mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-10 01:50:13 +01:00
f9d366acdf0bbc21700cee0de0492938fbfcbe37
18
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 scotttongandPaperclip
|
71f0c0c99e |
feat: add opt-in Coordinator workspace for chat, tasks, and decisions (#17983)
<!-- entire-trail-link-start --> https://entire.com/gh/paperclipai/-/trails/147/changes/paperclip/147 <!-- entire-trail-link-end --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People coordinate work through conversations, tasks, and requests for input. > - These surfaces must share task state and preserve the context of each decision. > - The existing workspace makes people switch surfaces to follow that context. > - This pull request adds an optional Coordinator workspace with linked conversations, tasks, documents, and decisions. > - Each person can enable it in Settings > Experimental and return to the classic workspace. > - The benefit is a coherent path from a request to an assigned task and reviewed work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** UI, server, shared contracts, and database. **Problem or motivation** People need a consistent way to start tasks from agent conversations, answer questions, review work, and return to the source context. Decisions and task state must agree across these surfaces. **Proposed solution** Add a personal, default-off workspace experiment. Keep one conversation per agent. Add task proposals, compact task and decision cards, contextual document panels, and a Needs You queue with search, filters, sorting, grouping, and history. **Alternatives considered** Replacing the classic workspace for everyone would remove the opt-out path. Keeping separate decision state in each surface would create conflicting answers. This change uses the existing canonical task and interaction records instead. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the existing agent chat, task management, and human review capabilities. It is an experimental presentation choice. The user requested this isolated implementation after design review. No Discord discussion is claimed. ## What Changed - Add per-person workspace preferences, a default-off setting, and an additive migration. - Add Coordinator navigation, pinned destinations, task lists, agent switching, and contextual panels. - Link task suggestions and creation to the source conversation. Default new task ownership to the current agent unless the user specifies another owner. - Share pending questions, decision receipts, exact review targets, and history across tasks, chat, and Needs You. - Preserve task access, assignment authorization, revision binding, and required output review gates. - Add compact document links, relative timestamps, composer controls, and reduced-motion support for task and decision transitions. - Add component stories, regression coverage, and capability-map documentation. ## Verification - Final head: `4b839aae1e314bd7e8635a766f1d205ff1c03ba6`, based on master `8bc051245f77a47bee0f8ba45896b8bfa5922e0a`. Verified October 29, 2026 at 00:10 UTC: **MERGEABLE, 56 checks passed, four conditional skips, no pending or failed checks**. [Current CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40790639688) passed without a rerun on this head. - Fresh Greptile **5/5**, zero new comments and zero open review threads; Superagent passed with no suspicious changes. [Checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17983/checks). - Local workspace typecheck/build passed after the latest rebase. The final account-read patch passed UI typecheck/build and all 12 related preference/settings tests, including a delayed real-client request across account changes. Earlier scoped checks cover review deduplication/replay, decision deep links, cross-surface state, access boundaries, and migration replay. - Local database/browser rechecks after the latest rebase were limited by exhausted macOS shared-memory IDs: `initdb` failed before database creation. The local run passed 31 UI/snapshot tests and skipped 24 database tests; those skips and the blocked local browser start are not claimed as passes. The independent Linux CI database and browser checks passed. No running dev database or host setting was changed. - Upstream migration 0403 is preserved. Preferences and durable review retry aliases are generated as replay-safe migrations `0404_tense_silver_sable.sql` and `0405_harsh_avengers.sql`; five newest snapshots are retained. Every detected conflict was rebased and pushed before waiting for CI/review, as requested. - The PR is unmerged. The active master ruleset still requires code-owner approval for the changed Paperclip skill; no approval or rule change was performed. <details> <summary>Earlier verification failures, integration history, and evidence</summary> These entries preserve prior checkpoints and failures; the current acceptance result is above. - Focused UI and server checks from the isolated build are recorded in the implementation plan. - Browser checks covered the opt-in shell, navigation, task/document links, and decision card states. No new live provider trial is claimed for this handoff. - Current acceptance head: `4b839aae1e314bd7e8635a766f1d205ff1c03ba6`, rebased onto master `8bc051245` immediately after its GitHub review-repair migration took 0403. Preferences are generated as idempotent `0404_tense_silver_sable.sql`, preserving upstream SQL/journal/snapshot history and five newest snapshots. