mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
f131ecd7e044499ea5287eac00a482c51b22df42
64
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
bc3559eb5e |
Integrate routine status with scoped execution and source notifications
Keep all owner subscriptions, restore issue identity, and remove only the replaced routine and retention sweeps. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
46f2c0bb9a |
fix(server): bound and scope routine projection recovery
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4af412eaea |
refactor: drive status-card evaluation from committed work
Move generation sequencing into a feature-owned deadline worker and retain persisted evaluation, eligibility and relative-search obligations. Add transactional producer hints and initial PostgreSQL acceptance coverage; follow-up completes the producer audit and remaining lifecycle gates. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
dd49318d55 |
fix(server): settle routine status from committed work
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
929e840595 |
fix(server): schedule routines without heartbeat polling (#17840)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/47/changes/paperclip/47 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Routines create work at saved cron deadlines. > - The heartbeat still wakes the routine worker when nothing is due. > - Its old next-deadline query also drops overdue work left by capped catch-up. > - Removing the heartbeat alone can strand that work and miss company reactivation. > - This pull request uses saved deadlines and committed producer changes. > - Idle routine scheduling stops querying until a change, retry, or real deadline. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16514. Merged prerequisite: #17836. Related Cloud wake contract: #16215. **What happened?** Every heartbeat wakes the routine scheduler. The next-deadline query excludes overdue triggers. A 27-tick hourly backlog loses its deadline after the first 25-run pass. Company and budget lifecycle changes also lack routine schedule signals. **Expected behavior** Use the actual next saved deadline. Retain overdue work. Refresh after supported producer transactions commit. Keep idle schedules quiet between obligations. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an hourly routine with capped catch-up and 27 overdue ticks. 2. Run the registered worker once. The base processes 25 ticks and reports no next wake. 3. Create a future schedule and pause or reactivate its company. The base does not refresh its registered deadline until another wake. ## What Changed - Remove only the routine worker wake from the heartbeat tick. - Put routine eligibility and the next-deadline read in `routineService`. Include overdue triggers. Keep trigger/routine company scope consistent and require an active company. - Reuse `registerDeadlineWork` for retries, request generations, and passive drain behavior. Narrow its coordinator type to the `register` method it uses. Existing consumers keep the same runtime behavior. - Signal routine work from manual schedule invocation, company pause/resume/archive/delete, and budget-induced company pause/resume. Existing routine and trigger producers retain their transaction signals. - Stop between trigger batches during drain/shutdown. Finish a claimed batch so its advanced timestamp does not discard admitted work. - Add real PostgreSQL lifecycle tests and extend startup/query fixtures. Add a validated external database option to the company suite, including migrations and client closure. - Record producer coverage and limits in `doc/plans/2026-10-27-routine-schedule-sleep.md`. ## Verification - **417 passing unique cases across 14 complete files**, no skips, on accepted source `4659ef76d398193b15e7812d4a97f3da3b743226`. Coverage includes the real deadline worker, database eligibility queries, routine services/HTTP/routes/plugins, budget/company producers, git/device fixtures, startup and shared coordinator. - The first combined run passed 416 cases and had one UUID HTTP authorization timeout at its unchanged 20-second limit. One fresh complete 13-case E2E diagnostic passed (the affected case took 425 ms). No assertions, timeouts or production source were changed; the initial timeout's cause is not established. - Database build, production server typechecking/build, module boundaries, target migration order and Runner profile identity pass. Fresh PostgreSQL 17 fixtures applied all 412 journal entries through index 413; all selected test hashes and temporary fixture imports were restored exactly. - Normal parent merges preserve the tested production and test source. Historical acceptance and review corrections remain in [the routine audit](doc/plans/2026-10-27-routine-schedule-sleep.md). - No full local repository-suite, deployed suspend/wake, external alarm, live provider or fleet-cost claim. Final-head CI, security, exact-head Greptile 5/5 and actionable Ponytail findings remain separate merge gates. ## Risks - Company pause now prevents due routine claims, matching the prior deadline query. Rows remain saved for reactivation. Existing routine reactivation, project-pause skip records, cron, timezone, catch-up, and concurrency policies remain with the routine owner. - Signals cover supported service writers in one process. Independent SQL writers and other replicas need their own integration. - This proves worker quiet, not host/database suspension or fleet savings. Cloud idle proof and external wake coverage are unchanged. - Issue-monitor and legacy-agent-timer polling remain separate duties. This slice does not finish the full migration stack or its CI/review work. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6-based coding agent), using repository inspection, ordinary Git merges, source-composition proofs, PostgreSQL fixtures and local lifecycle tests. No subagents were used in the current reconciliation. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0791da0cc5 |
fix(server): synchronize routine history during native status commit (#18033)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/173/changes/paperclip/173 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work assigned to AI agents. > - A routine stores each invocation and its execution task. > - Native completion commits task status without using the public issue route. > - That route synchronizes routine history, but the native status transaction did not. > - A successful task could remain listed as an unfinished routine invocation on a local instance. > - This pull request uses the existing database projection in the native status transaction. > - Task status and routine history now commit or roll back together. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A real routine execution completed successfully. Its task had status `done` and retained its routine origin and invocation identity. Public routine history still returned `issue_created`, with `completedAt: null` and a linked task whose status was `done`. The existing five-minute reconciliation runs only on cloud-managed instances. It does not close this path for a local instance. **Expected behavior** An authoritative native task status change must update the matching routine invocation through the existing routine status rules. It must not update another task, routine or company. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a routine on a local instance and run it through the public routine API. 2. Let its native execution finish and commit the task as done. 3. Read the routine run history. Before this change, the invocation can remain `issue_created` while its linked task is done. **Paperclip version or commit** The retained failure used merged production `39e811c9c5`. The missing hook is also present on this branch's base, `8049fbf51d`. Related: #16633 contains the existing cloud-only reconciliation. A bounded search found no duplicate native synchronization fix. ## What Changed - Synchronize routine history inside the native status transaction after the task status projection. - Require matching company, invocation and linked task before synchronization. Preserve supported custom display origins. - Add database-backed tests for terminal and active states, replay, invalid custody, rollback and a real plugin-managed routine dispatch with a custom origin. - Keep the routine status projection in a database-only helper. Both the routine service and native status committer use it without loading heartbeat execution from the committer. ## Verification - Own-source server TypeScript check passed after the helper extraction. It includes the new test source and production dependencies. Local package exports point at another checkout, so the check used explicit paths to this checkout's source and disabled declaration emit. - Existing pure `status-arbiter.test.ts`: 20 tests passed. `git diff --check` passed. - Initial required CI run 40711603938 built and typechecked successfully. It executed all ten new database tests: nine passed; the public-dispatch fixture failed because it assumed status version zero. The fixture now reads the saved version and decision binding. - That CI run also exposed a heartbeat mock dependency cycle. The database-only helper removes the committer-to-routine-service-to-heartbeat import. Required CI on the new head must confirm both repairs. - Initial browser shard 3/8 failed during cleanup: legacy run cancellation waited for a heartbeat row lock. Its cause is under investigation; the failure remains recorded. - A local runtime-execution check failed during module import from stale package exports, before any tests or database setup ran. It is not passing evidence. No local database, provider or live eval was run. - Latest-head required CI run 40717315212 executed all ten new database tests successfully in server shard 5/12 (2,163 passed; three unrelated skips). The heartbeat runtime suite executed 23 tests successfully in server shard 9/12 (1,704 passed). - Latest-head browser shard 3/8 passed all 33 tests. This does not establish the cause of the preserved earlier cleanup lock timeout. - Required CI run 40717315212 completed successfully on head `2d77f4302b36303741abad07266bbe9e376ba6a5`. All 48 workflow jobs are green after one failed-jobs-only infrastructure retry. The first attempt had seven explicit runner shutdowns and three lost-runner communication failures. The exact chat shard host was independently confirmed as an AWS Spot termination. Original logs and annotations remain retained. - Greptile completed at 5/5 on this exact head, with no outstanding findings. All review threads are resolved. The independent follow-up review found no issues. - No live qualification or corrected eval pass is claimed. The PR remains open and unmerged, with auto-merge off. ## Risks - Matching routine executions perform the existing bounded status synchronization queries inside the status transaction. A database failure rolls back both projections. - Inconsistent invocation or linked-task metadata now prevents synchronization. No unrelated invocation is inferred or repaired. - The existing scheduled repair remains unchanged. This PR does not change accounting, provider behavior or eval budgets. ## Model Used - OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol`, with reasoning and tool-assisted source inspection and coding. The session did not supply a 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 references) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run relevant credential-free tests locally and they pass; database coverage is pending CI - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have checked documentation; the existing routine status contract is unchanged - [x] I have considered and documented 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
|
4e27a82a42 |
fix(server): wake approval queue seeding from committed changes (#17510)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work and human decisions for AI-agent companies. > - Automatic decision queues store membership for pending attention sources. > - The old attention maintenance scan created that membership as a side effect. > - Moving approval retention out of the scan also removed approval queue discovery. > - Queue API consumers do not build the attention feed first, so they can miss pending PR approvals. > - This pull request gives approval queue discovery its own worker and commit signals. > - The worker becomes quiet after it saves every missing membership. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17497. Stacked on #17508, following #17505. This is a correctness dependency for the approval retention migration in #17497. Do not treat that migration as complete without this queue-population path. A real PostgreSQL regression found no PR queue when a pending approval had a linked PR work product and the maintenance feed excluded approvals. Related: #13364 proposes pruning stale seeded memberships. This PR preserves existing membership retention and does not implement pruning. #15149 documents the decision-queue APIs. ## What Changed - Add an approval queue worker that selects missing PR-queue memberships from existing durable records. Bound each pass to 100 rows. Continue past failed rows and revisit them on retry. - Reuse the queue service's seed writer through a normalized source contract. Keep queue rules, uniqueness, and audit writes in that service. Keep feed readers compatible. - Wake from committed approval and link changes, issue/company visibility, PR work-product changes and imports, and queue-rule changes. Reuse the existing transaction boundaries. - Recheck approval status under a row lock. Serialize queue-rule changes with the seed writer. Preserve required recovery during drain and shutdown. - Register startup reconstruction under the existing maintenance switch. Leave other attention-source seeding with its current owner until its own migration. - Document the complete producer audit and stack dependency. Add a validated external PostgreSQL option to the existing queue route suite so it runs on hosts without embedded database support. ## Verification Current tested revision: `7948136ef8`. This PR targets master after #17508 merged as `8406047b4e`. Normal ancestry reconciliation preserved the complete tested integration tree, before the review repairs below. Only the original 25 seeding paths differ from master, and database schema/migration metadata is identical. - **56 cases pass in the three complete affected suites:** 28 approval seeding, 6 queue routes and 22 task-watchdog cases. Server typecheck and production build pass. - Three real PostgreSQL retry regressions failed then passed: new matching arrivals cannot postpone a recovered failure indefinitely; successful partial progress resets old failure penalties; an empty cursor rollover does not reset outage backoff. Exact one- and two-second retry assertions, eventual complete recovery and existing capped-backoff/company isolation tests pass. - Three genuinely empty external databases failed before setup repair because tables were missing. Each suite now applies migrations itself. All 55 cases passed on a second set of fresh databases; adding the final rollover guard then passed all 56 cases using those now-migrated fixtures. No production migration or table is added. - The initial expanded fresh run passed 54 cases but failed a cleanup expectation that omitted a required cursor rollover pass. The fixture now permits that explicit continuation while preserving exact deadline and complete-membership assertions. All failure records remain in `doc/idle-approval-queue-seeding.md`. - The prior integrated revision `4e725e2055` passed **522 cases in fifteen complete producer/consumer suites**, plus types/build. Its unchanged consumer code and historical deadlock, cross-company amplification, backoff, gateway integration and setup evidence remain documented; those counts are not relabeled as current acceptance. Commands: server Vitest for approval queue seeding, queue routes and task watchdogs; server typecheck/build. Fresh exact-head Greptile/Ponytail reviews and all CI checks remain required. No full local repository-suite, deployed suspension or cost claim is made. ## Risks - Signals cover the supported in-process service writers. Independent SQL writers and multiple server replicas need a separate notification contract. - The source predicate must stay aligned with unscoped attention maintenance. The first linked issue, company scope, pending status, and execution visibility are tested. A pending approval itself keeps its linked external conversation active. - Existing enabled seed rules can re-add manually removed matching memberships. This preserves the old scan's behavior. Completed or archived membership is not pruned. - Queue seeding and retention are separate owners. Other attention sources still need their own event-driven discovery before the aggregate scan can be retired. - This PR does not extend Cloud wake coverage, relax sleep admission, or claim measured host/database suspension. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context window 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
|
553a004926 |
fix(server): schedule approval retention from durable deadlines (#17497)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and should become idle when it owes no background work. > - The attention feed archives old pending approvals under the existing 90-day policy. > - The server rebuilds the feed on each maintenance tick, even when approval state has not changed. > - Some approvals have never been read, so retention rows alone cannot define the work. > - Approval records and committed eligibility changes define the real deadline and wake triggers. > - This PR gives approval retention its own deadline worker and reuses the existing retention and archive-delivery contracts. > - The approval lane stops idle scans while other attention sources remain separate migration work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Stacked on #17490. This PR owns approval retention only. Archive notification delivery is already separated in #17475. Other attention-source retention and remaining recurring server duties remain in the stack inventory. The related-PR search found no overlapping approval-retention worker migration. