5 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
3 people	2a56e5c734	fix(ui): show soft budget incidents as warnings, not hard stops (#16201) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Budget policies limit what an agent, a project, or the organization can spend. > - At the warning threshold (80% by default), the server opens a soft incident. It does not pause the scope. At 100%, it opens a hard incident and pauses the scope. > - The budget incident card always shows the hard-stop design. A soft incident shows "agent hard stop", "This scope is paused", and a "Keep paused" button. > - Operators read this as a paused agent. The policy card and the "Paused agents" counter for the same agent say something different. > - This pull request shows soft incidents as warnings. Hard stops do not change. > - The benefit is that the Costs and Budgets pages give one consistent and correct state. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description I searched open and closed issues and pull requests for "budget incident", "hard stop", "soft incident", and "BudgetIncidentCard". I found no issue for this bug. Refs #14306: that open PR also changes `BudgetIncidentCard`, for failed-action feedback. It does not change the soft and hard labels. The two PRs can conflict in this file. **What happened?** An agent budget policy reached its warning threshold. The Audit → Budgets page and the Audit → Costs overview showed the soft incident as "AGENT HARD STOP" with the banner "This scope is paused. New heartbeats will not start until you resolve the budget incident." The card showed "Raise budget & resume" and "Keep paused". The agent was not paused. Its policy card showed "Warning", and the "Paused agents" counter did not count it. **Expected behavior** A soft incident looks like a warning. It says that work continues. Its actions are "Raise budget" and "Dismiss warning". A hard incident keeps the current design and actions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create an agent budget policy with a $1,000 monthly limit and the default 80% warning threshold. 2. Record $800 of cost for that agent. 3. Open Audit → Budgets. 4. Look at the active incident for that agent. It says "agent hard stop" and "This scope is paused". **Paperclip version or commit** Seen on v2026.1012.0 (`bba6a45`). The same code is on `master` at `721e87ac0`. **Deployment mode** local_trusted (not deployment-specific). ## What Changed - `BudgetIncidentCard` reads `incident.thresholdType`. A `soft` incident shows: - The heading "<scope> budget warning", with amber styling and a warning icon. - The banner "Spending crossed the warning threshold. This warning does not pause work." - The actions "Raise budget" and "Dismiss warning". They call the same handlers as before (`raise_budget_and_resume` and `keep_paused`). For a soft incident, the server dismisses the incident for `keep_paused`, and the resume step has no effect because the scope is not paused. - A new-budget prefill of the current limit plus $10. Before, the prefill was equal to the current limit, so "Raise budget" did not change the limit. - A `hard` incident does not change: the same heading, banner, styling, prefill, and actions. - The "Active incidents" description on the Costs page now covers warnings and hard stops. - New tests in `BudgetIncidentCard.test.tsx` cover a hard stop, a soft warning, and a project hard stop. ## Verification - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/components/BudgetIncidentCard.test.tsx`: 3 tests pass. Before the fix, the soft-warning test failed with `expected 'agent hard stopOpen…' to contain 'agent budget warning'`. - `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/Costs src/components/Budget`: 31 tests pass. - Manual check in a running instance (v2026.1012.0 with this patch, seeded with an agent at 100% and an agent at 80% of a $1,000 budget), in light and dark themes: - The 100% agent shows the red "Agent hard stop", "This scope is paused", "Raise budget & resume", and "Keep paused". - The 80% agent shows the amber "Agent budget warning", the warning banner, a $1,010.00 prefill, "Raise budget", and "Dismiss warning". - "Paused agents: 1" agrees with the cards. - `ui` typecheck: no errors in the changed files. The local run had unrelated errors in `PluginOrganizationSwitcher` because the plugin SDK was not built. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is UI-only. Hard-stop rendering and behavior do not change. No API, server, or data changes. - The soft card now prefills a value above the current limit. Before, it prefilled the current limit. - PR #14306 changes the same component. One of the two PRs can need a small rebase. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, test runs, Playwright screenshot capture). A human requested and reviewed the change. ## 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 (no `doc/` page describes this card, so no change was needed) - [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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Aron Prins <aronprins@icloud.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-13 10:12:49 -07:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	799e4d556f	fix: make accounting durable and synchronize cost reporting (#14997) ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-06 22:26:48 -07:00