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the immediate lease-protected push. Scott's updated instruction is to rebase and push every conflict resolution first, without waiting for CI or Greptile; verification follows the push. - The final reviewed feature tree was consolidated for repeatable single-commit rebases. The complete previous commit history remains reachable through local recovery ref `codex/coordinator-recovery-before-rebase-20261028` (resolved snapshot `0e1bbdf4e`). The actual rebase completed, and its tree hash exactly matches that resolved snapshot. The force-with-lease required the known remote head `0e6ef7c44`, protecting against concurrent branch changes. No PR merge or permission/runner setting change occurred. Fresh CI/review are in progress for the current head. - `2001132fa` received Greptile 5/5 with one nonblocking account-switch read finding. Current head detaches path-coalesced preference GETs and disables HTTP caching, retaining React Query's account-scoped sharing. A delayed real-client GET regression proves account B can load its saved choice before account A responds, and A's late response only updates A's cache. Preference/settings tests 12/12 and UI typecheck passed; its review thread is resolved. Fresh current-head CI/reviews are pending. The prior CI chat shard 3 ended with “The operation was canceled” and no assertion failure ([job 123171595631](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40789688333/job/123171595631), `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-chat3.log`); no code/timeout change is attributed to that cancellation. - `843e823b4` reached fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero comments/open threads and Superagent pass. All browser tests including the repaired YAML shard passed, and 54 checks passed. General server shard 9 ended with “The operation was canceled” and no failed assertion; its test step was marked cancelled (job [123164350893](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40787501761/job/123164350893), log `/tmp/pr17983-843e-server9.log`). A single unchanged-head rerun was started after the workflow completed, but master moved while it ran. A local nested-clone check timed out in its 30-second database-startup hook and then failed cleanup before the 20 database cases ran; this is retained as a local verification limit (`/tmp/pr17983-843e-nested-clone-check.log`), not claimed as a pass or proof of the CI cancellation cause. - Following Scott's instruction, the new conflict was rebased and pushed immediately without waiting for that rerun. Upstream's `0403_natural_cerise.sql` is preserved; regenerated preferences and retry-alias migrations are `0404_tense_silver_sable.sql` and `0405_harsh_avengers.sql`, replay-safe with five newest snapshots retained. The YAML helper conflict combines upstream's click and header behavior with the editor-selection guard and injected regression. Recovery ref `codex/coordinator-recovery-843e823b4` preserves pre-rebase work. Current head is MERGEABLE. Full workspace typecheck/build passed; UI and snapshot checks passed 31 tests, but 24 database tests were skipped by the local support probe, and the local browser server could not initialize PostgreSQL. A direct disposable `initdb` diagnostic established the host limitation: `could not create shared memory segment: No space left on device` (`shmget`, shared-memory IDs exhausted, not disk space). No dev database or host setting was changed. Diagnostics: `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-initdb-probe.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-db-probe.log`; checks: `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-tests.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-browser.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-types.