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Automatic archival of old pending approvals from attention. **Current behavior** The shared maintenance tick builds the attention feed for each active company. That query discovers pending approvals and materializes retention records before checking their age. An unchanged or empty approval source is read repeatedly. **Proposed behavior** Reconstruct eligible approvals at startup. Schedule the earliest approval activity timestamp plus 90 days. Wake after committed changes to approvals, links, issue visibility, company activity, or retention controls. Stop scheduling when no eligible approval remains. Archive records through the existing version checks, audit writes, and notification outbox. **Reason and benefit** Idle approval retention should generate no recurring SQL. Unseen approvals still need eventual archival. A stale candidate must not archive an approval that was resubmitted while the worker waited for its source lock. **Breaking changes** None intended. The archive age, eligibility, keep controls, audit, and notification policy remain. Normal attention reads still include approvals. No Cloud sleep blocker is relaxed. ## What Changed - Restrict tool-review signals to their existing terminal transition owners (approve/reject/cancel). Creation/link/revision/resubmit signal retention only. - Coalesce retention notifications under one thirty-second aggregate read budget. Known deadlines still preempt it; no notification or durable deadline means no scan. - Add a bounded approval-retention worker. It uses the shared deadline coordinator and reads pending approvals directly. - Share first-linked-issue ordering and execution visibility through `approval-visibility.ts`, used by both the feed and worker. Preserve actor-specific read filtering and locked archival rechecks. - Materialize unseen approvals on demand inside manual keep/archive/revive transactions. Use the saved activity timestamp and existing versioned state; retain company scoping and rollback on failure. - Add awaited pre-write signals to approval, budget, tool, link, visibility, company, and retention mutation owners. Preserve outer transaction ownership; keep provider calls outside SQL wrappers. - Narrow retention inputs to the source fields the existing service uses. Signal materialization only for inserted or changed state so unchanged reads converge. - Exclude approval collection from the maintenance feed before its query. Other source kinds remain in that sweep. - Add the pending-only approval deadline index with concurrent, idempotent creation. Keep the five newest migration snapshots. - Add real-Postgres lifecycle tests and startup wiring tests. Enable validated external test databases for existing attention and budget suites. - Document producer coverage, quiet conditions, recovery and remaining scope in `doc/idle-approval-retention.md` and the stack ledger. ## Verification Current test revision: `dd844f4e8cbbf1db681a774dc31cd552301bef48`, followed by docs-only `3efda33812`, which received both 5/5 reviews and passing CI. This candidate normally integrates landed Grok `2adcde162e`. All runtime and acceptance-test sources are byte-identical to that tested/reviewed tree; only four independent Runner E2E accounting files and the ledger differ. Migration 0392 and the parent journal prefix are unchanged. Local checks are reused for their unchanged source; fresh final-head CI and reviews are required against master. This remains the approval-retention duty. - **315 cases pass** across eight complete suites: approval retention/service, attention, decision retention, budgets, tool gateway, server startup and scoped deadlines. All 30 real-PostgreSQL lifecycle cases pass. Server production typecheck and build pass. - **Four regressions failed before repair**: unseen young keep/archive/revive returned 404; the manual keep rollback case could not reach its update. They now pass. A failed keep update leaves no retention row or audit; retry succeeds with one audit. - Both linked-issue orders are checked against the feed: hidden first/visible later is excluded; visible first/hidden later remains eligible. The feed and worker use the same owner query, with actor read filtering preserved. - Generated concurrent/idempotent migration `0392_small_frightful_four.sql` adds only the pending approval index. Every historical parent SQL migration and all 390 parent journal entries are unchanged. Five generated snapshots remain (0388–0392). Schema drift, migration safety/numbering and actual fresh apply/replay on five isolated PostgreSQL databases pass. - Existing precision, transaction, drain/resume, failure fairness and shutdown tests remain. Earlier transaction-stub, budget-import, diagnostic-client and CI failures are recorded in the owning audit and stack ledger; later passes do not erase them. - Three additional real regressions failed before the wake repair: ordinary mutations emitted tool-review signals in both resolution cases, and sequential tenant writes caused repeated global reads. Tests now prove terminal approve/reject/cancel signals and one aggregate reconciliation per thirty-second window with a different company's pending approval retained. The aggregate budget is stricter than a separate per-company budget and matches the old default cadence; known deadlines preempt it. - The initial coalescing fixture expected the concrete pending-work hold to clear before reconciliation; it now preserves that hold and measures SQL. The first broad repair passed 313 cases but failed the existing parked-review cancel case. The original cancel producer is restored; all 315 now pass without weakening assertions. At old head `5991f257bb`, security was action-required and Greptile returned service error `8fb1835c-e564-476b-b802-d5be164ea915`. Fresh repaired-head results are required, not assumed. Commands: server Vitest for `approval-retention-work`, `approvals-service`, `attention-service`, `decision-retention-service`, `budgets-service`, `tool-gateway-service`, `server-startup-feedback-export`, `scoped-deadline-work`; server typecheck/build; DB snapshot drift, migration checks and fresh apply/replay. Fresh exact-head Greptile/Ponytail and CI remain merge gates. No full local repository suite or deployed host suspension/cost claim is made. Earlier stack verification below is historical evidence at the explicitly named revisions, not this head's acceptance: Approved delegated Test-tab calls now evaluate caller and target policies in the existing claim transaction. Real HTTP regressions first showed a missing caller charge and shared-limit self-rejection. All 78 connection-management cases and 92 gateway cases now pass on the owning branch, along with server production typechecking. All 78 connection-management cases also pass at combined tip `d25f830db89c1623bff3547bfc68015c1c66e0cf`. The three new cases cover shared charges, separate charges, rollback on denial, duplicate approval, and rejection of a later authorized call. Intermediate counter/identity fixture failures and a reused-database Slack collision are recorded in [the owning audit](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/20557d2c3dd0949c734eaa8095fd78b9b07d7fd5/doc/idle-approved-tool-recovery.md#delegated-test-tab-admission-after-policy-changes). The earlier combined checks below remain evidence for their stated revisions. Current-head CI and review remain required. Earlier published head: `20557d2c3dd0949c734eaa8095fd78b9b07d7fd5`. This remains a single-duty PR stacked on #17490. - Integrated pinned master `8548173fc9efdc0fa07644fb92dcc0b6851a95e5` with normal merges. Every branch passed generated-schema checks and its target-branch migration-order gate. Existing SQL is unchanged; the 25 stack migrations follow master’s new migration. - Duty-specific producer coverage, lifecycle tests, and earlier failure records: [2026-10-24-recurring-server-sleep-stack.md](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/blob/76a49810c7ff403ae7720bef0d453747bd844731/doc/plans/2026-10-24-recurring-server-sleep-stack.md). - Combined tip `51e6cbe67979b55b340ea9f0f434c5b5c682ccd6`: **355 startup/cancellation/recovery/dispatch/preservation tests**, **75 connection-management tests**, and production server typechecking pass. These combined checks do not mean every intermediate PR independently ran the full repository suite. - Real master-to-stack database upgrade passes: **379 unchanged prior migration receipts plus 25 new migrations**, with the gateway responsibility fixture preserved. - Owning-branch checks: 84 runner installation/settlement cases plus runner typechecking and generated TypeScript/Rust profile agreement; 253 GitHub review workflow cases. Stop-attribution and held-worker readiness regressions failed before their fixes. - Failure accounting: the initial combined run passed 349 cases and failed six idle assertions in a reused preservation database containing old cancelled runs. Repeating the combined command with a fresh preservation database passed. Earlier invalid project selection, merge import/type errors, and the interrupted full local suite are not counted as passing checks. - **Latest-head CI and review remain required.** Prior CI findings include GitHub idle observation, route teardown, attention cleanup, touch-picker E2E, workspace health, and voice-cleanup timing; local passes do not erase those failures. No full local repository-suite, deployed sleep, fleet cost, or live Copilot qualification claim is made. ## Risks - Signals cover the application database owner and its child pools. Independent SQL writers and other active processes need an explicit wake integration. Startup reconstructs committed durable state. - The source row lock prevents stale approval-activity archival. It does not add cross-table serializability for concurrent link, visibility, or company-policy changes. - Newly changed eligibility can wait up to the thirty-second notification window, matching the former default maintenance cadence. Saved deadlines still preempt; no new idle polling is added. - Failed records retain recovery debt. Bounded cursor progress lets later rows proceed without dropping failures. - The shared retention transaction now groups materialization and activity-version updates. Existing attention and retention consumers are tested against PostgreSQL. - Kept, archived, resolved or inactive-company approvals can become quiet, but their supported mutations must retain their wake notifications. - The local scheduler cannot wake stopped compute. This PR neither adds approval deadlines to Cloud's external alarm contract nor claims measured host or database suspension. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context window 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
|
8dfed893d8 |
fix(server): wake decision target checks from committed changes (#17486)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Decisions can depend on strict references to other tasks. > - A cancelled, deleted, or completed target can make a decision obsolete. > - The server currently scans open decisions on every maintenance tick to find those changes. > - The owning issue writes already have transaction boundaries that can signal the change. > - This pull request reconciles affected decisions after commit and reconstructs open targets at startup. > - Valid open decisions and completed history stop causing periodic SQL. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Decision target invalidation. This is slice 12 of the recurring-server sleep stack, based on #17482. TTL expiry is #17479 and continuation delivery is #17478. Retention remains separate work. **Subsystem affected** Server decision policy, issue mutation and deletion, and startup wiring. **Current behavior** The aggregate sweep repeatedly reads open decisions and their strict targets. It shares a maintenance tick with unrelated jobs even when every target remains valid. **Proposed behavior** Committed decision creation and terminal issue updates request a scoped check. Deletion requests a bounded full scan because its target links can cascade away. Startup reconstructs open target state. Once reconciliation settles, no target scan remains scheduled. **Reason and benefit** Remove normal empty polling without losing target invalidation, transactional delivery, or restart recovery. Reuse existing decision rows and target links instead of adding a table. **Breaking changes** No API or schema change. The main tick stops calling the combined decision sweep after its four duties have separate owners. The public combined method retains its default behavior. **Additional context** The initial decision implementation stored secondary links as well as primary links. This migration does not assume a new legacy backfill. Independent SQL writers still require an explicit signal integration. ## What Changed - Replace the periodic target scan with committed-change activation and bounded startup reconstruction. Keep the existing decision policy and expiry/activity owner. - Require production notifications to identify an issue or decision. Before deletion, lock the issue and capture its linked open decisions in the same company; emit their IDs before links cascade. This avoids resetting full scans and fences concurrent proposal creation. - Reuse that owner helper for issue removal and routine failure cleanup. No linked decisions means no target signal. Remove company deletion's ineffective global signal; its pre-existing restrictive decision foreign keys remain unchanged. - Retain PostgreSQL timestamp text in paging cursors so rows within one millisecond cannot repeat indefinitely. - Remove the unused combined internal decision sweep after its final duty is split; exercise each owner directly in the existing behavioral tests. - Keep query policy and notification discovery in `decision-targets.ts`. The coordinator registration contains lifecycle wiring only. Add no queue table, per-route recovery wrapper or external-wake exemption. ## Verification Current candidate normally integrates landed effect recovery `e9e84bb8a1`. Its runtime and acceptance tests are byte-identical to tested target head `85ce6545bf`; the only new source files are four independently merged Runner E2E accounting files, preserved exactly. The 248-case/type/build evidence comes from test revision `54936a919f36c2ea421e7ce8e15912b1105b8dcc`, followed by documentation-only changes. Fresh current-head CI and reviews are required. This remains the target-invalidation duty only. - **248 cases pass** in all seven complete suites: 25 target, 80 routine, 54 decision, 26 effect-recovery, 20 expiry, 42 startup and one scoped-deadline case. Database suites use separate migrated PostgreSQL fixtures. Server production typecheck and build pass. - **Four regressions failed before repair:** paging across microsecond timestamps, deletion behind a full valid startup page, unnecessary global work from unrelated deletion, and unnecessary work after deleting an empty company. All four pass. - A real concurrent proposal is observed waiting on the issue-row lock between pre-delete discovery and deletion commit. Removing that lock made the test fail because the proposal committed instead of waiting. Restoring the implementation passes. The mutation was restored before commit. - Existing real producer tests cover commit/rollback, deletion with scoped hints in one outer transaction, secondary targets, re-opened tasks, valid/lenient history quietness, startup paging, failure retry, drain/resume and shutdown. The routine failure case now requires no signal when its cleanup has no linked decision. - The earlier dropped-hint and drain-fixture failures remain in [the behavior audit](doc/idle-decision-targets.md). Extra upstream embedded-only tests attempted on the parent could not initialize locally; CI must cover that environment. No new schema migration or table is added. The final review cleanup removes the combined internal `sweepExpired` method, cursor, flags and unused target-policy export. A repository/package/SDK audit found no remaining production caller or public exposure. Behavioral tests now call the dedicated workers; isolation tests prove TTL does not recover stale effects and effect recovery does not expire open decisions. HTTP and plugin SDK contracts are unchanged. The full 248-case selection passes after this cleanup and parent reconciliation; types/build pass with the updated Runner vendor. Current-head CI run 40602159553 (attempt 1) failed in the workspace CLI group: company import/export startup exceeded its 30-second health deadline, and the dense ZIP case exceeded its unchanged five-second timeout. The preceding UI group passed all 4,169 cases. Both CLI files and the transfer implementation are unchanged from the landed parent. The complete ZIP-transfer file passes all 17 cases locally on this exact head; the CLI startup E2E is skipped because the host's embedded PostgreSQL bootstrap fails. This does not prove Linux startup locally. The failure logs remain recorded; no timeout or assertion is changed. One bounded retry of the failed jobs is requested after the workflow completed. Its result and the current-head gates remain required before merge. Commands: server typecheck/build and Vitest for `decision-target-work`, `routines-service`, `decisions-service`, `decision-effect-recovery-work`, `decision-expiry-work`, `server-startup-feedback-export` and `scoped-deadline-work`. Local targeted acceptance does not establish deployed suspension or fleet savings. Fresh exact-head CI and Greptile/Ponytail remain merge gates. ## Risks - Deletion now holds the issue row lock while discovering dependent decisions and completing the existing removal transaction. This is needed to serialize new FK references. Provider calls are not placed inside that transaction. - Company deletion with decision-origin references still has the pre-existing restrictive FK limitation. Removing the futile notification does not implement a new company-data cleanup policy. - Supported writers share the application DB owner and maintain existing target links. Independent SQL writers, damaged links or multiple active processes need their own wake contract; startup still reconstructs all open targets. - Cloud sleep blockers and durable external alarms are unchanged. Worker quiet is not proof of deployed host/database suspension. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning and code execution. The exact serving model identifier and context window 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
a2d26a83fe |
fix(inbox): keep automatic work out of Mine by default
Keep channel and routine attribution out of Mine unless the person participates directly, is assigned the task, or receives a current addressed request. Apply the same source rules to unread state, archives, and task notifications. Preserve direct comments and current human action requests. Restore the two expressions damaged by redaction during the earlier master merge. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9077748894 |
Remove the Pipelines experiment and preserve its data (#16834)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Pipelines was an unused experiment with its own UI, API, CLI, and automation. > - Keeping it leaves unsupported product surfaces and extra task-detail queries. > - Removing the experiment must preserve data that users already saved. > - This pull request removes the feature and keeps its database schema and migration history. > - Cases and Routines remain available as separate features. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Remove the unused Pipelines experiment across the application. **Current behavior** The experiment includes pipeline boards, stage settings, case automation, review queues, learnings, permissions, and CLI commands. Task detail also queries pipeline links. **Proposed behavior** Remove all these product surfaces and their implementation. Preserve existing tables, records, and documents. Ignore the retired boolean in older managed configurations so upgrades still start. **Breaking changes** Pipeline URLs, API endpoints, CLI commands, and `pipelines:write` are removed. Task detail no longer includes the old `linkedCases` field. The independent Cases API remains available. No database migration or cleanup is included. Related feature work: #7907, #9110, #10905, #11375, #13004, #14671, #16133. Related issues: #9663, #10310, #10312. This removal supersedes the feature; it does not implement those pending enhancements or delete their saved data. ## What Changed - Remove Pipeline UI pages, navigation, gates, clients, query keys, helpers, and unused design tokens. - Remove Pipeline REST routes, services, automation dispatch, task-detail queries, and OpenAPI discovery. - Remove the CLI commands, shared contracts, experimental flag, catalog entry, and permission defaults. - Remove feature-specific tests, tutorials, smoke scripts, maps, and Storybook examples. - Preserve database schema, migration history, and the reserved document key used by old records. - Keep Cases routes independent and cover obsolete stored and managed settings. ## Verification - Passed: `pnpm build` and `pnpm -r typecheck`. - Passed: targeted settings, managed configuration, sidebar, settings UI, routing, and feature-catalog tests. A first sidebar run caught a shared Workspaces icon import; the import was restored and the sidebar rerun passed. - Passed: 40 tests covering Cases routes, OpenAPI discovery, retained Pipeline table constraints, and schema snapshot drift. - Passed: token gates, map validation, generated API metadata check, Storybook catalog validation, and 28 map/catalog tests. - Passed: isolated local browser verification of navigation and Experimental settings with Pipelines absent; Cases and Routines still open normally. Live GET/POST requests to retired Pipeline endpoints return 404, and the retired setting is absent. CLI help has no Pipeline commands. - Passed: 22 access-service and agent-default-grant tests after restoring unrelated permission assertions flagged in review. - Local full run: `pnpm test:run` reported one failure in the unchanged workspace-runtime port-allocation test. That test passed in an isolated rerun. The long local run was stopped after full CI passed; it is not reported as a complete local pass. - Passed: all 56 checks on `def9181f3a4491d95fca1d38e9739f5b821aae3e` (2 conditional checks skipped), including build, typecheck, test shards, and browser suites. Eleven interrupted CI jobs reported “The operation was canceled”; their one-time retry passed. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39255211006). - Greptile: 5/5 on the final commit, with the only review finding fixed and resolved. - Sandbox socket restrictions affected the first build/API test attempts. The same commands ran with local sockets available. ## Risks - Existing Pipeline clients must stop using the removed endpoints and commands. - Existing data remains in the database and backups, but the removed UI no longer displays it. - Historical boolean `enablePipelines` values are ignored. They cannot restore the feature. - Cases and Routines must retain their separate behavior. Targeted route tests cover this boundary. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, editing, shell execution, and browser verification. The exact deployed model ID 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> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
4415665d67 |
