop a subsequent request. Unknown outcomes retain their existing recovery rules. - Index creation can take time on large histories. Concurrent/idempotent migration and existing replay recovery remain in charge. - Worker quiet does not establish host/database suspension. Cloud alarm coverage and sleep admission remain unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, using reasoning, repository inspection, code execution and real PostgreSQL tests. The exact model identifier and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9c442cf48e |
feat(connections): deploy and configure Supabase and Vercel (#17217)
Add governed Supabase and Vercel deployment/configuration connectors with vaulted credentials, agent access policies, approvals, audit, and bounded provider operations. Deliver reviewed REST actions to native agents and guard Vercel preview intent on empty projects. Preserve secret-safe request identity and durable retry behavior. Verified by current-head CI, fresh Greptile 5/5 review, and real-agent deployment/configuration walkthroughs on disposable provider resources. Test resources and temporary provider tokens were removed after verification. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2cbca4ceb0 |
fix: retain channel tools across task continuations (#16806)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels give an agent tools for its assigned task. > - Each later run must resolve the task and its accepted requester again. > - Some native runs store the task in a database column without the older JSON fields. > - Tool discovery read only the JSON fields. GitHub calls also required a new inbound comment. > - This pull request uses the durable task binding and accepted request history. > - Later runs retain their channel tools while current access checks still apply. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A GitHub task can find `begin_review` on its first run, then receive an empty tool list on a later native run. If discovery is repaired alone, a call can still fail because the later run has no new inbound comment. Slack and voice tool access also read the older JSON task fields. **Expected behavior** A later run for the same task can find and call its assigned channel tools. The current requester, task, company, agent, endpoint, and access rules must still allow the call. Revoked access must fail. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a GitHub task and accept its linked requester. 2. Confirm that the runtime can find `begin_review`. 3. Start a later native run with `nativeIssueId`, accepted parent identity, and no JSON task ID or new wake comment. 4. Search for `begin_review` again. Before this change, the search returns an empty list. 5. Repair discovery alone and call `read_pull_request`. Before the request-history fix, the call fails with no active conversation capability. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced in source tests before this patch. The branch includes master at `fa50cab5685b9cdbb26ad9c610cc5b6c373d3ff4`. **Additional context** This is a core run-binding bug. The tests use PostgreSQL and synthetic provider responses. They do not send live reviews, Slack messages, or phone calls. ## What Changed - Resolve run task IDs from durable columns, with legacy JSON fields as a fallback. - Use the same binding in the gateway, access policy, identity service, and channel runtime preparation. - Recover accepted channel request history across later runs. Keep company, task, agent, and requester boundaries. - Recover older wake sources through verified parent runs, including after same-user board follow-ups. Clear the board message’s own legacy wake fallback. Keep cycle checks without a fixed limit on valid task history. - Retain the GitHub origin after a board comment from the same accepted user. Skip GitHub origin lookup results from other providers. - Keep ordinary board tools available when the requester changes. Accept legacy user comments without an author-type field. Still reject explicit malformed task IDs. - Prevent a later failure reply from replacing an earlier final GitHub answer. Recheck this rule under the publication lease. - Rotate the native tool contract to replace retained sessions with an older tool list. - Add continuation, publication, revocation, and boundary tests. Update the access and feature maps. ## Verification - Red: the later GitHub assigned-tool search returned an empty list before the binding fix. - Red: the later GitHub read failed with no active conversation capability before the request-history fix. - Green: runtime MCP discovery, GitHub read/begin/submit review, and response publication pass for monitor and same-user board continuations. - Green: Slack history, retained access controls, revocation, and voice gateway continuation pass. - Green: 35 channel, failure-publication, legacy-origin, long-history, and provenance tests pass. Both review findings had failing tests before their fixes. - Green: 107 gateway, operation-credential, identity, and provenance tests pass. These cover both first-run CI failures without changing their tests. - Green: 122 runtime, discovery-policy, and native-session tests pass; 2 unrelated tests are skipped. - Map checks and whitespace checks pass. - Updated to master in `cfcaba22628772d7fe1fb32b57ff7031c7072781`. The