Commit Graph
4 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
DottaandPaperclip 40b8075916 feat(ui): show scheduled task waits as Monitoring (#18624)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task indicators tell an operator whether work is active, waiting, or
complete.
> - An agent can yield until a saved monitor checks CI or another
external result.
> - The task currently keeps the In Progress icon between those runs.
> - Changing the stored status would affect monitor admission and
recovery.
> - This pull request adds a read-only Monitoring display state with a
blue clock.
> - Operators can see and filter scheduled waits while execution keeps
its existing rules.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

Task status indicators, task collection filters, board columns, and
search facets.

**Current behavior**

A task that waits for a scheduled monitor shows the same In Progress
icon as active work.

**Proposed behavior**

Show Monitoring with a static blue clock when an agent-owned task has a
saved ordinary monitor and no active run, execution lock, review
participant, or active recovery action. Return to the normal task
indicator when the check starts. Preserve review, blocked, terminal, and
quota-recovery states.

**Reason and benefit**

Operators can distinguish scheduled waits from current agent work
without reading the task history.

**Breaking changes**

None to stored task statuses or execution rules. Task reads gain
optional displayStatus. Collections and search gain a separate read
filter. Existing status filters keep their lifecycle meaning.

Related historical work: #4396 covered a monitoring label exemption.
This change uses the saved monitor and a read projection.

## What Changed

- Add one SQL projection for task detail, compact lists, summaries,
relations, search results, and display-status counts.
- Show the blue clock in shared task icons and chips, task detail and
breadcrumbs, properties, references, list rows, recent navigation, and
agent task cards.
- Add Monitoring to task filtering, grouping, sorting, board columns,
and search facets. Prevent a drag from creating this derived state.
- Keep stored lifecycle statuses, monitor scheduling, checkout,
recovery, permissions, and agent status filters unchanged.
- Add database and UI regression coverage, full-page Storybook examples,
and product and access-map documentation.

## Verification

- Passed `pnpm -r typecheck`.
- Passed `pnpm build`.
- Passed `pnpm check:token-gates` and the map/catalog structural checks.
- Ran the new database suite on a disposable PostgreSQL 17 database. It
covers read surfaces, filter pagination/counts, queued/running checks,
rescheduling, completion, retained monitors, review, and recovery holds.
- Ran existing search, list, board, sidebar, task status, and filter
tests. Corrected board queries use displayStatus and eight columns.
- The full local `pnpm test:run` stopped in a chat integration shard: 12
failures (four timeouts and eight FIFO publication assertions). That run
spanned a rebase. A focused rerun on the current source passed all 21
selected cases without assertion or timeout changes. The original cause
is not established; this does not claim the full local suite passed.
Final-head required CI passed (ci / verify and ci / e2e, run
41488267209).
- Passed 82 tests for task API summaries, recovery precedence, search,
and optimistic updates; 54 tests for status cards, database reads, and
board moves; and 27 tests for blocker relations and recent-task cache
updates. One intermediate database setup hit its 20-second hook timeout;
the serial rerun passed.
- Greptile is 5/5 on d003ea672d. All
review threads are resolved. The separate optional Paperclip Review
ended early and returned neutral; GitHub rejected a direct rerun request
with HTTP 404. It is not counted as a completed review.
- Review fixes cover escalated recovery, is:open, optimistic status
changes, blocker-summary projection, and recent-task dedupe.
- Reviewed 15 screenshots from production pages and components with
isolated Storybook API fixtures: task detail/properties/breadcrumb,
list, groups, status filter, board, search/results/filter counts,
reference pills, sibling navigation, agent cards, picker, dashboard,
inbox, profile, watched status-card tasks, light theme, and mobile. This
does not claim deployed staging verification.

## Risks

- Read projections must stay consistent across full, compact, summary,
and search responses. Tests cover those paths.
- Monitoring is not a writable lifecycle status. The board does not
accept drops into its Monitoring lane or onto a monitored card. This
prevents a drag from implying a scheduled check. Move work into In
Progress through that lane instead.
- The read projection adds run/recovery existence checks. Existing
heartbeat_runs_company_issue_created_idx and
issue_recovery_actions_company_source_status_idx indexes cover the
company/task lookup. It adds no worker, timer, recurring query,
migration, or provider call. No production load benchmark is claimed.
- Older clients can ignore displayStatus. Existing lifecycle status
filters keep their behavior.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution,
and browser tools. The exact backend model identifier and context-window
size are not exposed in this session.