fix(server): allow proved idle waits and verify historical cleanup (#16633)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents, task continuations, integrations, and their execution resources. > - Automatic idle sleep needs durable evidence that accepted work and provider cleanup are settled. > - Response-driven questions, passive board escalations, and completed connection receipts currently look like unfinished work. > - Legacy ephemeral leases and terminal image sessions need actual deletion proof before their history can become idle. > - This PR adds narrow evidence-based exceptions and read-only provider verification while preserving queues, outcomes, and ownership fences. > - Idle instances can sleep without losing responses, automatic reconciliation, or cleanup obligations. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Instances with no executable work can remain awake because pending human responses, passive recovery records, outbound integration configuration, or completed delivery history are counted as background work. Older failed ephemeral leases and finished setup sessions also lack the evidence needed to distinguish retained resources from deleted allocations. **Expected behavior** Permit idle sleep only for proved response-driven waits and settled history. Continue blocking real queued work, inbound integrations without a wake contract, unfinished accounting/retries, retained resources, and uncertain provider cleanup. **Steps to reproduce** Finish an issue's producing run, leave a pending question or confirmation, and request an owned scheduled idle report. Separately retain a processed connection receipt or a failed ephemeral lease whose provider allocation has already been deleted. The old checks keep those instances awake even after executable work has finished. Related public groundwork: #15522, #15599, #15761, #15897, #15907, and #16325. Searched existing public idle-sleep PRs; this addresses additional blockers in the current predicates. ## What Changed - Recognize supported response-driven waits and passive board recoveries without changing task state, response audiences, or continuation policies. Bind passive issue generation into routine-only alarms too. Keep automatically polled merge-confirmation cards awake. - Treat processed events, delivered intents, disabled drafts, and outbound MCP configuration as history/configuration where proved safe. Preserve pending deliveries, downstream wake requests, and inbound GitHub bindings. - Permit only pristine Slack setup drafts with a matching disabled channel connection, no provisioning registration, and no prior provider identity/activity. A saved slash-command name remains inert configuration. - Repair missed routine execution-issue status hooks in bounded awake-only maintenance. Lock and re-read exact owners, apply existing completion/transient-failure rules, and preserve normal continuation after an issue resumes. - Allow human-only connection setup to wait only when no reusable active connection of its purpose exists; available access reblocks sleep for reconciliation. The delivery worker shares this proof, releases its local idle hold, and retains maintenance only while already awake. Passive-only ticks pause before admission during an owned drain, allowing slow backups to finish; new producer notifications still reconcile and invalidate the backup. - Add optional `environmentInspectLease` SDK discovery/dispatch and read-only Daytona/fake-provider implementations. Old workers remain conservative. Daytona status inspection uses a fresh provider GET without reconnecting or poisoning unused-worker eligibility. - Bind historical credential reads to an unrotated initial secret version and its immutable resolved-value hash; reject ambiguous histories and ambient Daytona credential/API-endpoint fallbacks before querying provider state. - Verify bounded rotating batches of historical resources on already-awake Cloud instances, outside readiness. Store host-owned deletion evidence bound to exact row identity/version and reject concurrent ownership changes. Preserve failure outcomes, cleanup/export intents, and run continuation authority. - Preserve cancellation provenance, defer contended routine rows individually, and cap actual inspection RPCs across caller timeouts and worker exits. Add database, SDK, provider, configuration-scope, and race regression coverage and update idle protocol documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on `24fd1c0f5ec`; server typecheck/build passed again after the final coordinator-only fix in `60f23e6e4b6`. - Final server regressions: 258 sleep-safety/connection cases and all 17 coordinator cases passed. Earlier focused checks also covered 331 combined idle/cleanup cases, 34 custom-image cases, 39 credential/cleanup cases, 39 connection-history cases, and 80 existing routine cases. Counts overlap and are not additive. - SDK: 153 passed. Daytona: 406 passed with 14 existing opt-in skips. The provider implementation also typechecks against the locked SDK used by the Cloud wrapper. - Dependency boundaries were exercised with real child workers holding provider inspection replies beyond caller timeouts, a real PostgreSQL row lock delaying one routine owner, and real connection creation → queue notification → worker hold release → resumption after access is enabled without another notification. A controlled six-second backup goes through the real coordinator, task drain, work signals, and idle-safety generation checks; maintenance permits completion, while a new committed transaction invalidates it. - Full local `pnpm test:run` completed its general-server phase with 21,122 passing, 29 failing, and 109 skipped tests; later phases did not run. That long run spanned source edits and is not a final-revision pass. The affected Slack draft assertion passes on current source. Restoring `/usr/sbin` for `lsof` produced 233 passing tests and two Git-fixture failures across the other five files (3 existing skips). Both remaining assertions pass with command-scoped `init.defaultBranch=master`; this host defaults to main and leaves both branches in their fixture. No source/global Git setting changed for that comparison. Original failure logs are retained. - A parallel typecheck/build attempt raced generated Runner outputs and failed an import. Running the build sequentially passed with no source change. - Local database checks use the maintained test-constructor seam with native PostgreSQL 16.14 because bundled PostgreSQL 18 is unreliable on this host. No database assertions were skipped in the focused runs. An interrupted combined run was superseded by the separate passing coordinator and safety/connection runs; no owned test database processes remain running. - Apex reviewed final head `60f23e6e4b615a08591e19d86443a6c35c091ce1`: **5/5**, zero unresolved threads. All current-head CI gates are green, with expected policy skips. The branch is conflict-free and GitHub reports a clean merge state. - Current-head CI initially failed `plan-task-fixture.spec.ts:66` during fixture deletion: the final company DELETE hit `activity_log_company_id_companies_id_fk` after the feature assertions completed. The deletion path is unchanged here; the final diff only changes drain-gated passive maintenance. The preceding revision passed this shard. Failure evidence is retained in [the original CI job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39006936642/job/117321244396); the targeted retry passed on the unchanged commit ([retry job](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39006936642/job/117322535013)). This shows recovery, not that the underlying company-deletion race is resolved. - These checks do not claim staging/production deployment or live provider cleanup proof. Provider tests simulate responses. Full Cloud staging verification requires a compatible Core/private-plugin composition after the Core revision is on master. ## Risks Sleep eligibility changes require the existing owned drain, final generation validation, local-work checks, and plugin drain. Unsupported states fail closed. Queued agent input and routine execution remain blocked. Outbound MCP exemptions exclude inbound GitHub grants; other unsupported inbound integrations remain awake. The inspection RPC is optional and requires a matching live worker method. Its actual outstanding calls are capped at two across workers even after the caller times out. Historical lease inspection requires its recorded plugin/config; setup inspection requires an unchanged recorded config fingerprint. Not-found under replacement account credentials is not historical deletion proof: ambiguous/rotated secret histories defer verification, and initial-version reads must match their recorded value hashes. Missing provenance (including legacy image sessions without a recorded config fingerprint), live/stopped resources, provider authorization failures, and concurrent changes defer verification. Routine repair replays existing completion/transient-failure behavior and timestamps at reconciliation time; it does not execute or discard deferred comments. No migration or destructive provider operation is added. The new marker does not grant run-resume authority. Full Cloud staging validation requires a compatible Core/private-plugin composition; no production deployment is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 Codex, with repository/tool access and code execution. Exact model identifier and context-window size are not exposed by 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 relevant tests locally; passing focused checks and full-run limitations are documented above - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
78b833c495 |
Dispatch routine and monitor work at saved deadlines (#16514)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work that agents run for a company. > - Routines and issue monitors store their next run time in the database. > - The app currently waits for the heartbeat interval to find that work. > - This can delay work after a workspace wakes before its saved deadline. > - This pull request uses the existing work coordinator to schedule each known deadline. > - It also parses each cron expression once, so sparse schedules do less work on the event loop. > - Agents can start due work sooner while the existing execution checks stay in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Routine and issue-monitor dispatch depends on the heartbeat scan interval. A workspace can wake early and still wait for the next scan. A sparse cron search also parses the same expression for every minute it checks. In a local annual-schedule test, the deadline callback ran on time but schedule calculation delayed the routine record by 13.6 seconds. **Expected behavior** Use a saved future deadline to request the existing dispatch scan. Restore deadlines at startup and update them after a producer transaction settles. Do not let future timers keep an idle workspace active. Parse a cron expression once for each search. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Set an active routine and an assigned issue monitor to the same future deadline. 2. Choose a deadline between heartbeat scans. Use an annual routine expression to exercise a sparse search. 3. Compare the saved deadline with the routine firing and agent start times. **Paperclip version or commit** Source checkout based on |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
f858207161 |
Guard routine UUID lookups without narrowing valid inputs (#15313)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work for AI agents and their companies. > - Routines expose details, triggers, and management actions through resource IDs. > - These resource IDs are UUIDs. The UI and CLI do not resolve short prefixes. > - A malformed ID reaches a PostgreSQL UUID comparison and returns a server error. > - A lookup guard can return the existing not-found response before that query. > - This PR preserves valid PostgreSQL UUID input forms and the existing access checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #11471. This is a credited continuation of the lookup-guard approach from @mv2woods. That older PR remains open and unchanged. Its review requested the required PR description sections. This continuation uses current master and adds UUID compatibility and authorization coverage. The earlier `isUuidLike` guard restricts UUID versions to 1–5 and trims input. The database currently accepts other UUID values and input forms. This guard preserves the existing [PostgreSQL UUID input contract](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-uuid.html), including uppercase, paired braces, omitted hyphens, and hyphens after groups of four digits. It rejects whitespace and short prefixes without rewriting the value sent to the database. ## What Changed - Guard the shared routine and private-trigger UUID lookups. Malformed resource IDs return null, so existing routes return their normal 404 response. - Keep company access, assignee permissions, body validation order, and database error propagation unchanged. - Add real PostgreSQL tests for stored UUIDv4, UUIDv7, nil, and max values in six input forms. Add no-query checks for malformed input and HTTP coverage across all 15 root-resource route handlers. - Document complete resource IDs and distinguish them from opaque public webhook IDs. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts`: 91 passed, including the new PostgreSQL and HTTP regressions. - Independent review found no blockers and passed all 9 focused PostgreSQL and HTTP regression cases on this commit. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on Node 24.21.0 with pnpm 9.15.4. - Full Linux CI passed on `0a2990eca2f904335821027a322e4db868151eb3`: 53 successful checks and 2 inapplicable Storybook skips. No retries were needed. This provides aggregate suite coverage; a duplicate full local aggregate was not run. - [Greptile reviewed this exact commit](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15313#issuecomment-6010222312) at 5/5 with no findings or unresolved threads. The PR is ready for review and has no merge conflicts. - `git diff --check` and the added-diff secret and PII scan passed. ## Risks Malformed routine and private-trigger IDs now return 404 instead of a database error. Full UUIDs retain the existing company and assignee checks. This change does not add prefix lookup, alter public webhook IDs, or validate unrelated nested revision/thread IDs or query parameters. No migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository editing, code execution, and independent agent review. The exact deployment model ID and context window 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
24429024e7 |
feat: add Fireflies connector and summary-ready routines (#13890)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps gives agents governed access to external tools through stored credentials. > - Routines start work when an external service sends an event. > - Fireflies provides meeting transcripts and summaries through an official hosted MCP server. > - This PR adds that connection and accepts signed meeting events through the shared app webhook flow. > - Agents can review completed meetings with the same permissions and audit records as other work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Operators need agents to read Fireflies meetings and start follow-up work when a summary is ready. The Apps catalog lacks Fireflies. The shared app webhook flow needs to accept its signed deliveries. **Proposed solution** Use the official Fireflies MCP endpoint with OAuth or a vaulted bearer API key. Extend the existing Another app or script flow with signed webhook support. Verify the raw-body signature and pass the JSON payload as external data. Select Meeting Summarized in Fireflies. Deduplicate identical signed deliveries, including setup deliveries. **Alternatives considered** A separate REST connector would duplicate the governed MCP path. Polling, legacy V1 payloads, and automatic provider-side webhook registration are outside this change. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing MCP Tool Gateway & Apps and Scheduled Routines surfaces. It adds a provider to those systems. It does not introduce a second integration framework. **Additional context** A GitHub search found no existing Fireflies issues or PRs. Provider references and verification limits are in `doc/connections/FIREFLIES.md`. ## What Changed - Add the official Fireflies catalog definition, generated registry, provider evidence, and branded artwork. - Reuse Access → Connect, dynamic discovery, Permissions, vault storage, policy, and audit behavior. - Classify Fireflies sharing, movement, and access revocation as writes. - Preserve Off and Ask first restrictions during OAuth reauthorization and API-key replacement. New actions retain normal defaults. - Add `app_webhook` authentication to the shared Another app or script flow. Accept bearer tokens or raw-body HMAC-SHA256. Preserve earlier `fireflies_hmac` triggers and revision snapshots for compatibility. Existing text columns need no migration. - Verify `X-Hub-Signature` or `X-Hub-Signature-256` against the exact request body. Preserve generic event payloads and deduplicate identical signed requests. - Keep the routine wizard generic. Show one webhook URL and secret in Another app or script. Keep all new app webhook event names provider-neutral. Keep provider setup instructions in the connector documentation. - Pass generic webhook JSON to the task in an explicit external-data block, capped at 16,384 characters. Keep strict meeting validation for existing legacy Fireflies triggers. ## Verification - Feature implementation commit `0882dc8a1`: all 54 CI checks passed; two conditional Storybook checks skipped. This includes full tests, typecheck, build, browser E2E, canary dry run, and security checks. Greptile rated this commit 5/5; all review threads are resolved. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and token gates passed on the final code. Targeted connector, gateway, webhook, revision, and UI suites passed during implementation. After the provider-neutral follow-up, all 84 app-webhook and routine-service tests passed; the final payload-to-task assertion also passed in the 72-test routine suite and a clean-config rerun. - The long local `pnpm test:run` invocation started before the final edits and was stopped after the final-commit CI suites passed. It reported one generic webhook test failure while those files were changing; that test and the entire routine suite passed on the final source, including a clean-config reproduction. The interrupted local run is not counted as a full-suite pass. - In the embedded browser, completed official OAuth consent and discovered 20 live actions. Real meeting listing, transcript retrieval, and summary/action-item retrieval succeeded as the selected agent. Turning a live read Off blocked its test; catalog refresh preserved the restriction. - Embedded-browser Another app or script setup, back/save/resume, narrow layout, and a signed synthetic Fireflies delivery succeeded. The UI reported authentication passed without creating a task. Fixtures cover signature tampering, malformed requests, ordinary app event names, duplicate/setup deliveries, rotation, revisions, pause/archive, and company isolation. - Existing MCP browser suite: 8 passed and 2 provider-dependent cases skipped. Branding checks passed; connector artwork and webhook setup were checked at desktop/mobile widths and in light/dark modes. - An unauthenticated POST to a correctly formatted public webhook URL reached the staging tenant verifier through the existing Cloud gateway. - A real Fireflies webhook delivery remains unverified. A staging callback is available for the operator walkthrough. Live API-key authorization, credential expiry, and a new meeting's summary completion were not tested against the provider. Fixtures cover these protocol and lifecycle paths where applicable. - Storybook follow-up `c54174faa`: 27 production-component stories cover every UI change, with a source-to-story map in the connector documentation. Static Storybook build, UI typecheck, token gates, and Playwright checks for all stories and the mobile footer pass. All PR checks passed for this Storybook follow-up; Greptile reviewed `c54174faa` at 5/5. ## Risks - Fireflies may change its hosted MCP tools or OAuth behavior. Tool discovery stays dynamic. Experimental search/fetch tools are not required. - Public webhook setup requires HTTPS and a separate signing secret. Fireflies normally emits events for meetings owned by the configuring account. - Reauthorization touches shared MCP permission code. Regression tests cover existing restrictions, new actions, connection removal, and other gateway callers. - Webhook receipt grants no tool access. The routine agent still needs an authorized Fireflies connection. - New generic triggers rely on provider event subscriptions. Without a sender-supplied idempotency key, changed request bytes count as a new event. Existing legacy Fireflies triggers retain summary-only filtering and per-meeting deduplication. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6-astra`. Used reasoning, repository editing, code execution, and embedded-browser testing. The runtime did not expose a 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f589660ec0 |
