3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	faa8e452c7	fix(tasks): stop repeated reminders for historical questions (#15392) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task questions remain saved so a person can answer them later. > - The composer moves an old question into history after a newer human message. > - Native completion still treated every pending question as a required response. > - This caused agents to demand an old answer after the person moved work forward. > - This pull request shares the historical-question rule across context and task execution. > - Agents can finish verified work while the original question remains answerable. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15229, Refs #14613, Refs #13130. **What happened?** An agent repeatedly asked a person to answer a question that had moved into feed history. Completion feedback explicitly told the agent to request a response. The saved pending row also blocked task completion. **Expected behavior** A question before newer human direction remains answerable in the feed. Its pending state alone must not require another reminder or stop completed work. A new input blocker, an approval, or a configured review stage must keep its gate. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Let a task agent create an ordinary question. 2. Dismiss the question and send a newer task message. 3. Let the agent finish the requested work and submit its completion report. 4. Observe a demand to answer the old question and a retained completion gate. ## What Changed - Add one company-scoped predicate for historical questions. Only later human comments count. Exclude agent attribution, run attribution, system notices, and untrusted source data. - Apply the predicate to completion feedback, native waits, finalization, commit validation, retry validation, blocked routing, and successful-run handoff. - Include question classification and guidance in heartbeat context and both native task-context tools. Add the guidance to fresh and resumed task prompts. - Replace automatic reminders for current ordinary questions with instructions to assess the real blocker, continue independent work, and withdraw obsolete questions through the existing API. - Preserve historical question rows during completion while cancelling their live native source runs through the existing post-commit and recovery paths. Let an authorized human answer them after completion without reopening work or creating a response wake. Preserve cancellation, current-input, approval, permission, credential, connection, and review gates. Add no dismissal storage or migration. - Document the rule in the execution contract and agent skill. Refresh generated capability source anchors. Add database-backed status, context, attribution, and governance regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm build` passed. The server rebuild also passed after the lifecycle fix. Generated capability contract and inventory checks passed after the agent documentation update. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. Final `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit` also passed after the last test additions. - Lifecycle and interaction regressions passed: 224 tests in 3 suites. Context and prompt tests also passed. Final historical-question cases passed (33 tests), native cancellation/recovery cases passed (6 tests), and the existing interaction/confirmation suites passed (72 tests). The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and stopped after more than two hours with unrelated fixture/hook timeout failures; it did not pass. All 52 successful GitHub checks are green on the latest commit, including the complete test matrix; no checks are pending or failing. Greptile is 5/5 and both review threads are resolved. - Regression cases cover the old-question/new-human-message sequence, final task status, answering after completion with no wake, live-run cancellation and crash recovery, current input blockers, both task-context tools, API context, timestamp precision, attribution boundaries, and protected gates. ## Risks - A later human task message makes an earlier ordinary question historical even if its input is still missing. The agent must identify the current blocker and ask only for information that still prevents work. - Browser dismissal remains a local preference. Dismissal without a later human message is not recorded by this change. - No schema change or data migration. Completion retains ordinary historical questions; cancellation still expires them. A completed task accepts historical answers only from an authorized human and creates no response-delivery outbox row. Governed requests retain their gates. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository editing, code execution, and browser diagnostics. 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>	2026-10-06 20:33:13 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	cbd278dc03	fix(interactions): derive chat recipients and validate explicit users (#14742) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - Agents use saved questions to get human input and continue the same task. > - The standard question example recently told models to copy a user ID. > - A model can omit an identity prefix and create a question its intended recipient cannot answer. > - Agent Chat already knows the conversation owner, so the server can supply that identity. > - This pull request removes the blanket instruction and validates explicit recipients before saving. > - Ordinary questions stay simple, and explicit addressing remains available for decisions that need a particular person. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #14707, #14188. Related: #14238 handles legacy email recipients; this change prevents invalid recipients in new cards and retains exact ID matching. **What happened?