sole conflict was two tests added at the same location. Both the continuation test and the publication 403/401 test are retained. - Current local verification: all 179 gateway, credential, requester-identity, access-policy, runtime-context, and session-resume tests passed. Repository typecheck and build passed. Map and whitespace checks passed. - The new review regression first returned no source for a same-user board follow-up over legacy wake metadata. After the repair, all 27 provenance and channel cases passed. The combined GitHub discovery/read/begin/submit path and revoked access are covered. - The broader local channel run passed 176 cases and failed four timing/setup cases: a 15-second Slack authorization timeout, webhook-verification polling, a Slack acknowledgement deadline, and Discord setup polling. All four passed in isolation without source, assertion, or deadline changes. The earlier failure record is retained; the exact load/order cause is not established. Full CI must pass on the latest commit. - Current head: `7b9a08dcbc7b8140b589742f136944270b0496bb`. Repository typecheck and build pass on this commit. Greptile completed on this exact commit with 5/5; all four review threads are resolved. The final-head [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39278921653) passed: 55 checks passed and 2 intentionally skipped, with no failures or pending checks. This includes the full sharded test matrix, browser tests, typecheck, build, and Runner verification. Results were delayed during the [GitHub Actions incident](https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/8tzbpcnl75jp). An additional unsharded local full test run has not completed; the completed full-suite evidence is CI. - Earlier verification: the first PR commit failed two server suites. Those failures were fixed and verified before this update. The original 4 GiB sandbox could not complete full local typechecking or tests; the current checkout completed typechecking and build. The full test suite runs through the CI shards. No full local test-suite pass or live provider delivery is claimed. ## Risks - Request history can restore the wrong authority if its scope is too broad. The resolver checks each accepted parent against the task, company, agent, and requester. Tests cover invalid and cyclic history. - The native contract change starts a new provider session for older contracts. - No database migration or public API schema changes are required. Each tool call still checks live access. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment model ID or context-window size. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, code edits, and local 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 (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f69c6a8a35 |
fix(github): retry and recover review publication (#16284)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip manages agent work and its published results.
> - GitHub review bots publish task-bound assessments through governed
tools.
> - A review can survive a caller timeout because its publication intent
is durable.
> - A transient provider failure still returned a failed receipt before
recovery.
> - Gateway replay could return an empty cached result, and publication
retries had no dedicated scheduler deadline.
> - This pull request adds bounded retries, receipt recovery, and an
independent durable worker.
> - A temporary GitHub failure can recover without another review or
duplicate publication.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #16275. That change increased the GitHub tool deadline. This change
repairs retry and recovery behavior.
**What happened?**
A one-off GitHub HTTP 503 or 429 left the caller with a failed
publication receipt. The saved retry did not have its own scheduler
worker. An identical gateway call after a timeout could return an empty
cached result instead of the saved publication receipt.
**Expected behavior**
Temporary failures should retry under current authority. Pending work
should resume at its saved deadline after restart. Exact retries should
return the current receipt. Lost responses must not create duplicate
comments, findings, or checks.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Admit an advisory PR review request and begin its assessment.
2. Return HTTP 503 or 429 for the first summary-comment PATCH, then let
GitHub succeed.
3. Submit the assessment through the run-scoped tool gateway.
4. On master, the result says publication failed. With this change, the
same call returns the processed receipt and neutral check.
5. For receipt recovery, use a shorter caller deadline and repeat the
exact call after publication finishes.
**Paperclip version or commit**
Reproduced on master at `6cb6ac3b8e40cb90d734ba115a2f22f850ff9477`.
## What Changed
- Classify transient transport, server, and rate-limit failures. Honor
Retry-After and primary reset deadlines. Stop retries for permanent
permission and validation errors.
- Retry safe reads and installation-token issuance within a bounded call
window. Retry publication writes through the existing outbox and
provider receipt checks.
- Wait for up to three publication attempts within a 45-second retry
window. Keep the durable eight-failure cap and enforce saved deadlines
on explicit retries.