feat(routines): add safe webhook setup and in-routine run management (#13637)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Routines turn scheduled work and external events into tasks for an assigned agent. > - Webhook setup was disabled, and actor authentication rejected valid webhook bearer keys. > - Operators need to connect and test a sending app before events can start work. > - This pull request adds a guided setup with durable connection tests that cannot dispatch a task. > - It keeps trigger management, execution tasks, and activity within the routine. > - The benefit is a webhook that can be configured, verified, and operated from one place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #11937. Related: #13216 adds provider-specific Sentry support. This PR addresses general routine setup and ingress. #6841 addresses legacy secret bindings; this PR retains the existing secret service. **Current behavior** Webhook creation is disabled. Bearer deliveries can fail in agent authentication before the routine checks its key. Setup has no safe connection test. Runs and Activity send the operator away from the routine. **Proposed behavior** Choose a schedule or a webhook. Follow the setup steps, copy credentials or complete agent instructions, and test delivery without creating work. Finish setup to allow future events to start tasks. Edit or remove compact trigger cards, undo removal, and inspect tasks and activity inside the routine. **Reason and benefit** An operator can verify credentials and delivery before enabling automatic work. Durable setup state survives refreshes and restarts. Retry receipts prevent an old test event from starting work after activation. ## What Changed - Add a production trigger wizard using reusable Slack setup navigation and footer components. - Add schedule and webhook choices, one-time credentials, agent instructions, and live connection feedback. - Persist pending setup, test delivery receipts, connection status, and reversible trigger removal. - Keep setup checks free of routine runs, tasks, and agent wakeups. Preserve delivery idempotency after activation. - Add compact trigger cards, inline editing, key rotation, pause controls, removal, and Undo. - Keep Runs and Activity in the routine. Use the shared task list and compact activity rows. - Permit only exact public delivery POSTs through actor authentication. Retain webhook authentication, JSON-object validation, and log redaction. - Add production-backed Storybook states and focused server, database, and UI coverage. - Document signing modes, setup checks, retries, rotation, HTTPS ingress, and navigation. ## Verification - Full workspace typecheck, build, and token gates passed on the rebased branch. Storybook also builds. - Focused routine, middleware, logging, shared wizard, and UI coverage passes on the rebased branch: 195 tests across 14 files. The migration passed on a fresh PostgreSQL database and on two repeated applications. - Browser testing used the real app, database, and a deterministic process worker through Tailscale HTTPS and the current Cloud proxy code. - Verified rejected keys, safe setup deliveries, persisted state after restart, activation, retry deduplication, key rotation, schedule editing, removal, and Undo. - Fresh bearer and GitHub-signed deliveries created tasks that the worker checked out and completed. Runs and Activity stayed within the routine. - Current Cloud ingress tests passed. Public delivery POSTs passed through without a browser session; management routes remained gated. - All 54 current-head PR checks pass, including general and serialized tests, all eight browser E2E shards, typecheck, build, runner checks, security checks, and the canary dry run. Two optional Storybook jobs are skipped by workflow conditions. - Greptile is 5/5 on commit `7ea63a61e`, with no unresolved review threads. The stale connection-status finding is fixed and covered by a regression test. - No production deployment was performed. ## Risks - Migration 0281 adds three trigger columns and a test-receipt table. It is additive and safe to reapply. Apply it before running the new server. Existing triggers remain live by default. - Requests without delivery IDs are new events after activation. Senders must reuse an event's delivery ID for retries. - Completed webhooks keep normal dispatch behavior. Their management connection check can start work; the UI states this. - Removing a trigger archives it. Undo restores the URL and credentials. Permanent deletion remains available through the existing API. - Public ingress must remain restricted to the delivery POST route. The tenant verifies credentials. Cloud sleeping-stack behavior is unchanged. - Shared setup components also serve Slack. Existing setup contracts and navigation tests cover that integration. - Senders must use application/json with an object. Other media types receive 415. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, shell execution, and browser testing. The exact deployment model ID 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> |
||
|
DottaandCodex
|
0798c77fde |
Secure Cloud canonical runtime identity (#12766)
Accept and persist Cloud-signed canonical runtime identity before activation, then route absolute self-URLs through the durable runtime identity provider. Co-Authored-By: Codex <codex@openai.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
01ddc26a37 |
fix(routines): clear transient execution failures (#9689)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Scheduled routines track each dispatch in `routine_runs` and link it to an execution issue > - Moving an execution issue to `blocked` or `cancelled` correctly records a failed run state for operator visibility > - When that issue later resumes or completes, the run can retain the earlier failure reason and completion timestamp > - That stale state makes an active or successfully completed routine appear failed > - This pull request reconciles the run back to a live state on resume and preserves cleared failure details as completion context > - The benefit is that routine run status consistently reflects the current execution issue lifecycle without losing useful recovery history ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9201 ### What happened? A routine execution issue that temporarily moved to `blocked` or `cancelled` caused its linked routine run to become `failed`. If the issue later returned to an active status or reached `done`, the routine run could keep the stale failure reason and terminal timestamp. ### Expected behavior Active execution issues should have an `issue_created` run with no failure or completion timestamp. Completed execution issues should have a `completed` run with no active failure reason, while retaining any earlier transient failure in structured trigger context for diagnosis. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Create a routine run linked to a routine execution issue. 2. Move the issue to `blocked` and synchronize the run state. 3. Move the issue back to `in_progress` or forward to `done` and synchronize again. 4. Observe that the run previously retained stale failed-state fields. ### Environment - Reproduced on `master` at `da549123cc`. - Core server behavior; not adapter-specific. - Covered with the embedded PostgreSQL routines service test harness. ## What Changed - Load the linked routine run while synchronizing execution issue status. - Restore transiently failed runs to `issue_created` when their execution issue resumes active work. - Clear stale failure state when an execution issue completes and retain the earlier failure under `triggerPayload.transientFailure`. - Add regression coverage for both resumed and completed execution issues. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` — 57 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - Low risk: the change is limited to routine execution issue/run reconciliation. - A completed run now stores a prior failed-state reason as structured transient context instead of leaving `failureReason` populated. - No schema, migration, API contract, or UI behavior changes are included. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.4 with reasoning, repository tools, GitHub CLI access, code execution, and focused test execution. The runtime did not expose a 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Jonathan Reyes
|
676e20a894 |
fix(routines): reject HMAC webhook replays (#9994)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Routines allow external systems to start recurring work through authenticated public webhooks > - Timestamped HMAC authentication currently verifies authenticity and age but does not remember an accepted delivery > - An exact signed request can therefore be reused within its replay window, including through simultaneous duplicate delivery > - Replay rejection must be atomic with run creation so concurrent copies cannot both succeed > - This pull request derives a non-secret replay identity from each valid timestamped HMAC delivery and claims it under the existing routine transaction lock > - The benefit is at-most-once acceptance of an exact HMAC delivery without changing ordinary caller-supplied idempotency semantics ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes: #9993 ## What Changed - Derive a stable, non-secret idempotency key after a timestamped HMAC signature has been validated. - Reject a previously claimed HMAC delivery with a conflict while preserving coalescing for existing non-HMAC idempotency keys. - Apply the same atomic replay claim when automatic worktree execution is suppressed. - Add regression coverage for sequential, concurrent, and suppressed-run replays. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` — 59 tests passed. - `pnpm typecheck` — all workspace packages passed. - The sequential test was observed failing on unmodified `master`: the second identical request resolved and a second run was created. - The concurrent regression test verifies exactly one request succeeds and only one routine run exists. ## Risks - Low migration risk: no schema change is required; the existing nullable routine-run idempotency field is reused. - The routine row lock serializes replay claims, adding a small amount of contention only while a routine run is being created. - Replay rejection applies only to `hmac_sha256`, which carries the timestamp needed for a bounded replay policy. Existing `github_hmac`, bearer, and unauthenticated trigger semantics are unchanged. > 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 family) with reasoning, repository inspection, shell execution, and test tooling. ## 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] Documentation does not require an update because this restores the documented replay-window security behavior without changing configuration or APIs - [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 |
||
|
|
c5574599b1 |
fix(routines): exclude assignee configuration from detail responses (#9818)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open-source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Routines are the subsystem that schedules recurring work and returns routine detail to authorized company actors. > - Routine detail embedded the complete assignee database row even though its shared contract requires only assignee identity. > - That full row can contain protected adapter and runtime configuration, including environment bindings. > - The service boundary should project only the fields the routine contract actually needs. > - This pull request replaces the full-row query with a company-scoped identity projection and adds sentinel-based regression coverage. > - The benefit is useful routine detail without exposing protected assignee configuration. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exactly tracks this service-level exposure. - Related prior PR: Refs #4967, an older route-level redaction approach with broader changes and no focused routine serialization test. - Related closed PR: Refs #5144, an unmerged prior implementation of the same identity-projection approach. - Related agent-route hardening: Refs #8779; that work covers direct agent responses, while this PR removes protected fields from the routine embed itself. Bug details: - Actual behavior: `GET /api/routines/{routineId}` could serialize the complete assignee row, including protected adapter/runtime configuration. - Expected behavior: routine detail exposes only the assignee identity required by `RoutineDetail`, including its derived `urlKey`. - Reproduction: assign an agent with sentinel-only protected configuration to a routine, retrieve routine detail, and inspect key presence or serialize the response; no production value is needed or recorded. - Version/commit reproduced: upstream `master` immediately before this PR. - Deployment mode: service-level embedded Postgres test; the vulnerable serializer is shared by supported deployments. ## What Changed - Added a company-scoped assignee summary query in `server/src/services/routines.ts` that selects only `id`, `name`, `role`, and `title`, then derives the non-sensitive `urlKey` from the name. - Updated `getDetail()` to use that projection instead of selecting the complete agent row. - Added focused negative and positive identity assertions, including the derived `urlKey`, in `server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts`. - Audited routine list/detail serialization and broader embedded-agent query sites; routine list exposes only `assigneeAgentId`, while other agent embeds use explicit projections or authorized agent endpoints. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` — 57/57 passed. - Focused sentinel regression test — passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - Server, UI, and CLI builds — passed; UI gzip-size completion used a 4096 MB Node heap. - `git diff --check` — passed. - Full `pnpm test:run` — 2,699 passed, 1 skipped, 9 failed in untouched tests. The failures reproduce outside this change and are limited to local-adapter `nohup`/PTY behavior, macOS `/tmp` versus `/private/tmp` normalization, and one workspace-runtime auto-port fixture. ## Risks - Low compatibility risk: the returned shape now matches the existing shared `RoutineDetail` contract. - A consumer relying on undocumented protected agent fields inside routine detail will stop receiving them. - No schema, migration, deployment, credential, or production-secret changes are included. - Rollback is a single commit revert, but reverting would restore the exposure. > This is security hardening for the already-shipped routines subsystem; `ROADMAP.md` marks Scheduled Routines complete, and this PR does not add or duplicate roadmap feature work. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex, with repository search, local code execution, tests, TypeScript typechecking, builds, Git, and GitHub API use. The runtime does not expose a more granular snapshot 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 relevant tests pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no documentation change is required for this contract-preserving security fix) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green 5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups/- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: ClawdeBot <clawdebot@Mac-mini-de-ClawdeBot.local> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
14d4db6330 |
fix(inbox): keep passive issue views out of Mine (#10581)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The inbox shows work that a board user owns or has joined > - Issue detail views update a per-user read receipt > - The Mine query treated that read receipt as user participation > - A passive view therefore added the issue to Mine > - This pull request separates passive reads from audited user mutations > - The benefit is a Mine inbox that reflects ownership and real participation ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Opening an issue detail marks the issue as read. The Mine query treated the read receipt as participation. The viewed issue then appeared in Mine even when the user did not change it. **Expected behavior** Viewing an issue can update unread state. A view alone must not add the issue to Mine. Issue creation, assignment, comments, and audited user mutations must add it. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an issue that you did not create and that is not assigned to you. 2. Do not comment or change the issue. 3. Open the Mine inbox. 4. Observe that the issue appears in Mine on the previous implementation. **Paperclip version or commit** `90ead239a8` **Deployment mode** Local dev from source. **Additional context** Related approach: #3421 changes Mine to an assignee-only filter. This change keeps participation-based Mine behavior and corrects the participation signal. ## What Changed - Use an explicit audited user-mutation allowlist for Mine participation, including comment cancellation. - Keep passive reads, previews, denied resource requests, and archive bookkeeping out of Mine participation. - Record manual routine reuse as an explicit audited inbox touch instead of a read receipt. - Keep that inbox bookkeeping from satisfying routine activity gates. - Add focused regression coverage for passive views, real mutations, comment cancellation, and manual routine runs. - Document the Mine participation contract. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "does not treat passive issue activity"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t "touches a (coalesced|skipped active) routine issue|ignores inbox bookkeeping activity"` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - GitHub latest-head CI: all required checks passed, including build, typecheck, server suites, and e2e shards. ## Risks - Low risk. The change affects only the server query that defines user participation in Mine and the manual routine touch signal. - Historical audited user mutations can now qualify an issue for Mine. Passive read and archive actions remain excluded. > 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 family. The runtime did not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. Agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution were enabled. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
30ff3d7c58 |
feat(routines): expose activity gate API (#9438)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Scheduled routines provide recurring control-plane work without manual intervention > - The new activity gate can suppress scheduled runs when no external work occurred > - The core scheduler and database support landed without a public create/update contract > - Agents, operators, and managed plugins need validated fields plus discoverable semantics to opt in safely > - This pull request exposes the activity gate through routine APIs, revisions, plugin contracts, tests, and skill documentation > - The benefit is backward-compatible control over idle scheduled work without losing activity-triggered follow-up ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8534 ## What Changed - Added shared activity-gate policy and scope enums with create/PATCH validation. - Persisted activity-gate fields through routine creation, updates, revision snapshots, pipeline snapshots, and revision restores. - Defaulted legacy revision snapshots during restore and added regression coverage for pre-field snapshots. - Extended managed-plugin routine declarations, production reconciliation, and the SDK test harness to preserve non-default gate settings. - Added end-to-end API coverage for create/PATCH/list/detail round-trips, defaults, and invalid enum rejection. - Documented schedule-only semantics, activity windows, own-run/read-action exclusions, scopes, and an hourly quiet-night watcher example. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t 'activity gate|preserves declared activity gate settings|resolves routine agent and project refs'` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - GitHub CI: all final-head checks green; Storybook visual regression skipped by path rules. - Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Low risk: defaults remain `always` and `company`, preserving existing routine behavior and old revision snapshots. - Managed plugin manifests can now declare the same validated gate settings as the public routine API; omitted values retain core defaults. - Revision snapshots now include the new fields so policy changes are not lost or treated as no-ops during restore. > For core feature work, checked `ROADMAP.md`: this extends the existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item and does not duplicate a separate planned capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with repository tool use and code execution; context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
52aea90263 |