4 people	c07e650cd7	feat(ui): single-source design tokens, visual regression suite, and theme retune (#9134) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its UI is the operator's daily surface: task lists, boards, budgets, agent status — all built on shadcn components and Tailwind > - Visual values (colors, spacing, type sizes, radii) were hardcoded at ~1,600 call sites: the same "small gray label" was 9/10/11px depending on the file, charts disagreed with chips about status colors, two toggle-switch implementations coexisted in two greens, and there was no visual regression coverage > - This made the UI drift-prone and made any restyle a hundreds-of-files project, which discourages design iteration > - This pull request extracts visual values into a single token layer in `ui/src/index.css`, adds a Storybook visual regression suite backed by external immutable baseline archives, and then applies a deliberate retune reviewed change-by-change on screenshot diffs > - The benefit is that Paperclip's look becomes a config surface: retheming is a token edit reviewed as a snapshot diff, drift is blocked by a token gate, and future UI PRs can prove exactly what changed visually without committing hundreds of PNGs ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No existing public issue covers this work (searched "design tokens", "visual regression", "design system" across issues and PRs). Related in spirit: Refs #8982 (theming a hardcoded panel — a one-off instance of the same problem class this PR addresses systematically). **Problem (feature-request form):** UI visual values are hardcoded per call site with no source of truth and no regression coverage; consistency depends on reviewer memory, and restyling requires mass file edits. **Proposed solution (this PR):** a single token layer + enforcement gate + externally stored visual snapshot suite, then an intentional restyle on top of that foundation. ## What Changed - **Token extraction (zero visual change, machine-verified during development):** committed codemods (`scripts/codemod-*.mjs`) moved ~1,600 hardcoded color/type/spacing/radius/shadow/misc values into named tokens in a non-inline `:root` block of `ui/src/index.css`. - **Visual regression suite:** `pnpm test:storybook-visual` covers 255 stories × light/dark = 510 Playwright screenshots at `maxDiffPixels: 0`, plus new primitive-coverage stories and deterministic-render fixes. - **External visual baselines:** committed PNG snapshots were removed. `tests/storybook-visual/baseline-manifest.json` pins an immutable archive URL/hash/size/count, and `scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs` handles `download`, `verify`, `pack`, and trusted maintainer `upload` flows. - **Opt-in visual CI artifacts:** added a `Storybook Visual` workflow that runs on manual dispatch or PRs labeled `storybook-visual`, downloads/verifies the baseline, runs Playwright, and uploads Playwright report/test-result artifacts for review. Normal PR runs do not mutate baseline objects. - **Token gate:** `pnpm check:token-gates` — zero hex literals, zero arbitrary bracket values, zero raw font-sizes in `ui/src/components/**` and `ui/src/pages/**`, with a documented inline allowlist for legitimate opt-outs. - **Theme retune (intentional, snapshot-reviewed):** new base theme values; radius ladder derived from a single `--radius` knob; micro-type cluster collapsed to a named ladder (`--text-nano/micro/compact` + Tailwind `text-xs`/`text-sm`); letter-spacing collapsed to named steps. - **One status-color vocabulary:** charts, quota/budget bar fills, RUNNING/live chips, and liveness indicators all use the canonical `--status-*` hues. Light-mode legibility fixes for red alert surfaces that used dark-tuned text classes. - **One switch:** `ToggleSwitch` restyled to the registry capsule form, second hand-rolled implementation removed, and all call sites unified. - **Docs:** `DESIGN.md` is the design contract; `doc/design/` holds audit reports, decision logs, and updated guidance for external baseline review/update workflows. - Dead code removed (`agentStatusBadge` duplicate map), byte-identical contrast constants consolidated, semantic renames (`--project-seed`/`--project-none`, `--liveness-blue`). ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` — 3/3 gates CLEAN during the design-system run - `pnpm typecheck` && `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` — green during the design-system run - `node --test scripts/__tests__/storybook-visual-baseline.test.mjs` — pass after external-baseline rework - `pnpm exec tsc --noEmit --pretty false --module NodeNext --moduleResolution NodeNext --target ES2022 --types node,@playwright/test tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts tests/storybook-visual/storybook-visual.spec.ts` — pass after external-baseline rework - `git diff --check origin/pr/9134..HEAD` — pass after external-baseline rework - `find tests/storybook-visual -type f -name '*.png' -print | wc -l` — `0` - `node scripts/storybook-visual-baseline.mjs verify` — intentionally fails closed until the first trusted maintainer publishes the baseline archive and updates `baseline-manifest.json` ## Risks - **Large but shallow:** the PR still touches many UI files due to mechanical token extraction and retune work, but committed PNG snapshot churn