6 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
6 people	d30c8f42b8	feat(ui): keep writes durable through temporary disconnects (#17960) ... <!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/123/changes/paperclip/123 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People save tasks, write documents, make decisions and send board messages. > - A disconnect can hide a response after the server accepts a write. > - Recovery must keep the original account, task and request key. > - The merged connection foundation in #15754 handles reads and shared outage state. > - This change adds bounded write recovery and explicit actions when recovery stops. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Temporary failures could lose edits, report accepted writes as failures, or require people to copy and send input again. A retry could target a newly selected task or account. Restoring attachments could create a second task. **Expected behavior** Keep the draft, its owner and its target. Retry only operations with a server contract that prevents duplicate writes. Verify uncertain results. Show conflicts and permanent failures, with an explicit resend or cancel action. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Save a task title during an outage, then open another task before recovery. 2. Restore a task creation that needs files, selecting those files in another order. 3. Lose a document or decision response, then interrupt the verification read. 4. Switch accounts while a create, upload or connected-channel publication is pending. 5. Type and erase a new-task draft before the first account lookup completes, then reopen it. This PR carries the write layer from #15769 and its review fixes. It targets master after #15754 merged. Related test cleanup #16952 already covers the unchanged copy-link toast test; this PR does not duplicate that work. ## What Changed - Add bounded autosave and submit jobs for supported writes, with pending, conflict and manual retry states. Retain admitted autosaves after navigation and preserve newer task revisions. - Keep each job with its original account, task and operation. First account resolution adopts admitted startup work; a later account change cancels old work. Remount inline and document editors when their owner or document subject changes. - Preserve task-creation keys and immutable request snapshots through file reattachment. Restore generated document keys before comparing reselected files. Reject changed requests instead of creating a second task. - Check the original account scope before creates and each upload. Save successful upload receipts before stopping on an account change. Identify attachments by content digest and metadata. - Verify uncertain document and decision results. Replay only plain, keyed comments automatically; combined reassignment, reopen and run-setting changes require receipt reconciliation or cancel. Settle each request once when a receipt races its retry. - Scope drafts and connected-channel publication reads to their owner. Keep unowned older records unread and unreplayed, with an explicit confirmed discard action after Activity inspection. Preserve typing through the first session lookup, keep erased text erased, and report browser persistence only when storage succeeds. - Wait for the first account lookup before sending startup status changes or decisions. Retry failed required lookups with a fixed limit and surface exhaustion to the original action. Preserve uncertain comment keys on account cancellation. Check the account generation before a comment retry calls its sender and again immediately before POST after asynchronous preparation. Retire only that request’s optimistic echo on completion. - Return an ordinary comment’s accepted same-company, same-task, same-user receipt before workspace reopening, task status changes or wakeups. Reused keys with changed text still conflict. Complete reference and activity records through the same finalizer for initial sends and accepted retries. It locks the task before its comment, matching task and company deletion, comment removal and tombstoning, rejects removed or tombstoned comments, repairs references and inserts a missing activity record in one transaction, and publishes after commit. - Remove reader-only record and comment-body size caps so accepted browser writes remain readable, including JSON-escaped comment requests in local and session storage. Update four existing Storybook fixtures to use owned draft keys. - Document the write contracts and add regression and real browser recovery coverage. - Add the exact reviewed-save recovery regression for both composer implementations and reloads. Align receipt completion, both comment deletion methods and company deletion with task deletion by locking tasks first. Cover real task and company deletion races. ## Verification - The exact reviewed-unknown-save regression fails in all four cases on original commit `1ed0af4186`. It passes with this PR for both composers, before and after reload. Cancel keeps the text and uploaded receipt. The retained draft sends, and the next message also sends. Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/composer-recovery.test.tsx`. - The new real PostgreSQL task-deletion race fails with SQLSTATE `40P01` on parent commit `f3253a00c4`. The company-deletion race also fails with `40P01` on `e8cf0e02dd`. All six receipt tests pass after the final lock-order fixes. They cover company deletion, task deletion, comment removal, tombstoning, concurrent cross-task references and interrupted reference repair. Run `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-receipt-postgres.test.ts`. - The full UI run passed 9,656 of 9,659 tests across 816 files. Three cases failed under that run: two large-tree timeouts and one plugin-panel assertion. All 67 tests in those two files passed in an isolated rerun. These failures remain recorded; this does not claim a clean full UI run. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, token gates and map checks pass on the final change. The local full repository test command was started, then stopped when the delivery moved to this existing PR. Fresh PR CI must provide the full-suite gate. - A local Storybook walkthrough used the real rich editor. Cancel kept the restored text, Send cleared it after the simulated save, and a new draft enabled Send again. Storybook simulates submission; it is not staging acceptance. - Earlier verification on `f3253a00c4` recorded five browser journeys for title saves, cached-task offline recovery, startup recovery, accepted comment replay and session lookup failure. Those results remain prior-head evidence. No new staging deployment is claimed. - On `e8cf0e02dd`, all CI checks passed after one browser-shard rerun. Its first failure copied page text instead of YAML in an unrelated agent-configuration test. On final commit `35131d4380`, Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. The first CI attempt has two failures outside this diff: runner close-attachment suspension and scheduled-retry teardown. The scheduled-retry file passes all 14 tests in isolation; the isolated runner test still fails locally. The single standard CI rerun passed both jobs, and the aggregate verification gate passed. All CI checks are green on `35131d4380`; Apex is 5/5 on that same commit with no unresolved findings. ## Risks - Automatic replay requires server duplicate prevention or result verification. Uncertain combined mutations require receipt observation or cancel and a fresh intentional