feat: organize skills with nested folders and My Skills (#9633)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to organize and govern AI-agent companies > - Company skills are durable resources that users browse, import, assign, and maintain over time > - A flat skill list plus tags does not provide a stable location or hierarchy for personal, company, project-imported, and bundled skills > - Folder paths need to be canonical, company-scoped, safe to move, and preserved across re-imports without changing skill IDs > - The `/skills` UI also needs traversal, breadcrumbs, move/create flows, and a dedicated My Skills namespace that work on desktop and mobile > - This pull request adds the folder data model and APIs, reserved-root lifecycle, project import behavior, and the folder-first skills experience > - The benefit is a predictable filesystem-like organization model while tags remain available for cross-cutting classification ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #9619 — the reviewed folder foundation was intentionally closed and folded into this combined feature PR. Refs #9026 — earlier flat-folder attempt superseded by this integrated implementation. Refs #3281 — related skill organization proposal; this PR uses canonical persisted folders rather than deriving groups from skill keys, and does not add hidden-skill behavior. **Feature request** - **Problem:** Skills currently lack a canonical hierarchical location, making personal skills, project imports, bundled skills, and company-authored skills difficult to traverse and manage at scale. - **Proposed behavior:** Add nested company-scoped folders with stable paths, reserved My/Projects/Bundled roots, subtree queries, safe move/create operations, and a folder-first `/skills` library UI. - **Import behavior:** New project scans file skills under `projects/<project-slug>`; later imports update content without overriding a user-selected folder. - **Alternatives considered:** Tags alone remain useful for cross-cutting classification, but they do not provide canonical location, nesting, reserved namespaces, or stable import placement. - **Roadmap alignment:** Extends the completed Skills Manager and Scheduled Routines capabilities without duplicating an active roadmap item. ## What Changed - Adds `folders` persistence for routine and skill folders, nested canonical paths, parent/slug/system-key fields, migration backfills, and reapply-safe migrations `0174`–`0175` after current master migrations. - Adds company-scoped folder CRUD, cycle/depth/namespace validation, reserved My/Projects/Bundled lifecycle, item moves, subtree filtering, and folder paths on skill results. - Preserves project-import placement: first import files into the project folder, while re-import keeps user-owned placement and stable skill IDs. - Adds the `/skills` folder tree rail, tags facet, breadcrumbs, subfolder browser, move/new-folder dialog, canonical detail location, inline tag editing, and folder-aware Studio creation. - Keeps bundled skills read-only even when their source metadata is incomplete by detecting the reserved Bundled folder and hiding selection/move actions. - Extends routine folder UI and OpenAPI coverage, and adds regression tests across migrations, services, routes, tree helpers, pages, and Studio creation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/db/src/nested-skill-folders-migration.test.ts server/src/__tests__/folders-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/folders-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/components/folders/FolderControls.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/skill-folder-tree.test.ts ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx ui/src/lib/company-skill-routes.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-create.test.ts` — 13 files, 192 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx ui/src/components/folders/SkillFolderTree.test.tsx` — 2 files, 20 tests passed after preserving the existing PR's bundled-skill fixes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed for all workspace packages. - `pnpm test:run` — passed in an isolated CI-like environment with inherited Paperclip runtime identity and static AWS credential variables removed. - `pnpm build` — production build passed for all workspace packages. - Greptile iteration 2 — 5/5 confidence with zero unresolved threads on commit `ff2d67aa71`. - Latest-head GitHub checks — all success, neutral, or skipped; PR is mergeable with a clean merge state. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — reports nine existing `#9627` comment false positives already present on `master`; this PR introduces no new token violation. ## Risks - **Migration/backfill:** `0174` creates the foundation and `0175` adds nested/reserved semantics. Both are ordered after current master migration `0173`, are covered by numbering/safety checks, and are designed to be reapply-safe. - **Reserved namespaces:** My, Projects, and Bundled roots are service-managed. Regression coverage prevents namespace squatting, cross-company folder use, bundled writes, cycles, and excessive depth. - **Behavioral change:** Project scans choose a project folder only on initial creation; existing skills deliberately retain their current folder during refresh. - **UI scope:** The folder rail applies to the Installed library; Catalog retains the discovery-oriented category sidebar. > 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 `gpt-5.5` in Codex CLI, medium reasoning mode; runtime did not expose a context-window value. Used repository/file tools, terminal execution, Git/GitHub operations, test execution, and code editing. ## 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
|
8368fb30b0 |
fix(routines): coalesce sub-hourly catch-up runs (#9649)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to run AI-agent companies. > - Scheduled routines support catch-up policies when the server resumes after missed cron ticks. > - The existing capped replay policy dispatched once per missed tick, which can flood the board after downtime for frequent schedules. > - Sub-hourly routines usually need one prompt catch-up execution rather than historical per-tick replay, while hourly-or-slower schedules may rely on the existing behavior. > - This pull request coalesces missed sub-hourly ticks into one execution and keeps the slower-schedule behavior unchanged. > - The benefit is bounded recovery work without changing the semantics of lower-frequency scheduled routines. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### What happened? When a scheduled routine using `enqueue_missed_with_cap` resumes after several missed sub-hourly cron ticks, Paperclip dispatches one catch-up execution for every missed tick. Those executions arrive in a same-second burst and can flood the board with duplicate-looking work. ### Expected behavior Sub-hourly schedules should advance past all missed ticks but dispatch exactly one catch-up execution. Hourly-or-slower schedules should retain capped per-tick replay. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Build Paperclip from `master` and create a routine with a sub-hourly cron schedule and `catchUpPolicy: enqueue_missed_with_cap`. 2. Set its persisted `nextRunAt` far enough in the past to cover several scheduled occurrences. 3. Run routine catch-up processing. 4. Observe multiple catch-up dispatches instead of one coalesced execution. ### Paperclip version or commit Reproduced on `master` before this PR. ### Deployment mode Built from source in local development with embedded PGlite. ## What Changed - Classify sub-hourly cadence from timezone-aware scheduled occurrences, avoiding daily multi-minute false positives while supporting schedules restricted to active days. - Coalesce all missed sub-hourly ticks into one catch-up dispatch while advancing `nextRunAt` to the next future occurrence. - Preserve capped per-tick replay for hourly-or-slower schedules. - Clarify the catch-up policy labels in both routine editing surfaces. - Add regression coverage for both the coalesced and preserved behaviors. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --testNamePattern='coalesces multiple missed sub-hourly ticks|continues replaying each missed hourly tick|continues replaying missed ticks for daily schedules with multiple minute values|coalesces sub-hourly schedules restricted to weekdays'` — 4 passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — clean. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: sub-hourly routines using `enqueue_missed_with_cap` now intentionally receive one recovery execution instead of one per missed tick. - Hourly-or-slower schedules retain their previous capped replay behavior, limiting the compatibility surface. - No schema, migration, workflow, or lockfile changes. > 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 CLI with GPT-5.5, medium reasoning, code execution and repository tool use; the runtime did not expose a 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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4a40c0cb13 |
feat(routines): gate scheduled runs on external activity (#9436)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI-agent companies and their recurring work > - Scheduled routines provide native cron-driven execution for recurring agent tasks > - Watcher-style routines currently dispatch a model run even when the control plane has been quiet since their last useful run > - Existing pause, catch-up, and concurrency policies do not distinguish external work from a routine's own bookkeeping > - This pull request adds a generic activity gate that checks company-scoped activity provenance before scheduled dispatch > - The benefit is backward-compatible zero-token quiet skips while real human, agent, or delegated-child activity still wakes the routine ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8534 ## What Changed - Added `activity_gate_policy` and `activity_gate_scope` routine columns with backward-compatible `always` / `company` defaults. - Added a company-bounded `evaluateActivityGate()` predicate that uses the last dispatched run as its open window, excludes the routine's own execution runs and scheduler bookkeeping, ignores pure-read actions, and supports company/project scope. - Integrated the predicate into scheduled ticks after pause/worktree eligibility checks; quiet ticks create visible skipped run-history rows with reason `no_external_activity` and gate-window diagnostics without advancing the activity window. - Kept webhook, manual, and API dispatch paths ungated; catch-up schedules evaluate the gate once per scheduler tick. - Added migration-default, provenance predicate, project-scope, quiet-window, scheduler, and webhook-bypass coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` — 51 tests passed - Embedded Postgres `EXPLAIN` for the company-scope gate scan: ```text Limit (cost=24.56..24.58 rows=1 width=24) -> Incremental Sort (cost=24.56..24.60 rows=2 width=24) Sort Key: activity.created_at, activity.id Presorted Key: activity.created_at -> Nested Loop Anti Join (cost=0.44..24.55 rows=1 width=24) Join Filter: (own_run.id = activity.run_id) -> Index Scan using activity_log_company_created_idx on activity_log activity (cost=0.15..8.19 rows=1 width=40) Index Cond: ((company_id = '00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001'::uuid) AND (created_at > (now() - '01:00:00'::interval)) AND (created_at <= now())) ``` ## Risks - The migration adds two non-null text columns, but constant defaults preserve all existing routine behavior and avoid a backfill step. - Project scope resolves activity through issue/run/routine provenance; tests cover in-project and cross-project issue activity, while every top-level and correlated query remains company-bounded. - This is the scheduler/schema foundation. Public API validation and documentation for configuring the new fields are intentionally handled in the next scoped follow-up. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex using `gpt-5.4` with medium reasoning, repository/tool access, terminal code execution, and test execution. The runtime did not expose a 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 extends the existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked the related efficiency request above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no user-facing configuration is exposed in this scoped foundation PR) - [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> |
||
|
|
70ce005bef |
Ensure worktree execution starts only after activation (#9374)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open-source control plane people use to manage AI agents and their work. > - Its scheduler, routines, and heartbeat services decide when agents automatically begin work. > - Experimental per-worktree execution is useful for isolated development, but enabling it previously allowed automatic services to consider an existing backlog. > - A worktree activation must therefore create a durable eligibility boundary rather than merely toggle execution on. > - This pull request records an activation cutoff and applies it consistently to automatic routine and heartbeat dispatch. > - The result is that an enabled worktree executes only work created after its own activation, while non-worktree behavior remains unchanged. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem type:** Bug / safety regression **Summary:** Enabling experimental run execution in an existing worktree could start automatic scheduler, routine, watchdog, and heartbeat activity for work created before that worktree was explicitly armed. **Expected behavior:** A worktree that has execution enabled only considers automatically dispatched work created on or after its activation timestamp. Ambiguous activation state fails closed. Non-worktree instances keep their existing behavior. **Related public work:** Refs #8275 (runtime worktree policy gating); this PR adds an activation-time boundary for automatic execution rather than changing the general runtime policy. ## What Changed - Persist a worktree execution activation timestamp and originating instance ID; stamp them only when the experimental toggle changes from disabled to enabled. - Resolve activation state fail-closed when the cutoff is missing, invalid, disabled, or belongs to another instance. - Gate automatic routine scheduling, webhooks, watchdog activity, and heartbeat selection at the activation cutoff; manual runs remain available. - Share the canonical worktree truthy-environment helper across routine dispatch and agent inbox filtering. - Add cutoff and truthy-runtime regression coverage, plus experimental-settings UI states that explain armed and suppressed execution. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts` — passes: 2 files, 60 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passes. - Existing CI completed successfully before the follow-up review fixes; this branch was rebased onto the latest `origin/master` before retesting. ## Risks - **Behavioral:** Automatic worktree execution is intentionally more restrictive; pre-existing work is suppressed until newly created after activation. - **Operational:** A malformed or cross-instance activation record fails closed, requiring an operator to disable and re-enable the experimental toggle on the intended worktree. - **Compatibility:** The worktree environment now accepts all canonical truthy values (`1`, `true`, `yes`, and `on`) consistently; non-worktree instances are unaffected. - **Branch metadata:** This existing execution-workspace branch predates the current naming rule and cannot be renamed under this task's workspace contract; the code and PR title do not include internal ticket references. > `ROADMAP.md` was checked; this targeted execution-safety fix does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude Code — assisted with the original implementation; exact model identifier and context window were not recorded in the repository metadata. - OpenAI Codex CLI — assisted with PR preparation and review fixes; exact model identifier and context window are not exposed in this execution environment. Used with terminal tooling, code editing, and targeted 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) - [ ] 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
b13eb5b2b5 |
Skill Studio: three-pane skill IDE with sandboxed test runs (#9241)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The Skills Manager gives operators a reusable skill layer, but iteration still required manual edits, ad hoc prompts, and indirect run inspection. > - Skill authors need a focused workflow for editing skill files, saving representative test inputs, and running those inputs through an agent without exposing harness tasks as normal company work. > - The backend therefore needs durable test inputs, reusable run templates, hidden harness issues, scoped run execution, retention metadata, and read-containment rules around hidden work. > - The frontend needs a three-pane Studio that keeps skill files, saved inputs/templates, and run output/history visible together while preserving the existing design system and token rules. > - This pull request ships that Skill Studio surface end to end: database migrations, shared contracts, server APIs/services, hidden harness execution behavior, UI routes/components, and focused tests. > - The benefit is faster and safer skill iteration, with inspectable outputs and fewer ways for internal harness work to leak into normal task lists, costs, or adjacent read APIs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. Feature request summary: - Problem: Skill authors need to edit and test company skills in one place instead of switching between the skill detail page, task creation, run output, and manual prompt history. - Proposed solution: Add a Skill Studio workbench with saved inputs, reusable templates, hidden sandboxed test runs, live run status, output inspection, run history, rerun/delete controls, and frontmatter-aware editing. - Expected users: Paperclip operators and agent-company maintainers who create, fork, import, and tune skills. - Related public PRs: Supersedes #9205, which was replaced so the public PR branch name follows contributor policy. - Duplicate search: searched public GitHub issues and PRs for "Skill Studio"; no other active public issue or PR directly covers this feature. ## What Changed - Added database migrations for Skill Studio test inputs, test runs, test run retention, and reusable run templates. - Added shared Skill Studio types, validators, route helpers, frontmatter utilities, and status handling. - Added server services and routes for saved inputs, test runs, templates, reruns, terminal-run deletion, hidden harness issue execution, and run-detail hydration. - Strengthened hidden-issue read containment across issue-adjacent routes and cost rollups used by skill test harness work. - Added the Skill Studio UI with skill file editing, frontmatter editing, saved inputs, templates, run creation/cancel/rerun/delete flows, output rendering, history, route support, and responsive pane behavior. - Added focused backend, shared, and UI tests for the new APIs, routing logic, editor/run behavior, hidden-issue containment, and migration safety. - Rebased onto current `master`, removed the generated lockfile diff from the PR, and verified no workflow files are changed. ## Verification - [x] `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db check:migrations` - [x] `pnpm check:token-gates` - [x] `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/company-skills-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skills-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/company-skill-test-runs-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/skill-studio.test.ts ui/src/pages/SkillStudio.test.tsx` — 5 files, 132 tests passed - [x] Greptile review on the latest PR head - [x] GitHub PR checks on the latest PR head ## Risks - Medium risk because this is a broad feature touching database schema, server orchestration, issue visibility, and a large UI surface. - Hidden harness issue containment is security-sensitive; this PR includes regression coverage for adjacent read paths and cost rollups. - The new migrations are additive and use idempotent guards where applicable, but deployed databases that previously tested draft migration numbers should still be checked carefully. - The UI depends on a new resizable panels package in `ui/package.json`; the lockfile is intentionally left to repository automation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with shell, git, and GitHub CLI tool use. Earlier feature commits include assistance from other Paperclip coding agents; this PR preparation, rebase, cleanup commit, and PR body were completed by OpenAI Codex in a Paperclip worktree. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
ad961227f5 |