** A model copied a Cloud user ID without its prefix into `addresseeUserId`. Creation succeeded. The intended user's answer then failed the exact recipient check. **Expected behavior** Ordinary chat questions use the saved conversation owner. A task may optionally name a specific recipient. The API rejects an unknown or unauthorized recipient before it creates a card. **Steps to reproduce** Create a chat question for a user whose ID is `paperclip-id:example`. Supply `example` as the addressee. Before this change, creation accepts the invalid recipient and the owner cannot answer. With this change, creation returns 422. Omitting the field saves the full owner ID and allows that owner to answer. ## What Changed - Remove `addresseeUserId` from standard question examples and remove the blanket requester-ID instruction. - Derive the recipient of ordinary chat questions from the persisted conversation owner. Reject conflicting explicit user IDs. - Keep explicit task recipients optional. Validate supplied user IDs with the existing board mutation policy, including company, viewer, and Cloud restrictions. - Preserve explicit agent routing, connector intents, confirmations, exact recipient checks, idempotent retries, and no-login local-board authority in local-trusted mode. - Update the blocker grader to accept an omitted recipient and verify the actual requester answered. - Add database and HTTP tests for prefixed identities, denied recipients, concurrent retries, saved answers, and response delivery. ## Verification - Database interaction service suite: 90 tests passed, including implicit local-board creation/answering and authenticated/Cloud denial. - Interaction HTTP route suite: 84 tests passed. - Affected interaction/native/connector/documentation suites: 231 tests passed across six files after valid-user fixtures were updated. - Resolver and interaction unit suites: 29 tests passed. - Product E2E unit/calibration suite: 793 tests passed; Product E2E typecheck and blocker catalog discovery passed. - Generated API-reference and capability contract checks passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. - Full local `pnpm test:run` did not finish green: its initial general-server pass had 14,416 passing assertions, one unrelated native-resume assertion failure on macOS, and three teardowns from an intermediate fixture cleanup fixed above. Separate broad local groups also encountered timeout/live-port failures under host load. Local UI (7,026), CLI (502), shared (817), and skills-catalog (20) tests passed; the complete final-head CI matrix is the broad verification gate. - After two CI cold-start readiness timeouts, a separate test-only commit gives the first exposure lifecycle fixture the existing normal 30-second readiness budget. Its real HTTP, ordering, and cleanup assertions remain intact; the targeted case and final Linux CI shard passed. Production deadlines are unchanged. - A separate OpenCode fixture failed twice on GitHub-hosted Ubuntu because its cached Node executable was group-writable; the same case passed on AWS runners. The fixture now qualifies its own Linux copy with mode `0500` and the actual copy digest. Host files and production security checks are unchanged. The focused macOS case passed; the new Linux-copy branch also passed on the final AWS-hosted Linux runner (1,125 passing Runner tests, 3 skipped). The final run was not on a GitHub-hosted runner. - Final-head [CI run 36762078176](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36762078176) passed for `116b968b24fa0a8c5724a7bf96e73a8dda5f0425`: 54 successful checks and two conditional Storybook skips, with no pending or failed checks. The 27 general/serialized test jobs reported 28,635 passing tests. Typecheck, build, Runner, browser E2E, and Canary gates passed. Greptile reviewed that exact head at 5/5; both review threads are resolved, with no open follow-ups. - No live provider replay is claimed by this PR. ## Risks - New explicitly addressed cards reject users who cannot mutate the issue, including viewers, inactive members, and invalid IDs. Callers that supplied invalid recipients must correct their request. - Existing addressed cards are not rewritten. Existing authorization checks remain strict. - Chat inference applies only to questions without an agent addressee. Connector intents and governed confirmations retain their own recipient paths. - No schema change or migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 (exact serving variant and context window are not exposed in this environment). Used reasoning, tool use, code editing, and test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-30 14:16:15 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	3c561642b4	fix(chat): resolve approvals and preserve unanswered questions (#14613) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents ask for decisions and optional details through cards in chat. > - A clear approval in a message can leave the matching card pending. > - An unanswered question can also block an unrelated later reply. > - Decisions need a saved source message, while optional questions need to remain answerable in history. > - This pull request records conversational decisions and lets users move on from questions and answer them later. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Native Claude and Codex could act on approval in chat while the original approval card stayed pending. Pending question forms stayed above the composer, were absent from history, and could suppress later chat replies. A late native question answer could wait for a finished run to reconnect. **Expected behavior** The active agent records a clear approval or refusal against the exact card and user message. Ambiguous replies do not grant consent. Users can send another message without answering a question. The question remains pending in history and can be reopened and answered later. The saved answer reaches the agent. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Ask an agent to propose work with a confirmation card, then approve it in chat. 2. Check that the original card records that approval before work starts. 3. Ask an interactive question, send an unrelated message, and reload. 