has been removed from the branch. - **Baseline publication required before the visual suite can pass in clean clones:** the manifest currently has placeholder archive metadata. A trusted maintainer must publish the first immutable archive, then update `baseline-manifest.json`. - **Rendering platform variance:** the external baseline should be captured in the documented Linux/Chromium environment. Future CI runs verify against the pinned archive and fail closed on checksum/count mismatch. - **Visual CI is opt-in while stabilizing:** add the `storybook-visual` label or dispatch the workflow manually to produce downloadable Playwright report/test-result artifacts. - **Scheduled follow-ups, deliberately out of scope:** Tailwind palette classes map to semantic tokens in a dedicated pass; card/pill component consolidation; ESLint ratchet. Tracked in `doc/design/DECISION-SHEET.md`. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic, `claude-fable-5`, Mythos-class tier) with extended thinking, running in Claude Code with tool use; mechanical phases delegated to Claude Sonnet subagents. Follow-up external-baseline rework assisted by OpenAI Codex (`gpt-5` coding agent with repository, terminal, and GitHub tool use). All bulk rewrites executed via deterministic, idempotent scripts committed in `scripts/`; intentional visual changes were human-reviewed on screenshot contact sheets. ## 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 targeted local verification and documented the intentional baseline-publication failure 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green *(pending new CI run after this rework)* - [ ] 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) and OpenAI Codex --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Dotta <bippadotta@protonmail.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-07 16:22:16 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	2de893f624	[codex] add comprehensive UI Storybook coverage (#4132) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The board UI is the main operator surface, so its component and workflow coverage needs to stay reviewable as the product grows. > - This branch adds Storybook as a dedicated UI reference surface for core Paperclip screens and interaction patterns. > - That work spans Storybook infrastructure, app-level provider wiring, and a large fixture set that can render real control-plane states without a live backend. > - The branch also expands coverage across agents, budgets, issues, chat, dialogs, navigation, projects, and data visualization so future UI changes have a concrete visual baseline. > - This pull request packages that Storybook work on top of the latest `master`, excludes the lockfile from the final diff per repo policy, and fixes one fixture contract drift caught during verification. > - The benefit is a single reviewable PR that adds broad UI documentation and regression-surfacing coverage without losing the existing branch work. ## What Changed - Added Storybook 10 wiring for the UI package, including root scripts, UI package scripts, Storybook config, preview wrappers, Tailwind entrypoints, and setup docs. - Added a large fixture-backed data source for Storybook so complex board states can render without a live server. - Added story suites covering foundations, status language, control-plane surfaces, overview, UX labs, agent management, budget and finance, forms and editors, issue management, navigation and layout, chat and comments, data visualization, dialogs and modals, and projects/goals/workspaces. - Adjusted several UI components for Storybook parity so dialogs, menus, keyboard shortcuts, budget markers, markdown editing, and related surfaces render correctly in isolation. - Rebasing work for PR assembly: replayed the branch onto current `master`, removed `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the final PR diff, and aligned the dashboard fixture with the current `DashboardSummary.runActivity` API contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` - Manual diff audit after rebase: verified the PR no longer includes `pnpm-lock.yaml` and now cleanly targets current `master`. - Before/after UI note: before this branch there was no dedicated Storybook surface for these Paperclip views; after this branch the local Storybook build includes the new overview and domain story suites in `ui/storybook-static`. ## Risks - Large static fixture files can drift from shared types as dashboard and UI contracts evolve; this PR already needed one fixture correction for `runActivity`. - Storybook bundle output includes some large chunks, so future growth may need chunking work if build performance becomes an issue. - Several component tweaks were made for isolated rendering parity, so reviewers should spot-check key board surfaces against the live app behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Paperclip harness; exact serving model ID is not exposed in-runtime to the agent. - Tool-assisted workflow with terminal execution, git operations, local typecheck/build verification, and GitHub CLI PR creation. - Context window/reasoning mode not surfaced by the harness. ## 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>	2026-04-20 12:13:23 -05:00
Dotta	76e6cc08a6	feat(costs): add billing, quota, and budget control plane	2026-03-16 15:11:01 -05:00