feat(secrets): add user-specific runtime secrets (#8825)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent runs often need provider credentials, API tokens, and other environment-bound secrets. > - Company-level secrets work for shared credentials, but they do not model values that should differ by human operator. > - Without a user-scoped model, a run can dispatch without knowing whether the responsible human has supplied the needed value. > - Paperclip also needs run attribution to make those user-scoped runtime checks deterministic and auditable. > - This pull request adds user-specific secret definitions, per-user values, environment bindings, responsible-user attribution, and runtime resolution gates. > - The benefit is that teams can define the secret once, let each user provide their own value, and block runs before dispatch when required user secrets or active definitions are unavailable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #224 Refs #6057 This PR implements user-specific secret support as a core secret-management capability rather than a one-off adapter setting. It is related to existing public work on company secrets UI and runtime secret refs, but is distinct because the value is owned by the responsible user and resolved at run dispatch time. Related PR search before opening found existing secrets work such as #1550, #8256, #8614, #8634, and #8647; none of those add the full user-secret definition/value/runtime gate covered here. ## What Changed - Added user-secret definitions and per-user "My secrets" values, keeping stored values out of access metadata. - Added `user_secret_ref` environment bindings and UI affordances to pick them alongside existing secret refs. - Added responsible-user runtime resolution so user-secret refs resolve against the human responsible for the run. - Added pre-dispatch missing-secret gates so runs fail before adapter dispatch when required user values are absent or definitions are inactive. - Added low-trust allowlist hardening for user-secret runtime access. - Added issue, routine, run, and agent API key responsible-user attribution and fail-closed dispatch behavior when attribution cannot be resolved. - Added denial-copy mapping so responsible-user authorization failures surface as actionable run outcomes instead of opaque setup failures. - Added OpenAPI documentation for the user-secret routes. - Rebases cleanly on current `master`; migrations were renumbered incrementally as `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant` after upstream `0126`/`0127` migrations. - Removed previously committed local design screenshots so the PR contains code/docs/tests only. ## Verification - PASS: PR head `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` is based on `paperclipai/paperclip:master`. - PASS: `git diff --check` - PASS: `git diff --name-only public/master...HEAD | rg '^(pnpm-lock\\.yaml|\\.github/workflows/|screenshots/)' || true` produced no files. - PASS: migration journal audit confirmed unique indexes through `130` with tail entries `0126_issue_comment_derived_attribution`, `0127_environment_custom_images_instance_scoped`, `0128_user_specific_secrets`, `0129_agent_api_key_responsible_user`, and `0130_run_responsible_user_invariant`. - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-responsible-user-invariant.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-finalize-branch.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-plugin-environment.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts` - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (55 tests) - PASS: `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/secrets-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` (89 tests after final Greptile cleanup fixes) - PASS: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation.test.ts` (17 tests after the final rebase CI fix) - PASS: focused server Vitest batches covering heartbeat recovery, project env, plugin env, routines, low-trust, pipelines, monitors, watchdog, and stale queue paths. - PASS: GitHub checks are green on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6`, including Typecheck + Release Registry, Build, General tests, serialized server suites, e2e, Canary Dry Run, verify, security checks, and Greptile Review. - PASS: Greptile Review completed successfully on `2527febd106bcf3ca264ca0da7fca491084192d6` with Confidence Score 5/5, and GraphQL review-thread audit returned zero unresolved non-outdated threads. ## Risks - Runtime behavior now depends on a run having a correct responsible user; missing or incorrect responsibility assignment can block runs before adapter dispatch. - `user_secret_ref` bindings intentionally expose metadata without values, but UI/API callers may need to handle the new binding kind explicitly. - External secret providers and IAM policies are not automatically provisioned by this PR; operators still need to configure provider-side access for non-local vaults. - The PR is broad across db/shared/server/UI/runtime paths, so release validation should include both API and UI secret workflows before merge. - The migration renumbering is intentionally incremental after upstream migrations; the branch migrations use guarded column/table/index/constraint creation so users who tested the older draft numbering should not hit duplicate DDL for the existing objects. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent (`gpt-5`), Codex local adapter with shell/tool use and code execution. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
43b005b704 |
Add pipeline workflow primitives and operator UI (#7903)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift notices, and linked work. > - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface, not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments. > - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes, CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the primitive reviewable end to end. > - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline workflow primitive stack. > - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator experience and server contract together against `master`. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature request is described inline. ### Problem or motivation Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation, and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues, routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate. ### Proposed solution Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes, aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail, review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over fields, and retry/recovery flows. ### Alternatives considered - Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated workflow patterns. - Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch because the operator experience is the main way to validate the primitive. - Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same primitives are useful across future company processes. ## What Changed - Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts, server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke support. - Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment, blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and permission recovery behavior. - Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets, automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets, liveness banners, and source automation metadata. - Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared `DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent with the pipeline document surfaces. - Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current pipeline branch. ## Verification Current branch refresh: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31 passed - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19 passed - `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed - `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed - Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`: sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle. - GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket, Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review - Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` — Confidence Score 5/5 - GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads Previously recorded during branch development: - Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests - Shared validator tests - UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests - Pipeline tutorial smoke path ## Risks - High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database, shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI. - Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master` syncs. - GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status checks are green. - Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use, shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship. ## 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) - [ ] 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
|
b3c0fadd63 |
feat(routines): add date variable controls (#8655)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Scheduled routines can prompt agents with variables that are filled in at dispatch time. > - Existing routine variable handling supported plain text-like values, but date inputs need a structured contract so routines can pass consistent date values. > - Operators also need date variables to be easy to configure and override from the routine UI. > - This pull request adds a date variable type across shared validation, server dispatch, and UI editing/run dialogs. > - The benefit is that routine authors can define date inputs once and agents receive validated ISO-style date values when routines run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #219 Feature request: - Problem/motivation: Scheduled routines need first-class, typed date variables so operators can configure dates without relying on free-form text conventions. - Proposed solution: Add an `x-date` routine variable type with shared parsing/validation, server dispatch support, and UI date-picker controls in routine variable editors and run dialogs. - Alternatives considered: Continue treating dates as plain text, but that leaves validation and formatting to individual operators and agents. - Roadmap alignment: This is a focused improvement to the completed Scheduled Routines milestone and does not duplicate an active roadmap item. Related PR search: - Searched existing PRs/issues for `routine date picker`, `date variables`, and `scheduled routine date variable`; no direct duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Added the shared `x-date` routine variable contract, parsing, defaults, and validation coverage. - Extended routine dispatch to validate and pass date variable values. - Added date input controls to the routine variable editor and routine run variables dialog. - Added focused tests for shared validation, server dispatch, and the UI date controls. ## Verification - `git diff --check public/master...HEAD` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/RoutineVariablesEditor.test.tsx` - 5 test files passed - 68 tests passed ## Risks Low to medium risk. This adds a new routine variable type across shared/server/UI paths, so the main risk is compatibility with existing routine variable payloads. The change keeps existing variable types intact and adds targeted validation tests for the new date behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with terminal, git, GitHub CLI, and local test execution capabilities. ## 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
|
746e287e33 |
feat(control-plane): add annotation and workspace controls (#8229)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI-agent companies. > - The control plane coordinates issues, workspaces, documents, routines, and board review flows across company-scoped data. > - The local source branch contained related schema, service, and UI changes for workspace issue scoping and document/routine annotations. > - These changes need to move together because db schema, shared types, server services, and UI consumers form one contract. > - This pull request extracts the migration-bearing control-plane work from the source branch onto `origin/master`. > - The benefit is a standalone branch with deterministic migration order and focused review for the highest-risk part of the split. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No GitHub issue exists for this branch split. Internal source task: [PAP-11234](/PAP/issues/PAP-11234). Problem/motivation: - Workspace operations need explicit issue scoping so readiness and blocker handling can be derived correctly. - Document annotations need reliable live updates, save failure surfacing, normalized activity keys, and better comment panel behavior. - Routine descriptions need the same annotation contract as issue documents so operators can discuss and edit routine text without special-case infrastructure. Proposed solution: - Add the workspace-operation `issueId` migration and readiness scoping. - Add routine document/annotation schema, shared types, services, routes, and UI editing support. - Keep the related migrations in one PR so the renumbered `0106` and `0107` migrations land in a deterministic order after current `master`. Alternatives considered: - Split migrations into separate PRs, rejected because that would create migration-numbering conflicts and make each branch less standalone. - Merge this with UI polish, rejected because this branch needs deeper server/db review. Roadmap alignment: - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; the roadmap mentions future recurring routine capabilities generally, but no duplicate implementation PR for these annotation/workspace changes was found. ## What Changed - Added `0106_workspace_operations_issue_id.sql` and `0107_routine_description_annotations.sql`, plus schema exports. - Scoped workspace readiness to blocker issues and attached workspace operation issue ids. - Scoped issue-thread interaction accept finalization to the source run. - Added routine document annotation contracts across db/shared/server/UI. - Improved document annotation live updates, activity-key normalization, save failure surfacing, and comment panel behavior. - Added issue workspace property controls and compact blocked-by/quick-control UI updates. - Added focused server and UI regression tests for the new contracts. ## Verification - `CI=true NODE_ENV=development pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --prefer-offline` - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest server/src/__tests__/document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routine-document-annotation-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueDocumentAnnotations.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/WorkspaceRuntimeControls.test.tsx ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.ts --run` — 10 files, 273 tests passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm -r --filter @paperclipai/db --filter @paperclipai/shared --filter @paperclipai/server --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed, including db migration numbering check. ## Risks - Migration-bearing PR; merge this branch before any later PR that adds migrations with higher numbers. - Cross-layer contract risk across db/shared/server/ui, mitigated with targeted tests and affected-package typecheck. - Review should pay special attention to company scoping in new routine/document annotation paths. > 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 GPT-5 Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` / CodexCoder, GPT-5-class coding model with tool use and shell execution. Exact runtime snapshot and context-window setting were not exposed by the Paperclip run context. ## 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 available from the run context) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A per source task: do not add screenshots/images unless specifically part of the work) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A; no public docs changed) - [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
|
e68188c438 |
fix: upstream deployed document-comment, routine-annotation, workspace & board-polling fixes (#8536)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - This change touches several already-shipped subsystems — document-comment annotations, the selected-agent Conference Room chat surface, routine description annotations, workspace-operation tracking, and the board polling/inbox UI > - A batch of incremental fixes and two small backend additions had accumulated on a local mainline and were deployed to a live instance, but never landed upstream — so each `origin/master` sync kept re-diverging > - Leaving them un-upstreamed means the same delta has to be re-merged on every sync and risks being lost or silently reverted > - This pull request rebases that delta cleanly on top of current `origin/master` (preserving recent upstream work such as reusable sandbox leases and the relation-list collapse controls) and brings it up for review > - The benefit is that mainline and the deployed instance converge, and these fixes/additions get normal review + CI + Greptile coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No single GitHub issue tracks this; it is a bundle of bug fixes and two small feature additions. Following the issue-template fields: **Bug fixes (what was wrong → what this does):** - Document comments rendered out of document order, didn't live-update across clients, swallowed save failures, and lost the markdown text selection on re-render. Now: doc-order sort, live updates, surfaced save-failure state, stable selection across re-renders. - The board polling hot path returned oversized payloads on every poll. Now: an opt-in `summary` projection trims the heartbeat-run list payload. - Assorted UI fixes: sidebar nav peek/streamlining edge cases, markdown file-viewer re-mount/line-height issues on iOS Safari, inbox badge/skill deep-link tab selection, and `⌘.` work-mode cycling on iOS. **Feature additions:** - `workspace_operations.issue_id` — associate a workspace operation with the issue that triggered it (new migration `0106`, schema, service, shared type). - Routine **description annotations** — comment threads on a routine's description document, mirroring issue document annotations (new migration `0107`, `routine_documents` schema, routes/service, editable-sections UI). - Selected-agent **Conference Room chat** surface wiring and live issue-thread updates. **Related PR:** #8229 (`feat(control-plane): add annotation and workspace controls`, draft) covers overlapping annotation/workspace-control territory — flagging it so a reviewer can reconcile the two rather than double-merging. ## What Changed - `feat(workspace)`: `workspace_operations.issue_id` migration + schema/service/type; issue workspace property controls reconciled with upstream's evolved "Service" row. - `feat(routines)`: routine description annotations — `routine_documents` schema, migration `0107`, routes/service, `editable-sections` UI. - `fix(document-comments)`: doc-order sort, live updates, save-failure surfacing, stable markdown selection (+ storybook story, rerender test). - `feat(chat)`: selected-agent Conference Room chat surface and live issue-thread updates (`LiveUpdatesProvider`, `issue-chat-messages`, interactions service). - `perf(board)`: opt-in `summary` projection for the board polling/heartbeat-run list payload, plus assorted sidebar / file-viewer / inbox / IssueProperties UI fixes. Organized into 5 logical commits. Migrations are numbered incrementally after upstream's latest (`0105`) — `0106` then `0107`, no journal collision. ## Verification - Built by 3-way merging the deployed delta onto current `origin/master`; the only merge conflict (`IssueProperties.test.tsx`, two adjacent test blocks) was resolved in favor of upstream's evolved "green service link above the workspace row" layout, which matches the merged component's rendered output. - Confirmed recent upstream work is preserved post-merge: reusable sandbox lease teardown (`#8513`), the IssueProperties relation-list collapse controls, and the sidebar streamlined-nav default. - Confirmed the net diff vs `origin/master` is exactly the intended feature delta (65 files) and that overlapping server files (`issues.ts`, `agents.ts`, `heartbeat.ts`) only add feature code without disturbing upstream logic. - This delta is already running on a live deployed instance. - Full typecheck/test suite + Greptile to run in CI (see checklist). ## Risks - Two new migrations (`0106`, `0107`). Both are additive (new table / new nullable column) and ordered after upstream's `0105`; no data backfill, low risk. If another migration-bearing PR merges first, renumber before merge. - Largest blast radius is in the merged overlapping UI/service files; covered by the existing test suites for those files plus CI. - Overlaps thematically with draft PR #8229 — reviewers should reconcile rather than merge both blindly. ## Model Used Claude Opus 4.8 (`claude-opus-4-8`), extended thinking, with tool use (git, shell). Agentic coding workflow. ## 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) - [ ] 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Aron PrinsandClaude Fable 5
|
a5b3cc98b0 |