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-2001132-build.log`. These local skipped/blocked checks are not claimed as passes; fresh CI on independent runners is in progress. - `d18f683cd` reached fresh Greptile 5/5 with zero comments/open threads and Superagent pass, but [E2E shard 7](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40785966243/job/123159719925) failed parsing an Advanced YAML clipboard read beginning with “Skip to Main Content.” The log is retained at `/tmp/pr17983-d18f-e2e7.log`. Current head hardens the test helper to verify editor focus and selection, clear stale clipboard content, and require the YAML header at the start of a fresh copy before parsing. Saved-state assertions and timeouts are unchanged. All six Advanced YAML browser journeys passed on a disposable local instance (41.0s); the exact lost-response journey also passed with a one-time injected surrounding-page copy, verifying rejection/reacquisition (17.6s). The precise browser focus/clipboard timing in CI remains unproven; the observed invalid-read path is now guarded and deterministically exercised. Logs: `/tmp/pr17983-yaml-clipboard-scope-browser.log`, `/tmp/pr17983-yaml-clipboard-injected-browser.log`. Fresh current-head CI and reviews are pending. - `19e6dcb0b` passed Superagent and Greptile 5/5, with one nonblocking deep-link finding. Current head preserves attention links using `?decisionId=`: the requested pending decision is rendered even beyond the first 40 cards, focused and scrolled into view, then only that parameter is consumed so later refreshes do not refocus. Other URL parameters remain. Needs You tests 10/10 and UI typecheck passed; its review thread is resolved. The preceding post-rebase regression run passed 45/45 tests. Fresh current-head CI/reviews are pending. - `6d772b7cc` reached Greptile 5/5 with zero comments/open threads and Superagent pass. While 32 checks had passed, master moved and caused a documentation conflict in `maps/feature-map/onboarding.md`. Rebased immediately, preserving both onboarding paragraphs. The complete four-commit branch was pushed as `19e6dcb0b` before waiting on CI/review, per Scott's instruction. A transient Git index lock interrupted the first continue; the command sequence briefly pushed intermediate `34e298c07`, then the completed rebase was immediately pushed. All feature and security/retry fixes are present; local recovery ref `codex/coordinator-recovery-6d772b7cc` preserves the pre-rebase history. The only tree differences from that ref are upstream's two smoke-test files and the combined documentation paragraph. GitHub reports MERGEABLE. Fresh current-head verification is in progress; prior-head review results are not current acceptance. - `21efa3120` passed Superagent but Greptile scored 4/5 for a valid retry-key persistence bug: an acknowledged duplicate key could reopen a resolved review. Current head adds an additive, replay-safe `0404_light_swarm.sql` migration for indexed, task-scoped aliases from acknowledged retry keys to the canonical interaction. Alias registration and retry lookup occur under the existing task lock; payload/actor mismatch still conflicts, and each canonical review permits at most 100 aliases. Original and acknowledged keys replay the terminal result rather than creating a new gate. Five newest migration snapshots are retained. Service/routes tests 165/165 passed; final quality review plus migration replay/snapshot checks 25/25 passed; server typecheck passed. The P1 thread is resolved in code; fresh current-head reviews and CI are pending. - `69c2c7543` passed 55 checks and Greptile 5/5 with no open Greptile findings, but Superagent check [123140675812](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/17983/checks?check_run_id=123140675812) correctly flagged unbounded pending quality-card creation. Current head fixes that under the existing task-row lock: equivalent requests with fresh idempotency keys reuse the pending card; conflicting requests for an unresolved deliverable return the existing interaction ID; pending cards are capped at ten per task across all reviewers. Distinct outputs remain independent, and already-answered items in a partially pending batch can receive a fresh review. Added real-database concurrency, cross-card duplicate, partial-answer, and hard-cap regressions. Quality review 22/22 tests and final server typecheck passed; earlier service/routes 163/163 tests passed before the final partial-answer refinement. One added assertion initially expected a service HTTP error, but duplicate keys are rejected earlier by the existing shared schema; the assertion now verifies that validation. Fresh current-head CI/reviews are pending; the action-required security result is not treated as passed. - `c9c575e5f` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, Greptile 5/5, and Superagent pass. Its two P2 review findings are fixed in the current head: independently bound quality approvals now each remain visible in attention; changing/clearing URL-backed assignee/status filters updates the URL and survives task navigation. Both review threads are resolved. Regression evidence: attention service 34/34 tests passed, CoordinatorTasks 20/20 passed, UI and server typechecks and the full workspace build passed on `69c2c7543`. The first new UI test run caught an assertion racing React Router's transition; waiting for the navigation before asserting passes without weakening the navigation/remount checks. These older-head green checks are not claimed for the new fix commit. - Preceding `0e6ef7c44` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, fresh Greptile 5/5 and no open findings, and passed Superagent. A fifth migration-metadata collision arrived before the final Runner job finished. Those green results are preserved as prior-head evidence, not current acceptance. - Previous fully verified migration head: `0e6ef7c44696a377f35e69521b93587576374bd0`, integrating master `f8226b051` after the fourth migration-number collision. Master added terminal GitHub-response migration 0401 while the final native check ran; upstream 0401 SQL/journal/snapshot is preserved unchanged, and preferences are generated as idempotent `0402_yielding_blink.sql` on top. Exactly the five newest snapshots remain. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. All 1,155 relevant migration/review/interaction/native-execution/remote-assets tests, workspace typecheck/build, migration guards and whitespace checks pass. Fresh exact-head CI/Greptile/Superagent are pending. - Immediately preceding head `36c67cf03` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, fresh Greptile 5/5 and no open findings, plus passed Superagent security. No retry was needed for that head's CI. Master advanced and introduced only a migration-metadata conflict while its final native check ran, so that green result does not establish acceptance of the current integration. Four consecutive collisions (0398, 0399, 0400, 0401) during verification are retained as concrete integration churn; a brief pause of competing migration merges was requested, without assuming it happened or changing any repo setting. The PR has not been merged. - Prior fully verified head: `36c67cf03`, on the clean `30059c0ed` integration of master `efd65c112`. The last Greptile P2 is fixed: Needs attention retains the participant-agent scope through authoritative server membership queries for each pending task, including historical participation when another agent currently owns the task. It does not approximate participation with current assignment or enumerate every company task. The actual view-switch regression and all 31 focused task/routing/collection tests, UI typecheck/build, token gates and whitespace checks pass. Greptile completed a fresh 5/5 review on this exact head (review 19) with zero new comments and no open review threads. CI and Superagent remain in progress; no current-head CI failure has been reported. - Head `30059c0ed` received Greptile 5/5 with that one nonblocking participant finding, now fixed. Superagent passed that head. Current-base integration restored the ephemeral RunsOn fleet after a superseded workflow retained queued aggregate jobs: normal cancellation was insufficient; the single force-cancel request was interrupted but readback confirmed that obsolete run cancelled and current CI began on the trusted fleet. No cancellation retry or runner/security/workflow changes were made. Its partial CI was superseded by the necessary participant fix and is not current acceptance. - Previous compatibility/base-sync head: `30059c0ededc0eab4e04e8299a884f36db8b292f`, integrating master `efd65c112` and the Inbox/workspace compatibility fixes. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. Coordinator keeps Inbox standalone under More without rewriting the instance's Combined Inbox preference; opting out restores that preference. Saved merged-Inbox URLs resolve to their original owner, task status presets remain usable, and canonical repeated `workspace` parameters retain scoped, deduplicated pagination (including Needs attention). All 192 broader routing/Inbox/sidebar/privacy/review tests and the final 16 task-page tests pass, as do workspace typecheck/build, token gates and whitespace checks. The two review threads are resolved. Fresh exact-head CI, Greptile and Superagent results are pending. - The preceding `d5b9be5bd` remained mergeable but its CI routing gate intentionally fell back to GitHub-hosted runners: “stacked base merge commit does not contain the current base branch.” All 45 downstream jobs stayed queued. Current master was merged cleanly to refresh the pinned base; no runner/security settings or workflow logic were changed. Greptile scored that preceding head 4/5 with the two compatibility findings fixed here. Its automatic Superagent scan was inconclusive at checkout; the documented retry was still pending when superseded. Those results do not establish acceptance of this current head. - Previous approval/migration head: `d5b9be5bd3b8d6b0437e42bf48138377f34fa67d`, integrating master `ba5bba86d` and the stale-output approval correction. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. The fresh P1 finding is fixed: every submitted item now validates and locks its bound output inside the resolution transaction, whether or not it carries a required-quality-review binding. Real database regressions verify that an advanced document revision or deleted attachment refuses the entire batch without recording approvals, and current ordinary output reviews still resolve. All 272 combined migration/review/interaction tests pass; workspace typecheck/build passed. Fresh exact-head Greptile and CI are pending. The automatic Superagent scan ended inconclusive at checkout; one documented on-demand retry is pending. These are explicit verification limits, not passed security results. The P1 thread is resolved. - Master consumed the next migration slot three times during this verification pass: confirmation recovery took 0398, continuation recovery took 0399, and GitHub acknowledgement recovery took 0400. Each upstream SQL/journal/snapshot is preserved unchanged. Preferences are now generated as idempotent `0401_white_lenny_balinger.sql` from upstream 0400; exactly five snapshots remain, and replay coverage locates this migration by table content. This is recorded concurrent integration churn, not a claim that older green results apply to the latest base. - Head `ed3b68da9` fixed the two history/URL findings with 26 focused regression tests, server/UI typechecks, workspace build and token gates passing. Greptile then scored that head 4/5 with the stale-output P1 corrected in the current head. Its partial CI is superseded, not counted as current acceptance. - Previous filter-fix head: `ed3b68da9`, based on the `8458d39d9` merge of master `063cfd438`. The two fresh Greptile findings are fixed: history outcome filters now match recorded per-item verdicts in SQL before pagination (mixed reviews remain in both applicable outcomes), and same-page URL assignee changes/back/forward navigation update that filter without clearing independent filters. All 26 focused database/navigation/collection tests, server/UI typechecks, workspace build, token gates and whitespace checks pass. The two review threads are resolved. Fresh exact-head CI, Greptile and Superagent results are pending. - The `8458d39d9` migration integration also passed all 328 targeted migration/interaction/confirmation tests, workspace typecheck/build and Superagent security scan. Greptile scored that head 4/5 with the two functional gaps fixed in the current head; those prior-head checks are not current acceptance. - Migration integration head: `8458d39d9721f4cb312c2390070a0609f8cddd1a`, integrating master `063cfd43813cabf18417605fb9eefb9aacf95c8d`. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. Master advanced twice during this conflict-resolution pass: first its confirmation-recovery migration took 0398, then its continuation-recovery migration took 0399. Both upstream migrations and journal entries remain unchanged; Coordinator preferences are now generated as idempotent `0400_sad_guardian.sql` from upstream's latest snapshot. Exactly the five newest snapshots remain. The replay regression now locates the table migration by content instead of hardcoding a renumbered filename. - All 328 targeted question/review/confirmation/migration tests passed again after the second merge. Workspace typecheck/build and fresh exact-head CI/reviews are in progress. The preceding `0c46f46d6` passed workspace typecheck/build and Superagent security scan, but was superseded because master consumed migration 0399 while those checks ran. That prior-head result is not acceptance of the current head. No production settings or runner/security permissions were changed, and the PR has not been merged. - Previous integration head: `0c46f46d6f2b23417ab872ce3cb6ff2673647287`, integrating master `287b04d72f1b9fca1412e05435c75b8302ba0710`. GitHub reports MERGEABLE after the push. The renewed conflicts were `0398_snapshot.json`, `_journal.json`, and the top imports in `issue-thread-interactions.ts`. Upstream's `0398` confirmation-recovery index and journal history are preserved unchanged; Coordinator preferences were regenerated as idempotent `0399_bouncy_miek.sql`, with replay coverage updated and exactly the five newest snapshots retained. Both terminal confirmation notifications and Coordinator task assignment/required review behavior are preserved. - All 328 targeted interaction/review/confirmation/migration tests pass, as do workspace typecheck, map validation and whitespace checks. The workspace build and fresh exact-head CI/Greptile/Superagent checks are pending. The first migration-generation attempt hit the sandbox's local IPC restriction before generating files; the unchanged authorized local generation completed successfully. Prior-head green checks below do not establish acceptance of this merge. - Previous acceptance head: `8b7dcf739ed15afc51351fdfa0e0e5fbc75ab788`, with master `1aa3a21ac` integrated and GitHub reporting MERGEABLE. Greptile completed a fresh 5/5 review on this exact head with zero new actionable findings and no open review threads. The [fresh CI workflow](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40752864319) completed SUCCESS on attempt 2 at 19:40:08 UTC, including all eight E2E shards. Final completed check set: 55 succeeded, four conditional checks skipped, zero