send. - Old unowned form drafts remain stored but are not assigned to an account. Unowned channel records can be retired after Activity inspection; this never cancels an accepted remote update. - Browser storage and hashing can be unavailable. Storage failure is reported honestly. Without a digest, replay can duplicate an upload rather than silently drop a selected file. - Detached autosaves remain bounded and check account ownership on each attempt. Conflicts or exhaustion retain the draft for explicit recovery. - No schema, credential or agent permission change is included. This PR does not claim staging deployment or original-task acceptance. ## Model Used Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) produced the original implementation with tool use. OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, assisted with restoration, integration, verification and review fixes. This Codex session does not expose its exact serving model ID or context window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Amy (Opus) <claude@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com>	2026-10-28 10:52:06 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	ccbfefef5f	test(ui): retire 33 duplicate executions and share render setup (#16072) ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-14 23:12:34 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4fdbbeced3	[codex] Refine markdown issue reference rendering (#4382) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Task references are a core part of how operators understand issue relationships across the UI > - Those references appear both in markdown bodies and in sidebar relationship panels > - The rendering had drifted between surfaces, and inline markdown pills were reading awkwardly inside prose and lists > - This pull request unifies the underlying issue-reference treatment, routes issue descriptions through `MarkdownBody`, and switches inline markdown references to a cleaner text-link presentation > - The benefit is more consistent issue-reference UX with better readability in markdown-heavy views ## What Changed - unified sidebar and markdown issue-reference rendering around the shared issue-reference components - routed resting issue descriptions through `MarkdownBody` so description previews inherit the richer issue-reference treatment - replaced inline markdown pill chrome with a cleaner inline reference presentation for prose contexts - added and updated UI tests for `MarkdownBody` and `InlineEditor` ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/components/InlineEditor.test.tsx` ## Risks - Moderate UI risk: issue-reference rendering now differs intentionally between inline markdown and relationship sidebars, so regressions would show up as styling or hover-preview mismatches > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution in the Codex CLI 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-24 09:39:21 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	32a9165ddf	[codex] harden authenticated routes and issue editor reliability (#3741) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The control plane depends on authenticated routes enforcing company boundaries and role permissions correctly > - This branch also touches the issue detail and markdown editing flows operators use while handling advisory and triage work > - Partial issue cache seeds and fragile rich-editor parsing could leave important issue content missing or blank at the moment an operator needed it > - Blocked issues becoming actionable again should wake their assignee automatically instead of silently staying idle > - This pull request rebases the advisory follow-up branch onto current `master`, hardens authenticated route authorization, and carries the issue-detail/editor reliability fixes forward with regression tests > - The benefit is tighter authz on sensitive routes plus more reliable issue/advisory editing and wakeup behavior on top of the latest base ## What Changed - Hardened authenticated route authorization across agent, activity, approval, access, project, plugin, health, execution-workspace, portability, and related server paths, with new cross-tenant and runtime-authz regression coverage. - Switched issue detail queries from `initialData` to placeholder-based hydration so list/quicklook seeds still refetch full issue bodies. - Normalized advisory-style HTML images before mounting the markdown editor and strengthened fallback behavior when the rich editor silently fails or rejects the content. - Woke assigned agents when blocked issues move back to `todo`, with route coverage for reopen and unblock transitions. - Rebasing note: this branch now sits cleanly on top of the latest `master` tip used for the PR base. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issueDetailQuery.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts` - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not part of the PR diff. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` before publishing. ## Risks - Broad authz tightening may expose existing flows that were relying on permissive board or agent access and now need explicit grants. - Markdown editor fallback changes could affect focus or rendering in edge-case content that mixes HTML-like advisory markup with normal markdown. - This verification was intentionally scoped to touched regressions and did not run the full repository suite. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment with tool use for terminal, git, and GitHub operations. The exact runtime model identifier is not exposed inside 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, it is behavior-only and does not need before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes, or no documentation changes were needed for these internal fixes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-15 08:41:15 -05:00
Nicola	8f722c5751	fix: allow to remove project description (#2338) ... fixes https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/issues/2336 ## Thinking Path <!-- Required. Trace your reasoning from the top of the project down to this specific change. Start with what Paperclip is, then narrow through the subsystem, the problem, and why this PR exists. Use blockquote style. Aim for 5–8 steps. See CONTRIBUTING.md for full examples. --> - Paperclip allows to manage projects - During the project creation you can optionally enter a description - In the project overview or configuration you can edit the description - However, you cannot remove the description - The user should be able to remove the project description because it's an optional property - This pull request fixes the frontend bug that prevented the user to remove/clear the project description ## What Changed <!-- Bullet list of concrete changes. One bullet per logical unit. --> - project description can be cleared in "project configuration" and "project overview" ## Verification <!-- How can a reviewer confirm this works? Include test commands, manual steps, or both. For UI changes, include before/after screenshots. --> In project configuration or project overview: - In the description field remove/clear the text ## Risks <!-- What could go wrong? Mention migration safety, breaking changes, behavioral shifts, or "Low risk" if genuinely minor. --> - none ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge	2026-04-06 13:18:38 -07:00
dottaandPaperclip	fe61e650c2	Avoid blur-save during mention selection ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-04-04 17:48:54 -05:00