fix(server): cache Intl.DateTimeFormat per timezone in cron minute-stepper (#8033) (#8034)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The routine scheduler lets agents and users run work on cron schedules; every 30s a tick computes each trigger's next occurrence > - `computeNextRun`/`nextCronTickInTimeZone` find that occurrence by stepping forward one minute at a time (capped at 2.6M iterations), constructing a fresh `Intl.DateTimeFormat` on every step — ~1ms of ICU work each > - Sparse schedules (monthly ≈ 43k steps ≈ 40s) and never-matching crons (the #7529 midnight bug → full 2.6M steps ≈ 45 min) block the Node event loop for the whole scan, every tick > - In production this pegs the server at 100% CPU, health checks time out, and Paperclip Desktop repeatedly shows "the embedded server is no longer responding" (diagnosed via a CPU sample: 74% of samples inside `Builtin_DateTimeFormatConstructor`) > - This pull request caches the formatter per timezone, since `Intl.DateTimeFormat` instances are immutable and reusable > - The benefit is each minute-step pays only `formatToParts` (~1µs): a 43k-step scan drops from ~40s of blocked event loop to under a second, and the server stays responsive while routines are active ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Fixes: #8033 - Refs #7529 — a never-matching midnight cron forces the minute-stepper through its full 2.6M-iteration cap, which is the worst-case trigger for this perf bug; the two compound - Refs #7922 — in-flight fix for #7529 touching the same function (`getZonedMinuteParts`); the changes are compatible (this PR changes formatter construction, that PR changes hour normalization) ## What Changed - `server/src/services/routines.ts`: added a per-timezone `Intl.DateTimeFormat` cache (`getZonedMinuteFormatter`) used by `getZonedMinuteParts` and `assertTimeZone`, replacing per-call construction - Exported `nextCronTickInTimeZone` so the behavior is testable (same export PR #7922 makes) - Added `server/src/services/routines-formatter-cache.test.ts`: verifies a sparse monthly cron resolves to the correct next occurrence across a DST-bearing timezone, and asserts at most one formatter construction for a ~43k-minute-step scan (and zero on a warm cache) ## Verification - `npx vitest run server/src/services/routines-formatter-cache.test.ts` — 2 tests pass - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` — clean - Live validation: applied the same patch to the server bundled in Paperclip Desktop 3.2.9, which was hitting 99.3% CPU with 5s health-check timeouts within 60s of boot on a real workload; after the patch, CPU idles at 0–3% across scheduler ticks and `/api/health` answers in ~1ms (observed over multiple 30s ticks) ## Risks - Low risk. `Intl.DateTimeFormat` instances are immutable and safe to reuse; the cache key is the timezone string, and entries are small and bounded by the number of distinct timezones in use - Invalid timezones still throw in the constructor before anything is cached, so `assertTimeZone` semantics are unchanged - Does not change cron matching semantics; minute-stepping remains (replacing it with cron-field arithmetic is noted in #8033 as a follow-up) ## Model Used - Claude (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5` (Fable 5), via Claude Code CLI with extended thinking and tool use (profiling, patching, and live verification performed by the model under user supervision) ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots (N/A — server-only change) - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A — internal perf fix, no doc surface) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending review) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
71a8464fee |
[codex] prevent invalid agents from receiving assignments and runs (#7663)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The control plane owns agent lifecycle, issue assignment, routine dispatch, heartbeat wakeups, and recovery paths > - Terminated, paused, pending-approval, or otherwise invalid agents should not receive new work or new execution attempts > - The old behavior left eligibility checks spread across routes and services, so assignment and run paths could drift apart > - This pull request centralizes agent lifecycle eligibility and applies it consistently to assignment, invocation, routines, recovery, and UI affordances > - The benefit is safer autonomy: terminated agents stay paused, invalid org-chain agents are surfaced, and active agents keep receiving valid work ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #5103 Related: #1864 Bug fix context: - What happened: agent assignment and heartbeat/run paths did not share one eligibility contract, so invalid lifecycle states could still be considered in some paths. - Expected behavior: terminated agents must never receive new assignments or heartbeat runs, and paused or otherwise invalid agents should be treated as non-invokable consistently. - Steps to reproduce: create or select an agent in an invalid lifecycle state, then attempt assignment, routine dispatch, or heartbeat/recovery wake paths. - Paperclip version/commit: fixed on top of `paperclipai/paperclip` `master` at the PR base. - Deployment mode: applies to the server control plane in local and authenticated deployments. ## What Changed - Added shared agent lifecycle eligibility helpers and exported the related shared types. - Centralized server-side assignability and invokability checks for issue assignment, agent routes, heartbeat dispatch, routines, recovery, and liveness logic. - Hardened issue assignment so invalid assignees are rejected instead of queued for work. - Hardened heartbeat/routine/recovery paths so terminated and otherwise invalid agents are not woken for new runs. - Updated board UI affordances to disable invalid agent actions and surface org-chain warnings where relevant. - Added targeted shared, server, and UI tests for the new eligibility behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/agent-eligibility.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-invokability.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-archived-company-guard.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/lib/company-members.test.ts ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx` — 8 files, 144 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Checked the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this is a targeted control-plane safety fix and does not duplicate a planned core feature. - Searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs/issues; closest related items are linked above. - CI and Greptile verification are pending on the opened PR and will be followed up before requesting merge. ## Risks Low to moderate risk. The intended behavioral shift is that invalid agents are refused earlier and more consistently, which could expose existing data with paused, pending, terminated, or broken org-chain assignees. The added tests cover the critical assignment, heartbeat, routine, recovery, shared helper, and UI paths. No database migrations are included. > 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 GPT-5 Codex via the Paperclip `codex_local` adapter, with shell/git/GitHub CLI tool use. Reasoning mode and context window are managed by the adapter runtime and not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have 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 (not applicable: no design screenshots requested; UI behavior is covered by tests) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (not applicable: no user-facing command or schema docs changed) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (pending CI) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending Greptile) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Doyeon BaekandClaude Opus 4.8
|
d60f50e4a4 |
feat(routines): suppress scheduled ticks while project is paused (TON-2139) (#7502)
Fixes #7501 ## Thinking Path Issue checkout already rejects paused projects (`issues.ts` → 409), but that fires only *after* the routine execution issue exists. Per internal TON-1102, the pause must be honored earlier — at the scheduler tick — so no execution issue is ever created while a project is paused. The fix gates dispatch in `tickScheduledTriggers` on the due routine's `projects.pausedAt`, while preserving normal cron advancement so resume does not backfill missed firings. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/routines.ts`: - `tickScheduledTriggers` LEFT JOINs `projects` and derives `projectPaused` from `projects.pausedAt`. Routines with no project are never suppressed. - When paused: the tick is still claimed and `routineTriggers.nextRunAt` advances by a single cron step (catch-up backfill bypassed while paused — no replay on resume); `recordSuppressedScheduleRun` runs instead of `dispatchRoutineRun`. - New `recordSuppressedScheduleRun` inserts one `routine_runs` row (`source: schedule`, `status: skipped`, `failureReason: paused`, `linkedIssueId: null`, `completedAt` set), updates routine/trigger touched state, and logs a `routine.run_skipped` activity entry. - `nextResultText` gains a `skipped_paused` branch for pause-specific audit text (does not overload the live-issue `skipped` text). - `server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts`: focused test proving all four acceptance criteria (no issue created while paused; one `skipped`/`paused`/null-link run; `nextRunAt` advanced; normal resume on a later unpaused tick). ## Verification ```bash pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ``` - The focused test in `routines-service.test.ts` proves all four acceptance criteria: no execution issue is created while the project is paused; exactly one `routine_runs` row is written with `source: schedule` / `status: skipped` / `failureReason: paused` / `linkedIssueId: null`; the trigger's `nextRunAt` advances by a single cron step (missed firings are not backfilled); and a later tick after the project is unpaused dispatches normally. ## Risks - Catch-up backfill is intentionally bypassed while paused — missed firings are **not** replayed on resume (specified no-backfill behavior). - Scope is deliberately narrow: manual runs, webhook/API triggers, routine-level paused status, workspace runtime start/stop, `concurrencyPolicy`, and `catchUpPolicy` (beyond no-backfill) are untouched. ## Model Used claude-opus-4-8 (Paperclip CTO heartbeat) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Aron PrinsandDevin Foley
|
70b1a9109d |
Improve CLI API parity coverage (#6626)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, with the CLI acting as a scriptable operator and agent interface to that control plane. > - The REST API surface has grown across companies, agents, issues, routines, plugins, auth, workspaces, secrets, and operational inspection commands. > - The CLI had drifted from that API surface: some commands were missing, some command shapes differed from docs/reference material, and several edge cases only failed during end-to-end local-source testing. > - The local development runbook requires these tests to be disposable and isolated from a real `~/.paperclip`, `~/.codex`, or `~/.claude` installation. > - This pull request adds broad CLI/API parity coverage, fixes the actionable bugs found during that pass, and records the reproducible test log under `doc/logs`. > - The benefit is a more complete, scriptable CLI surface with regression coverage for the command families exercised by the parity run. ## What Changed - Added or expanded CLI command coverage for access/auth, companies, agents, projects, goals, issues and subresources, routines, plugins, workspaces, activity/run/cost/dashboard inspection, assets, skills, secrets, tokens, prompt/wake flows, and local setup helpers. - Fixed CLI/API parity bugs found during the run, including context profile patching, issue interaction optional payloads, malformed tree-hold errors, environment duplicate handling, configure invalid-section exit codes, worktree pnpm invocation, token agent ID resolution, plugin tool worker lookup, and routine webhook secret cleanup. - Added missing CLI wrappers and route coverage for health/access, invite resolution URL forwarding, join status normalization, secret lifecycle commands, LLM docs routes, available-skill isolation, positive board-claim coverage, and interactive `connect` prompt-flow tests. - Added a schema-backed `/api/openapi.json` route sufficient for CLI parity and `paperclipai openapi --json` smoke coverage. - Added `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` with the detailed living test/bug log and renamed the log directory from `doc/bugs` to `doc/logs`. - Added `doc/plans/2026-05-23-cli-api-parity.md` and the OpenAPI parity reference used during the pass. OpenAPI note: this PR intentionally does not try to subsume `feature/openapi-spec`. The OpenAPI implementation here is schema-backed and better than the earlier route-inventory stub, but `feature/openapi-spec` is the fuller/better OpenAPI branch because it includes exact mounted-route coverage tests and additional current route coverage. That branch should stay as its own PR and can supersede this OpenAPI route implementation. ## Verification Targeted automated checks run: - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/board-claim.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/connect.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/agent-lifecycle.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` - `pnpm --dir cli typecheck` - `pnpm --dir server typecheck` Manual/local E2E verification: - Ran the full disposable local-source CLI/API parity pass with isolated `PAPERCLIP_HOME`, `PAPERCLIP_CONFIG`, `PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT`, `PAPERCLIP_AUTH_STORE`, `CODEX_HOME`, and `CLAUDE_HOME` under `tmp/cli-api-parity`. - Verified `DATABASE_URL` and `DATABASE_MIGRATION_URL` stayed unset for the scratch server. - Verified live health and schema-backed OpenAPI responses on non-default port `3197`. - Revoked created board/agent tokens and cleaned up temporary plugins, secrets, non-default environments, and project workspaces. - See `doc/logs/2026-05-24-cli-api-parity-e2e-log.md` for the full command-by-command reproduction log. Not run: - Full `pnpm test`, `pnpm test:run`, or `pnpm build` were not run after the entire branch because the branch is broad and the parity pass used focused test/typecheck verification plus live isolated CLI reruns. ## Risks - This is a broad PR and touches many CLI command modules, so review surface is high. The changes are grouped around one theme, but a split may be easier if maintainers prefer narrower PRs. - The OpenAPI route in this PR is not the final/best OpenAPI implementation. `feature/openapi-spec` has stronger exact-route coverage and should remain the source for the dedicated OpenAPI PR. - The living log is intentionally detailed and large. It is useful for reproducibility but adds documentation weight. - No UI changes are intended; screenshots are not applicable. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in Codex desktop. Exact served model/context-window identifier was not exposed in the local app. Work used shell/Git/GitHub CLI tooling, local source inspection, targeted test execution, and live isolated Paperclip CLI/API smoke testing. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@devinfoley.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
705c1b8d81 |
[codex] Add routine env secrets support (#6212)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Scheduled routines are the control-plane path for recurring agent work. > - Routines already had dispatch/history, but their runtime environment did not carry routine-owned secret bindings through execution. > - Operators need routine-specific secrets that can override project/agent env without exposing secret values in history, logs, or access events. > - This pull request adds the routine env runtime contract, wires it into execution, and makes the routine UI/history surfaces show safe secret metadata. > - The benefit is that routine executions can use scoped secret refs predictably while preserving company boundaries and auditability. ## What Changed - Added routine env persistence/runtime support, including `routines.env`, `routine_runs.routine_revision_id`, revision snapshots, and idempotent migration `0086_routine_env_runtime_contract`. - Resolved routine env during heartbeat adapter config assembly with precedence `agent < project < routine` and secret access events recorded against the routine consumer. - Added secret binding synchronization for routine create/update/restore flows and guarded cross-company, missing, disabled, and deleted secret cases. - Added a Secrets tab to routine detail, env/secret history diff rendering, and Storybook coverage for the new UI states. - Added server/UI regression tests, including an embedded-Postgres QA path for routine secret execution and restore behavior. - Updated implementation/database docs for routine env and secret-binding behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` after rebasing onto `public-gh/master` to refresh workspace links for the newly-added upstream Grok adapter package. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/qa-routine-secrets-e2e.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 92 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed across the workspace. - `pnpm build` passed. Vite emitted the existing large-chunk/dynamic-import warnings. - UI screenshots were captured locally during QA in `artifacts/pap-9521/` and `artifacts/pap-9522/`; generated screenshots are not committed to avoid adding binary artifacts to the repo. ## Risks - Migration risk is limited by `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for the new columns, FK, and index, and the migration is ordered as `0086` immediately after upstream `0085`. - Runtime behavior changes env precedence for routine executions by adding routine env as the highest-precedence layer; tests cover agent/project/routine precedence. - Secret handling is security-sensitive; tests cover value-free manifests/events/errors, disabled/missing/deleted secrets, and cross-company rejection. - UI history now renders routine env/secret diffs; tests and Storybook stories cover the main rendering paths. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with shell/tool use and medium reasoning effort. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
|
778e775c35 |
Add secrets provider vaults and remote import (#5429)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI-agent companies and needs secrets handling to work across local development, hosted operators, and governed agent execution. > - The affected subsystem is the company-scoped secrets control plane: database schema, server services/routes, CLI workflows, and the Secrets settings UI. > - The gap was that secrets were local-only and operators could not manage provider vaults or import existing remote references without exposing plaintext. > - This branch adds provider vault configuration plus an AWS Secrets Manager remote-import path while preserving company boundaries, binding context, and audit trails. > - I kept the PR to a single branch PR, removed unrelated lockfile/package drift, rebased the full branch onto the current `public-gh/master`, and addressed fresh Greptile findings. > - The benefit is a reviewable implementation of provider-backed secrets with focused tests covering provider selection, import conflicts, deleted secret reuse, rotation guards, and AWS signing behavior. ## What Changed - Added provider vault support for company secrets, including provider config storage, default vault handling, health checks, binding usage, access events, and remote import preview/commit. - Added an AWS Secrets Manager provider using SigV4 request signing, bounded request timeouts, namespace guardrails, cached runtime credential resolution, and external-reference linking without plaintext reads. - Added Secrets UI surfaces for vault management and remote import, plus CLI/API documentation for setup and operations. - Stabilized routine webhook secret binding paths and SSH environment-driver fixture bindings discovered during verification. - Addressed Greptile and CI findings: no lockfile/package drift, monotonic migration metadata, disabled-vault default races, soft-deleted secret hiding/recreate behavior, remove behavior with disabled vaults, soft-deleted external-reference re-import, non-active rotation guards, managed-secret soft deletion through PATCH, and per-call AWS SDK credential client churn. - Rebased this branch onto `public-gh/master` at `0e1a5828` and force-pushed with lease to keep this as the single PR for the branch. ## Verification - `git fetch public-gh master` - `git rebase public-gh/master` - `git diff --name-only public-gh/master...HEAD | grep '^pnpm-lock\.yaml$' || true` confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not in the PR diff. - Confirmed migration ordering: master ends at `0081_optimal_dormammu`; this PR adds `0082_dry_vision` and `0083_company_secret_provider_configs`. - Inspected migrations for repeat safety: new tables/indexes use `IF NOT EXISTS`; foreign keys are guarded by `DO $$ ... IF NOT EXISTS`; column additions use `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. - `pnpm test:run` ran the full stable Vitest path before the Greptile follow-up commits; it completed with 3 timing-related failures under parallel load: `codex-local-execute.test.ts`, `cursor-local-execute.test.ts`, and `environment-service.test.ts`. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/codex-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/cursor-local-execute.test.ts src/__tests__/environment-service.test.ts` passed on targeted rerun (`24/24`). - `pnpm build` passed before the Greptile follow-up commits. Vite reported existing chunk-size/dynamic-import warnings. - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`26/26`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/aws-secrets-manager-provider.test.ts src/__tests__/secrets-service.test.ts` passed (`39/39`). - After Greptile follow-up commits: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passed. - Captured Storybook screenshots from `ui/storybook-static` for visual review. - Latest PR checks on `5ca3a5cf`: `policy`, serialized server suites 1/4-4/4, `Canary Dry Run`, `e2e`, `security/snyk`, and `Greptile Review` pass; aggregate `verify` is still registering the completed child checks. - Greptile review loop continued through the latest requested pass; all Greptile review threads are resolved and the latest `Greptile Review` check on `5ca3a5cf` passed with 0 comments added. ## Screenshots Before: the provider-vault and remote-import surfaces did not exist on `master`; these are after-state screenshots from the Storybook fixtures.    ## Risks - Migration risk: this adds new secret provider tables and extends existing secret rows. The migrations were checked for monotonic ordering and idempotent guards, but reviewers should still inspect upgrade behavior carefully. - Provider risk: AWS support uses direct SigV4 requests. Automated tests cover signing, request timeouts, vault-config selection, namespace guardrails, pending-version archival, sanitized provider errors, and service-level cleanup paths. A real-vault AWS smoke test remains deployment validation for an operator with AWS credentials rather than an unverified merge blocker in this local branch. - UI risk: the Secrets page and import dialog are large new surfaces; screenshots are included above for reviewer inspection. - Verification risk: the full local stable test command hit parallel-load timing failures, although the exact failed files passed when rerun directly. - Operational risk: remote import intentionally avoids plaintext reads; operators must understand that imported external references resolve at runtime and may fail if AWS permissions change. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent with local shell/tool use in the Paperclip worktree. Exact context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> Co-authored-by: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d6d7a7cea6 |