- Register an independent GitHub publication worker with
transaction-owned wake notifications, startup recovery, and per-PR lease
deadlines.
- Recover exact comment, progress, and assessment gateway calls from
their stored publication. Require the same company, agent, task, run,
connection, tool, arguments, and current policy. Clear stale timeout
errors after recovery. Approved exact retries read the current receipt
through the existing signed replay path; the worker retains the verified
approval for deferred writes and still rejects revocation.
- Add regression coverage and update the connector guide and
feature/access maps.
## Verification
- Red: both one-off HTTP 503 and 429 regressions failed on master with a
failed publication receipt.
- Green: the same tests passed after the change.
- GitHub review workflows: 133 covered against isolated PostgreSQL 18.
The final combined run passed 132 and hit one fifteen-second timeout
under concurrent build load. All three variants of that workflow passed
in isolation. The earlier combined run passed all 131 workflows before
the two approval regressions were added.
- Retry policy and delivery coordinator tests: 35 passed.
- Additional focused checks passed for the actual eight-failure cap,
exact-argument conflicts, policy revocation, and timeout receipt
recovery. The approved deferred-publication and revocation regressions
failed before the review repair and passed after it, with one approval
request preserved.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. `pnpm build`: passed. `node
scripts/check-maps.mjs`: passed.
- The broad local `pnpm test:run` path remains blocked by the host's
exhausted PostgreSQL shared-memory slots. The changed database-backed
workflows use an isolated Docker database instead. All Paperclip CI jobs
passed at
|
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7eea9d8214 |
fix(github): use bot names in review summaries (#16212)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - A GitHub bot can send a pull request to an agent and publish its review. > - Each bot has its own GitHub App identity, but every summary currently starts with "Paperclip Review". > - A generic heading makes it harder to identify reviewers when several bots review the same pull request. > - This pull request uses the bot display name in review summary headings. > - Users can identify each reviewer while required checks keep their existing name. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heading of a GitHub bot's published pull request review summary. **Current behavior** Every summary uses "Paperclip Review", regardless of the bot's name. The check also uses "Paperclip Review" and must keep that name for existing branch rules. **Proposed behavior** Complete and incomplete review summary headings use the GitHub bot display name. The heading falls back to the bot login, then the assigned agent name, when old connections have no display name. Separate GitHub Apps keep independent checks with the same name. **Reason and benefit** Readers can identify each bot's review. A regression test confirms that publishing a review does not update a check owned by another App or endpoint. **Breaking changes** The summary heading changes. Consumers that parse the old heading must accept bot names. No API, prompt configuration, database schema, or check name changes are included. No duplicate PR was found in the GitHub bot title search. ROADMAP.md does not contain a duplicate of this change. ## What Changed - Use the bot display name in complete and incomplete review headings. - Escape Markdown in names and fall back to the bot login or agent name. - Verify the heading through the publication workflow and keep check updates scoped to the App and endpoint. - Document bot-named summaries and independent checks. Update both access maps. ## Verification - Focused policy, heading, and existing UI tests: 67 passed. - Database-backed regression cases: 2 passed, including bot-name publication and independent checks. - Map checks, token gates, and git diff --check passed. - Typecheck and build passed on the final rebased branch. The final focused run passed 44 tests; the two database-backed regression cases also passed in a separate run. All final-head CI checks passed, including full test suites, build, typecheck, E2E, and security scans. Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5 with no actionable findings. No review threads remain unresolved. ## Risks - Consumers that parse the old summary heading must accept bot names. - The GitHub check remains Paperclip Review. Multiple-bot check isolation was tested with provider fixtures; a live two-bot GitHub test was not run for this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. The exact backend model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ed2c22ea8c |