## Checklist

- [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context
to this change
- [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked
them above
- [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes
#` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant
issue template
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [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>
2026-11-02 11:35:30 -06:00
DottaandPaperclip 37c097a474 [codex] Update watchdog properties pane cache (#8786)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The issue detail surface includes an Issue Properties pane that
shows live metadata for a selected issue.
> - Watchdog configuration can be changed from that pane, but cached
issue detail data also feeds the pane key and rerender behavior.
> - If the cache does not reflect watchdog changes immediately, the
properties pane can keep stale watchdog state until a later refetch
completes.
> - This pull request updates the watchdog save/delete paths to write
the returned watchdog state into cached issue detail data.
> - It also includes watchdog fields in the issue properties panel key
so watchdog configuration changes invalidate the memoized panel state.
> - The benefit is a properties pane that updates consistently after
operators set or remove a watchdog.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #8789

This PR fixes stale watchdog state in the Issue Properties pane after
watchdog save/delete mutations.

## What Changed

- Write the saved watchdog summary into cached issue detail data after a
successful watchdog upsert using the exact
`queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.id)` key.
- Clear cached issue detail watchdog data after a successful watchdog
delete using the exact `queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.id)` key.
- Include stable watchdog fields in `buildIssuePropertiesPanelKey` so
watchdog configuration changes produce a new panel key.
- Add focused tests for watchdog cache updates and panel-key
invalidation, including save and delete cache assertions.

## Verification

- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
src/lib/issue-properties-panel-key.test.ts`
- Result: 2 files passed, 40 tests passed.

## Risks

Low risk. The change is scoped to UI cache handling for issue detail
watchdog state and panel-key generation. The main risk is an unexpected
query-cache shape, covered by focused tests around the existing issue
detail query key.

> 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 running GPT-5-class model with repository tool
use and local command execution. The exact backend model identifier and
context window are 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 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
- [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>
2026-06-30 07:54:25 -07:00
Dotta a26e1288b6 [codex] Polish issue board workflows (#4224)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Human operators supervise that work through issue lists, issue
detail, comments, inbox groups, markdown references, and
profile/activity surfaces
> - The branch had many small UI fixes that improve the operator loop
but do not need to ship with backend runtime migrations
> - These changes belong together as board workflow polish because they
affect scanning, navigation, issue context, comment state, and markdown
clarity
> - This pull request groups the UI-only slice so it can merge
independently from runtime/backend changes
> - The benefit is a clearer board experience with better issue context,
steadier optimistic updates, and more predictable keyboard navigation

## What Changed

- Improves issue properties, sub-issue actions, blocker chips, and issue
list/detail refresh behavior.
- Adds blocker context above the issue composer and stabilizes
queued/interrupted comment UI state.
- Improves markdown issue/GitHub link rendering and opens external
markdown links in a new tab.
- Adds inbox group keyboard navigation and fold/unfold support.
- Polishes activity/avatar/profile/settings/workspace presentation
details.

## Verification

- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts
ui/src/lib/optimistic-issue-comments.test.ts`

## Risks

- Low to medium risk: changes are UI-focused but cover high-traffic
issue and inbox surfaces.
- This branch intentionally does not include the backend runtime changes
from the companion PR; where UI calls newer API filters, unsupported
servers should continue to fail visibly through existing API error
handling.
- Visual screenshots were not captured in this heartbeat; targeted
component/helper tests cover the changed 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, 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
2026-04-21 12:25:34 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 6e6f538630 [codex] Improve issue detail and issue-list UX (#3678)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - A core part of that is the operator experience around reading issue
state, agent chat, and sub-task structure
> - The current branch had a long run of issue-detail and issue-list UX
fixes that all improve how humans follow and steer active work
> - Those changes mostly live in the UI/chat surface and should be
reviewed together instead of mixed with workspace/runtime work
> - This pull request packages the issue-detail, chat, markdown, and
sub-issue list improvements into one standalone change
> - The benefit is a cleaner, less jumpy, more reliable issue workflow
on desktop and mobile without coupling it to unrelated server/runtime
refactors

## What Changed

- Stabilized issue chat runtime wiring, optimistic comment handling,
queued-comment cancellation, and composer anchoring during live updates
- Fixed several issue-detail rendering and navigation regressions
including placeholder bleed, local polling scope, mobile inbox-to-issue
transitions, and visible refresh resets
- Improved markdown and rich-content handling with advisory image
normalization, editor fallback behavior, touch mention recovery, and
`issue:` quicklook links
- Refined sub-issue behavior with parent-derived defaults, current-user
inheritance fixes, empty-state cleanup, and a reusable issue-list
presentation for sub-issues
- Added targeted UI tests for the new issue-detail, chat scroll/message,
placeholder-data, markdown, and issue-list behaviors

## Verification

- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx
ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-scroll.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts
ui/src/lib/query-placeholder-data.test.tsx
ui/src/hooks/usePaperclipIssueRuntime.test.tsx`

## Risks

- Medium: this branch touches the highest-traffic issue-detail UI paths,
so regressions would show up as chat/thread or sub-issue UX glitches
- The changes are UI-heavy and would benefit from reviewer screenshots
or a quick manual browser pass before merge

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-14 12:50:48 -05:00