Add routine revision history and restore flow (#5285)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Routines are the scheduled/recurring work surface that keeps a company operating without manual kicks. > - Operators need routine edits to be auditable and recoverable, especially when routines control assignments, prompts, triggers, and webhook secrets. > - Documents already have revision-style safety, but routines did not have equivalent history or restore semantics. > - This pull request adds append-only routine revisions across the database, shared contracts, server routes, and board UI. > - The benefit is safer routine iteration: users can inspect history, compare changes, restore older definitions, and avoid overwriting newer edits. ## What Changed - Added `routine_revisions` storage, latest revision pointers on routines, shared types, validators, and API docs for routine revision history. - Added server service/route support for listing routine revisions, conflict-aware routine saves, and append-only restore operations. - Added a History tab on routine detail with revision preview, structured change summaries, description line diffs, dirty-edit blocking, restore confirmation, and restored webhook secret surfacing. - Extracted the line diff helper from `DocumentDiffModal` into `ui/src/lib/line-diff.ts` for reuse. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and renumbered the routine revision migration to `0077_unusual_karnak` after upstream `0076_useful_elektra`. - Made the `0077` routine revision migration idempotent so installs that already applied the branch-local `0076_unusual_karnak` can safely advance. - Updated the plugin SDK test harness routine fixture with the new revision fields required by the shared `Routine` contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/lib/line-diff.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` passed after updating the SDK test harness fixture. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` passed; this refreshed local generated SDK output needed by plugin example typechecks. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds routine revision storage and backfills existing routines. The migration is ordered after upstream `0076` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards to tolerate earlier branch-local migration application. - Restore behavior intentionally appends a new revision instead of mutating history; callers expecting an in-place rollback need to follow the new latest revision pointer. - Restoring webhook triggers recreates webhook secret material, so users must copy newly surfaced secrets after restore. - Conflict-aware saves now reject stale routine edits when the client sends an older `baseRevisionId`. > 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 shell/tool use in a local git worktree. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have 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 Screenshots: not attached in this draft PR; the new UI flow is covered by component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
3c73ed26b5 |
Expand plugin host surface (#5205)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The plugin system is the extension boundary for optional product capabilities > - Rich plugins need more than a worker entrypoint: they need scoped database storage, local project folders, managed agents/routines, host navigation, and reusable UI components > - The LLM Wiki work exposed those missing host surfaces while keeping plugin code outside the core control plane > - This pull request expands the core plugin host, SDK, server APIs, and UI bridge so plugins can declare and use those surfaces > - The benefit is that future plugins can integrate with Paperclip through documented, validated contracts instead of bespoke server or UI imports ## What Changed - Added plugin-managed database namespaces and migration tracking, including Drizzle schema/migration files and SQL validation for namespace isolation. - Added server support for plugin local folders, managed agents, managed routines, scoped plugin APIs, and plugin operation visibility. - Expanded shared plugin manifest/types/validators and SDK host/testing/UI exports for richer plugin surfaces. - Added reusable UI pieces for file trees, managed routines, resizable sidebars, route sidebars, and plugin bridge initialization. - Updated plugin docs and example plugins to use the expanded host and SDK surface. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-database.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-local-folders.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-agents.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-orchestration-apis.test.ts ui/src/api/plugins.test.ts ui/src/components/FileTree.test.tsx ui/src/components/ResizableSidebarPane.test.tsx ui/src/pages/PluginPage.test.tsx ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts` passed: 11 files, 67 tests. - Confirmed this PR changes 89 files and does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows/*`. ## Risks - Medium: this expands plugin host contracts across db/shared/server/ui and includes a new core migration (`0076_useful_elektra.sql`). - The plugin database namespace validator is intentionally restrictive; plugin authors may need follow-up affordances for SQL patterns that remain blocked. - Merge this before the LLM Wiki plugin PR so the plugin can resolve the new SDK and host APIs. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub workflow. Context window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
2d72292ad6 |
[codex] Add workspace routine run tab (#4958)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through reusable execution workspaces and routines > - Operators need a fast way to run workspace-aware routines against a specific execution workspace > - The existing workspace detail surface showed configuration, runtime logs, and linked issues, but not routines that depend on workspace variables > - Routine runs also needed to prefill the selected execution workspace so branch variables resolve correctly > - This pull request adds a workspace routines tab and prefilled routine-run dialog support > - The benefit is a tighter workflow for rerunning reviews, smoke checks, and other workspace-specific routines ## What Changed - Added an execution workspace `Routines` tab and company-prefixed routes. - Listed routines that declare or reference workspace-specific variables. - Added `Run now` support that preselects the current execution workspace in `RoutineRunVariablesDialog`. - Centralized reusable execution workspace ordering/deduplication for issue creation and workspace cards. - Added focused UI helper and dialog regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/reusable-execution-workspaces.test.ts ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx ui/src/lib/company-routes.test.ts` - Screenshots were not captured in this PR split; the visible flow is covered by focused component/helper tests and should get browser QA in the follow-up issue. ## Risks - Medium risk: this adds a new workspace detail tab and routine-run path. It is isolated to workspace-scoped routines and uses existing routine run APIs. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool use and local command execution. Exact context window was not exposed in the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
f88f538e6d |
Keep manual routine runs visible in the runner inbox (#4615)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates recurring agent work through scheduled and manual routines. > - Manual routine runs are board-initiated work and should stay visible to the human who kicked them off. > - Routine execution issues are agent-assigned, so they can be filtered away from a board user's inbox unless the user is recorded as touching the work. > - Coalesced or skipped active routine runs have the same visibility problem because they reuse an existing live issue. > - This pull request carries the manual runner actor into routine dispatch and touches the linked issue for that user's inbox. > - The benefit is that manually triggered routine work stays discoverable by the operator who started it. ## What Changed - Passed the board or agent actor from the routine run route into the routine service. - Recorded manual board runners as `createdByUserId` on fresh routine execution issues. - Touched coalesced or skipped active routine issues for the manual runner by updating read state and clearing that user's inbox archive. - Added route and service regressions for manual routine run actor propagation and inbox visibility. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` ## Risks - Low risk: the change is scoped to manual routine runs and only updates issue attribution/read-state metadata for the initiating actor. - No migrations. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, tool-enabled local repository and shell access, Paperclip heartbeat context. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
70679a3321 |
Add sandbox environment support (#4415)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The environment/runtime layer decides where agent work executes and how the control plane reaches those runtimes. > - Today Paperclip can run locally and over SSH, but sandboxed execution needs a first-class environment model instead of one-off adapter behavior. > - We also want sandbox providers to be pluggable so the core does not hardcode every provider implementation. > - This branch adds the Sandbox environment path, the provider contract, and a deterministic fake provider plugin. > - That required synchronized changes across shared contracts, plugin SDK surfaces, server runtime orchestration, and the UI environment/workspace flows. > - The result is that sandbox execution becomes a core control-plane capability while keeping provider implementations extensible and testable. ## What Changed - Added sandbox runtime support to the environment execution path, including runtime URL discovery, sandbox execution targeting, orchestration, and heartbeat integration. - Added plugin-provider support for sandbox environments so providers can be supplied via plugins instead of hardcoded server logic. - Added the fake sandbox provider plugin with deterministic behavior suitable for local and automated testing. - Updated shared types, validators, plugin protocol definitions, and SDK helpers to carry sandbox provider and workspace-runtime contracts across package boundaries. - Updated server routes and services so companies can create sandbox environments, select them for work, and execute work through the sandbox runtime path. - Updated the UI environment and workspace surfaces to expose sandbox environment configuration and selection. - Added test coverage for sandbox runtime behavior, provider seams, environment route guards, orchestration, and the fake provider plugin. ## Verification - Ran locally before the final fixture-only scrub: - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Ran locally after the final scrub amend: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/runtime-api.test.ts` - Reviewer spot checks: - create a sandbox environment backed by the fake provider plugin - run work through that environment - confirm sandbox provider execution does not inherit host secrets implicitly ## Risks - This touches shared contracts, plugin SDK plumbing, server runtime orchestration, and UI environment/workspace flows, so regressions would likely show up as cross-layer mismatches rather than isolated type errors. - Runtime URL discovery and sandbox callback selection are sensitive to host/bind configuration; if that logic is wrong, sandbox-backed callbacks may fail even when execution succeeds. - The fake provider plugin is intentionally deterministic and test-oriented; future providers may expose capability gaps that this branch does not yet cover. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent on a GPT-5-class backend in the Paperclip/Codex harness. Exact backend model ID is not exposed in-session. Tool-assisted workflow with shell execution, file editing, git history inspection, 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
Dotta
|
09d0678840 |
[codex] Harden heartbeat scheduling and runtime controls (#4223)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state > - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without stranding work > - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and operator-facing run state > - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts, migrations, and runtime status semantics > - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work > - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls, and more predictable recurring execution behavior ## What Changed - Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and Codex transient failure recovery handling. - Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and activity/dashboard bounds. - Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue workspace runtime management. - Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and `0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`. - Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared types synchronized. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server` ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch, which are central execution paths. - Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields. - Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed. > 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 runtime, shell/git tool use enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip heartbeat 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 - [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 |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
549ef11c14 |
[codex] Respect manual workspace runtime controls (#4125)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents inside execution and project workspaces > - Workspace runtime services can be controlled manually by operators and reused by agent runs > - Manual start/stop state was not preserved consistently across workspace policies and routine launches > - Routine launches also needed branch/workspace variables to default from the selected workspace context > - This pull request makes runtime policy state explicit, preserves manual control, and auto-fills routine branch variables from workspace data > - The benefit is less surprising workspace service behavior and fewer manual inputs when running workspace-scoped routines ## What Changed - Added runtime-state handling for manual workspace control across execution and project workspace validators, routes, and services. - Updated heartbeat/runtime startup behavior so manually stopped services are respected. - Auto-filled routine workspace branch variables from available workspace context. - Added focused server and UI tests for workspace runtime and routine variable behavior. - Removed muted gray background styling from workspace pages and cards for a cleaner workspace UI. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx` - Result: 55 tests passed, 21 skipped. The embedded Postgres routines tests skipped on this host with the existing PGlite/Postgres init warning; workspace-runtime and UI tests passed. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches runtime service start/stop policy and heartbeat launch behavior. - The focused tests cover manual runtime state, routine variables, and workspace runtime reuse paths. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, tool-enabled local shell and GitHub workflow, exact runtime context window 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 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, or documented why targeted component/service verification is sufficient here - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Lempkey
|
d0a8d4e08a |
fix(routines): include cronExpression and timezone in list trigger response (#3209)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Routines are recurring tasks that trigger agents on a schedule or
via webhook
> - Routine triggers store their schedule as a `cronExpression` +
`timezone` in the database
> - The `GET /companies/:companyId/routines` list endpoint is the
primary way API consumers (and the UI) discover all routines and their
triggers
> - But the list endpoint was silently dropping `cronExpression` and
`timezone` from each trigger object — the DB query fetched them, but the
explicit object-construction mapping only forwarded seven other fields
> - This PR fixes the mapping to include `cronExpression` and
`timezone`, and extends the `RoutineListItem.triggers` type to match
> - The benefit is that API consumers can now see the actual schedule
from the list endpoint, and future UI components reading from the list
cache will get accurate schedule data
## What Changed
- **`server/src/services/routines.ts`** — Added `cronExpression` and
`timezone` to the explicit trigger object mapping inside
`routinesService.list()`. The DB query (`listTriggersForRoutineIds`)
already fetched all columns via `SELECT *`; the values were being
discarded during object construction.
- **`packages/shared/src/types/routine.ts`** — Extended
`RoutineListItem.triggers` `Pick<RoutineTrigger, ...>` to include
`cronExpression` and `timezone` so the TypeScript type contract matches
the actual runtime shape.
- **`server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts`** — Added assertions to
the existing schedule-trigger E2E test that verify both `cronExpression`
and `timezone` are present in the `GET /companies/:companyId/routines`
list response.
## Verification
```bash
# Run the route + service unit tests
npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts
# → 21 tests pass
# Confirm cronExpression appears in list response
curl /api/companies/{id}/routines | jq '.[].triggers[].cronExpression'
# → now returns the actual cron string instead of undefined
```
Manual reproduction per the issue:
1. Create a routine with a schedule trigger (`cronExpression: "47 14 * *
*"`, `timezone: "America/Mexico_City"`)
2. `GET /api/companies/{id}/routines` — trigger object now includes
`cronExpression` and `timezone`
## Risks
Low risk. The change only adds two fields to an existing response shape
— no fields removed, no behavior changed. The `cronExpression` is `null`
for non-schedule trigger kinds (webhook, etc.), consistent with
`RoutineTrigger.cronExpression: string | null`. No migration required.
## Model Used
- **Provider:** Anthropic
- **Model:** Claude Sonnet 4.6 (`claude-sonnet-4-6`)
- **Context window:** 200k tokens
- **Mode:** Extended thinking + tool use (agentic)
- Secondary adversarial review: OpenAI Codex (via codex-companion
plugin)
## 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
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots (API-only fix; no UI rendering change)
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (no
doc changes needed)
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
|
||
|
dotta
|
5d021583be | Add draft routine defaults and run-time overrides | ||
|
dotta
|
1de5fb9316 | Support routine variables in titles | ||
|
AntonioandClaude Opus 4.6
|
a8d1c4b596 |
fix(server): use Buffer.length for timing-safe HMAC comparison and document header fallback
Compare Buffer byte lengths instead of string character lengths before timingSafeEqual to avoid potential mismatch with multi-byte input. Add comment explaining the hubSignatureHeader ?? signatureHeader fallback. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
AntonioandClaude Opus 4.6
|
cd19834fab |
feat(server): add github_hmac and none webhook signing modes
Adds two new webhook trigger signing modes for external provider compatibility: - github_hmac: accepts X-Hub-Signature-256 header with HMAC-SHA256(secret, rawBody), no timestamp prefix. Compatible with GitHub, Sentry, and services following the same standard. - none: no authentication; the 24-char hex publicId in the URL acts as the shared secret. For services that cannot add auth headers. The replay window UI field is hidden when these modes are selected since neither uses timestamp-based replay protection. Closes #1892 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