feat(connections): simplify dedicated GitHub App setup (#15416)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and the tools each agent can use. > - GitHub bots need their own App identity and restricted repository access. > - Manual App configuration and repeated setup gates make that connection hard to finish. > - GitHub can create an App from a manifest, but people must approve creation and repository access. > - Each Paperclip stack should own configuration, credentials, signature verification, and task admission. > - This change uses Cloud as an encrypted callback and event gateway, then completes setup in the stack. > - GitHub review bots have their own experimental setting. Chat connector opt-in does not control them. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Dedicated GitHub App setup, bot settings, and task-scoped GitHub replies. **Current behavior** Users must configure an App, copy credentials, repeat repository selection, and complete manual verification gates. Review settings are hard to scan. Mentions in descriptions can be missed, and automatic completion text can produce an extra GitHub comment. **Proposed behavior** Choose an agent and connect GitHub under a personal account or organization. GitHub asks for creation and installation consent. Paperclip resumes the same draft, stores secrets locally, imports access, verifies delivery, and opens Settings. Each accepted request has one editable App-owned comment for progress and results. Review assessments produce deterministic checks for the reviewed commit. **Breaking changes** GitHub bots require their own default-off experimental opt-in. The setup-method and delegated-agent screens are removed. Per-person automatic-run flags remain readable but are replaced by author filters. Existing connections, direct webhooks, saved restrictions, and manual existing-App recovery remain supported. Companion gateway: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-cloud/pull/688 (merged). The roadmap and related PRs were checked; no duplicate dedicated-App wizard was found. ## What Changed - Add an independent **GitHub review bots** setting across the catalog, routes, identity admission, and task controls. Existing bots continue running when the UI setting is off. - Replace setup with Choose agent and Connect GitHub. Support personal and organization owners, inline low-trust conversion, saved drafts, known organization suggestions, automatic completion, and same-App recovery. - Keep manifests, OAuth PKCE, credential exchange, vault storage, installation verification, and original webhook-signature validation in the stack. Use the Cloud sealed gateway for public callbacks and outbound local delivery. - Add resumable owner metadata in migration 0323. Retry a failed registration renewal through the same durable replacement rather than creating another App route. - Support authorized mentions in issue and PR bodies, comments, inline comments, and review summaries. Preserve attachments, edited-source identity, duplicate protection, and lifecycle invalidation. Filter requests explicitly addressed to another connected bot. - Give agents task-scoped review, comment, and update tools. Update one working comment through progress and final output. Close coalesced requests and recover delayed acknowledgements, including deleted earlier working comments. Preserve automatic replies for legacy connections without saved review configuration. Preserve partial publication evidence and quarantine uncertain automatic fallbacks without blocking Board messages or questions. - Reorganize Settings and Access with rich slash-skill instructions, numeric passing scores, clear automation controls, formal-review tooltips, member and contributor sections, and verified App branding links. Preserve invalid score drafts and automation choices across tabs. - Paginate repositories in 20-row batches with search and a true connection-wide toggle. Batch verification at GitHub's 500-ID token limit. Keep saved repository overrides while hiding their editor. - Give each review a detail URL that remains usable beyond the newest 100 records. Synchronize the manager OpenAPI contracts and add recovery, authorization, UI, and browser regressions. - Reconcile the current master branch and retain its agent avatar, feature catalog, and extracted heartbeat preparation code. Preserve a saved test-drive port and recover from an occupied high port. ## Verification - Focused UI, independent experimental-setting, and CLI tests: 199 passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and `pnpm check:token-gates` passed. The broad local Vitest attempt was interrupted after resource timeouts and stale expectations; the affected regressions passed focused reruns. The latest-head full CI matrix passed, including all browser shards, server/chat suites, builds, typechecking, canary packaging, and Docker context integrity. A Docker Hub 429 required a CI retry; it passed without changing the code. - Final review repairs: 127 attachment/event tests and server typecheck passed. All 13 final integration regressions passed under the normal CI timeout, covering legacy reply compatibility, deleted coalesced comments, inline-only review completion, progress edits, and native final recovery. Restart-safe description/review attachments passed the attachment suite. - Final regressions: four reply/lifecycle tests, both native GitHub wait tests, 171 feature-gate/reply-contract tests, the routed review preview, and five scheduler/reply regressions passed. The final fixture repair also passed all six setup-continuation cases and all three complete chat-test shards in CI, covering terminal receipts and retries under the normal CI timeout. One