4. Open the unanswered question from history and submit an answer. Related work: #14408 added completion delivery. #14607 tests completion reporting turns. Neither records conversational answers on approval cards. ## What Changed - Add a confirmation endpoint backed by a user comment, with schema validation, OpenAPI discovery, and native Plan-mode access. Ask mode remains read-only. - Check company, active run, actor, current session, message provenance, revision, and resolver policy. Save the decision and audit in one transaction. Retries do not repeat effects. Emit resolution telemetry after commit. - Give fresh and resumed chat turns the actual pending confirmation identities. Teach agents to save clear conversational decisions before acting and to clarify ambiguity. - Keep unanswered Agent Chat questions as compact history entries. A newer user message closes the old form. Question cards never contribute to composer pending counts or navigation, including after dismissing a fresh form. The history card is the sole reminder; clicking it restores that exact form and draft. - Preserve Agent Chat questions when later messages or questions arrive. Historical ordinary inputs no longer gate later chat replies. Current-run requests, task execution, and governed approvals keep their gates. Remove the special acknowledgement-publication proof helpers that this rule replaces. - Route answers to finished native runs through durable fresh-wake delivery, with existing idempotency and source-question context. Settle late replies against contiguous completed conversation turns and freeze their history replay; failed, unhandled, and newly arriving messages remain actionable. - Add real-component Storybook scenarios, database and UI regressions, and a three-turn native Claude/Codex E2E case. Capture distinct, UI-ready screenshots and report the individual assertions. ## Verification - Focused decision/publication/UI regressions after merging master: 288 passed; subsequent UI draft, failed-send, and conversation checks: 199 passed. - Native question and durable delivery regressions: 106 passed, including all four terminal run states and exactly-once late delivery. Seven targeted regressions fail against the original implementation and pass with the fix. - Latest conversation/decision/native-delivery regressions after the master merge: 121 passed. Covers completed progress, missing or failed intervening turns, new messages during a late reply, stale sessions, and frozen retry/replay boundaries. Four new assertions fail before the ordering fix. - E2E support suite after the master merge: 792 passed. Negative controls reject expired cards, wrong questions/answers, stale or missing replies, unrelated clarification forms, and unexpected tasks. - The embedded-browser walkthrough caught one additional defect: dismissing a fresh question still showed a composer badge. Both Cancel and close-button regressions failed before the fix. The fix at `65f2ade12` passes 170 chat-thread tests and 792 E2E support tests. After merging master, 232 chat-thread/confirmation tests, server/UI typechecks, and token gates pass. The preview and two-provider live E2E pass at `e5512a206`; Greptile is 5/5 with zero unresolved threads at that commit. All 55 checks are now successful at `e5512a206` (four conditional checks skipped), including the aggregate verification gate and clean-install canary test. The first attempt was interrupted by simultaneous CI worker shutdowns; one failed-job rerun passed without code changes. - [Published Storybook](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/storybook/branches/codex~2Fchat-approval-resolution/?path=/story/chat-comments-agent-chat-unanswered-questions--moved-on): nine real-component scenarios. Manually exercised move on, reopen, preserve draft, answer later, answer one of multiple questions, and a custom mobile answer in the embedded browser. Retested fresh Cancel and close-button dismissal in the updated build, then reopened and submitted the preserved Green selection and inspected its answered receipt. Static preview has no live model/backend; its callbacks are fixture responses. - [First live campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36714504406-1/) reproduced the late-answer completion-state defect on both providers despite correct saved answers and acknowledgements. It also exposed a valid imperative clarification rejected by the old oracle. Both issues are fixed with regression controls; this failing run is retained as evidence. - [Four-cell qualification](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36717804064-1/) passed 4/4 at `2bf8a1009`: unanswered-question return and ambiguous confirmation, each on native Claude and Codex. Inspected saved state, source-message decisions, visible cards, and agent replies. Both late-answer chats settled to waiting; no unrequested tasks were created. [Final branch rerun](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36719666238-1/) passed 2/2 at `142630720`: the same unanswered-question journey after merging master, plus an additional screenshot and browser assertion for the actual late-answer acknowledgement. - [Composer-reminder E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36727006818-1/) passed 2/2 at `5b62c52d9`: native Claude and Codex, three turns each, with explicit no-badge assertions before and after reload. Inspected saved pending/answered state, both screenshots with a clear composer, and actual Blue acknowledgements; all five behavioral matchers passed per provider and neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial; this is bounded workflow qualification. - [Fresh-dismissal E2E](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36742773318-1/) passed 2/2 at `e5512a206`: native Claude and Codex, including fresh Cancel, clear composer, reopen, unrelated message, reload, late Blue answer, and actual agent acknowledgement. All five behavioral matchers pass per provider. Inspected the fresh-dismissal screenshots and saved pending/answered identity; neither created tasks. Cost coverage is partial (4/6 runs). - Prior evidence remains available in [the earlier campaign](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-36642252725-1/). Its early loading screenshot and overwritten final capture prompted the UI-ready, distinct screenshot fixes. ## Risks - The model interprets intent. The server verifies permission and provenance; it does not infer consent from text. Ambiguous and unrelated replies are not approvals. - Historical questions can accumulate. They remain visible, pending, and answerable; no automatic answer or expiry is invented. - The change to completion gates is scoped to Agent Chat and ordinary historical inputs. Current-turn and governed approvals retain their existing controls. - Live qualification is limited to the selected stories. Broader native onboarding finalization remains separate work. - No database migration. Telemetry adds no fields or values; the contract and README document the commit boundary. Privacy review was requested on the PR. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser-test orchestration. The exact model ID and context-window size are not exposed to this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-30 11:46:46 -05:00