loaded-host receipt run exceeded its local timeout; the exact case passed in an isolated rerun and the complete CI shard. - GitHub integration tests cover personal and organization setup, retry recovery, edited mentions, attachment provenance, coalesced requests, delayed acknowledgements, partial review writes, old review URLs, and company boundaries. - Browser qualification: both GitHub journeys, all five provider setup/management journeys, and the GitHub uncertain-send recovery journey passed. GitHub setup, reconnect, and task replies run with chat disabled; chat enabled alone cannot expose GitHub bots. The disposable qualification database was removed after testing. - Earlier live qualification verified App-owned issue replies, native slash-skill invocation, progress comment edits, and a 5/5 PR review with a passing current-head check in the dedicated permissions-smoke repository. These live checks did not use personal credentials as bot execution authority. ## Risks - Deploy the merged Cloud gateway protocol before the stack update. Each callback and encrypted event must retain the original instance and tenant binding. - Migration 0323 uses idempotent column additions for test installations that already applied the earlier draft migration number. - A verified connection does not prove runtime isolation or a completed review. Runtime checks remain separate. - Required merge checks must be configured in GitHub. A passing numeric score does not formally approve a PR; approval and request-changes tools remain opt-in. - Existing-App credentials cannot silently renew an uncertain manifest exchange. Recovery preserves the existing App, draft, connection, and agent. - Repository changes save immediately. Global toggles affect all currently available repositories, including unloaded rows, without granting new installation access. - A failed or uncertain tool write suppresses automatic fallback text; the governed outbox retains its evidence. Deleted or replaced response comments are not recreated through a personal credential fallback. - GitHub logo upload remains an optional human action in GitHub App settings. Runtime provisioning, delegated setup, screenshot publication, and production push delivery remain deferred. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with tool use and code execution. The exact runtime model identifier and context 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 references) - [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 (focused suites; complete test matrix is checked in CI) - [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
|
8813a50105 |
feat: run GitHub review bots through Paperclip agents (#13717)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work as tasks and runs. > - GitHub chat brings repository conversations into those tasks. > - A review bot needs the assigned agent, its authority, and governed provider tools. > - The existing channel connection did not supply that review workflow or a complete setup journey. > - This pull request adds GitHub App setup, account access, event prompts, task-bound review tools, and exact-commit checks. > - Operators can inspect each review through the same task, run, and activity systems. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** GitHub chat, governed connection tools, task execution, shared/database contracts, and connector setup UI. **Problem or motivation** Operators need a GitHub review bot that runs their assigned Paperclip agent. Mentions and PR events must preserve task ownership and requester authority. Provider publication must use the bot App identity and enforce the configured permissions. **Proposed solution** Extend the existing GitHub chat connector with resumable App onboarding, linked-member and sponsored-guest access, editable event prompts, and governed review operations. Validate structured assessments on the server and compute a stable Paperclip Review check for the exact head commit. **Alternatives considered** A separate review scheduler would duplicate Paperclip execution and permissions. Reusing personal GitHub credentials would change the bot identity and credential boundary. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing Connected Apps and governed-tool infrastructure. The project owner requested and approved this design. Related PR #8645 imports external Codex review feedback; this change runs an assigned Paperclip agent and publishes its results through the existing chat connector. ## What Changed - Include the current Paperclip instance origin in the copied setup prompt. Storybook uses its configured Paperclip origin; callback parameters and URL credentials are excluded. - Add a Claude/Codex copy button in the real setup and Storybook opening step. Its detailed prompt asks four setup questions and guides embedded-browser setup, verification, and optional required checks. Clipboard failure exposes selectable instructions. - Add a tutorial that explains why App installation, review scheduling, and required checks are separate choices. - Add manifest registration, an existing-App path, separate installation and repository selection, repository refresh, and explicit account confirmation. - Add low-trust agent guidance, effective capability verification, member selection, and explicit restricted guests with a sponsor. - Add configurable PR events, prompts, repository overrides, rating thresholds, and separate formal-review permissions. - Give the assigned agent governed App tools to read PRs, comment, begin an assessment, submit findings, and optionally submit a formal review. - Bind review history, root PR events, and inline replies to ordinary tasks. Deduplicate deliveries/findings and reject stale publication. - Link check Details to the underlying task on the current trusted hostname, or to Reviews before task creation. - Add schema migration 0283, API contracts, production UI, and 49 interactive Storybook states. - Repair local lease recovery. Keep the Cloud Dockerfile identical to master; no provider-pack layer or runtime-default environment variable is added. - Retry only rolled-back wake-admission transactions after transient endpoint-lock contention. A deterministic held-lock regression proves one accepted wake. ## Verification - Current head: `7ba761fe007bb798400d3e62346fa964f607f0f8`, rebased on master `d9b3a5653e41f2ee5a1345b97c86a238f7a5c8e9`. Dockerfile has zero diff against master. Final workspace typecheck and build passed. The new PostgreSQL migration regression passed and preserves existing relation and constraint identities after replay. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. There are zero unresolved review threads and no merge conflicts. - All current-head checks are green: 54 passed and two conditional Storybook jobs skipped. This includes complete server/workspace test suites, build, typechecks, policy checks, Runner suites, browser suites, and security status. One timing-sensitive callback-ordering test passed in isolation and its CI shard passed one retry. The duplicate local full-suite run was stopped after CI completed; it is not counted as a local full-suite pass. - Before the final Slack rebase and migration renumbering, 186 focused GitHub tests, 14 native bootstrap cases, token gates, and Storybook build passed. The final rebase retained the new Slack communication guidance. - The embedded-browser setup test copied the full detailed prompt, including the configured Paperclip instance URL. Desktop and narrow layouts were checked. Component tests cover successful copying and clipboard failure with selectable text and retry. - Live local and hosted GitHub acceptance evidence refers to application revision `cb703ac959876a07ebf3d7a295847f9f351eb6fc`. Real agent tasks exercised issue mentions, automatic PR reviews, inline findings, repeated mentions, task continuation, and failing-to-passing checks after a push. The Storybook agent generated, built, and browser-rendered pages; missing acceptance text failed, matching text passed, and broken JSX produced an incomplete result. - Live cases also covered independently disabled push events, prompt injection, duplicate signed deliveries, rapid pushes, stale-result rejection, finding deduplication, and restart recovery. Formal reviews were denied while disabled and published only after explicit enablement. Check Details links pointed to the underlying task on the trusted hostname. - Those hosted native Claude runs used the provider-pack layer now removed from this PR. They do not prove native Claude works on the standard Cloud image. A replacement hosted native Codex run is not yet verified: the disposable QA tenant has only an Anthropic AI connection. No new staging or production deployment was made for the packaging removal. - Required-check merge enforcement could not be tested because the private disposable repository's GitHub plan rejected the rules configuration. Published success/failure/incomplete check states were verified directly. ## Risks - Latest master allocated migration 0282 to Slack. The GitHub migration is regenerated as 0283 with replay-safe table/index/constraint creation; a PostgreSQL regression verifies existing relations and constraints are preserved. Existing preview tenants remain subject to the fleet migration-history compatibility preflight; no bypass is introduced. - Migration 0283 adds company-scoped configuration, registration, review, and publication records. Existing connections retain their behavior until reviews/tools are enabled. - Signed webhooks and expiring registration state remain required. Hosted installations also need the companion narrow Cloud gateway exemptions. - Agent assessments can be incomplete or wrong. The server enforces coverage/result structure, current-head publication, rating policy, and separate formal-review permission; it does not replace code-review judgment. - No Cloud image packaging changes are included. Remote native ACPX/Claude and OpenCode retain their existing operator-supplied provider-pack prerequisite. Native Codex and Codex with managed MCP tools do not require that pack. Earlier staging deployment evidence refers to its stated revision, not this packaging-removal head. Production rollout and merging remain outside this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository, code execution, API, and embedded-browser tools. The exact serving model ID and context-window size were not exposed by the 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 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> |