pending/queued/running checks, and one neutral/inconclusive Superagent scan. The auxiliary commitperclip review and isolated native Runner compilation/cache-reuse check both passed. This is not a claim that Superagent produced a passed security verdict. GitHub still reports MERGEABLE against current master `60b8089a44b4eaa37e627adbfdf2f130bda13335`. - Current-head E2E: all eight shards and the aggregate passed, including the previously failing YAML browser journey. Serialized server shard 9/9 failed: the protected YAML projection test exceeded its original 15-second timeout; its late update request then reached the next test's reset mock (the captured payload is the prior test's model/label update). All 88 tests in that exact unchanged file passed locally in 38.03 seconds, with no timeout or assertion changes. The original slow-request cause remains unproven. CI failure log: `/tmp/pr17983-8b7-serialized9.log`; local recovery: `/tmp/pr17983-adapter-yaml-repro.log`. The single bounded unchanged shard rerun passed, and the workflow completed SUCCESS. Rerun log: `/tmp/pr17983-8b7-serialized9-rerun.log`. The initial failure is retained; a passing retry does not establish its original slow-request cause. - Greptile scored preceding head `4873704be` 5/5 with one valid P2: opened task decision records missed company-scoped live invalidation. The current head uses the existing company decision prefix for resolution and effect-completion events, and resets private record payloads on access changes. Its thread is resolved. All 107 focused record/live-update tests, UI typecheck/build, token checks and whitespace checks pass. - CI on `4873704be` failed E2E shard 7/8 in the Advanced YAML lost-creation-response journey: its clipboard helper selected page text starting with “Skip to Main Content” instead of YAML. The exact unchanged journey passed in a disposable local browser instance (1 test, 17.1 seconds). No assertion, timeout or production behavior was weakened; the original failure cause remains unproven. Failure log: `/tmp/pr17983-487-e2e7.log`; local check: `/tmp/pr17983-agent-yaml-repro.log`. The full unchanged Advanced YAML browser suite also passed locally (6 tests, 37.8 seconds). Fresh current-head CI subsequently passed this journey and all other E2E shards. - Both the automatic and one supported on-demand Superagent scan on `4873704be` ended neutral/inconclusive: “Pinned PR scan merge-base checkout failed or timed out.” These do not count as a passed security verdict. The current head's automatic scan and one documented on-demand retry also returned the identical neutral checkout failure, with zero annotations or further diagnostics. This is an external scanner blocker, not a passed security verdict. No security settings or permissions were changed. - Recorded decision links now render and focus the full source-task record in both Classic and Coordinator, including recorded choice, submitted inputs, and the existing effect-result resolver. Fresh terminal records take precedence over older open-decision cache entries. Context and account checks keep mismatched or inaccessible records out of the DOM; no decision-history tab was added to tasks or chat. The shared company live-run feed now drives live-only filtering, including ended runs and terminal tasks with stale run entries. All 213 focused tests, UI typecheck/build, token and whitespace checks pass; the final focus follow-up passed all 188 task-detail tests and UI typecheck. The first new navigation test failed because its test host omitted company context; the host was corrected before the passing run. - Previous integration head: `375c5e89516705050d94bab99336212841b2e6e1` merges master `1aa3a21ac` after four additional upstream commits. The sole conflict was competing imports in `server/src/services/issues.ts`; both quality-review policy and inbound wake-notice notifications are preserved. The PR-specific review import now sits beside execution-policy imports instead of the frequently changing first line. GitHub mergeability is rechecked after the push. - On the combined master tree, workspace typecheck/build, all 153 affected UI tests, map validation, and whitespace checks pass. Four server suites passed 77 tests; the fifth suite's module-import hook timed out while broad verification was running. Its unchanged isolated run passed all 41 tests in 7.2 seconds with the original timeout. This records recovery without claiming the original import-timeout cause is proven. CI on `375c5e895` passed every substantive job, including all eight E2E shards and Superagent; Greptile found the two functional gaps fixed in the current head. A short-lived `669d90876` commit added the main fixes before the focused navigation follow-up. - Immediately preceding head `9d9737b49` completed all 56 checks successfully with four conditional skips, Greptile 5/5 and no open findings, plus a successful Superagent scan. The signoff E2E shard passed on its single accepted rerun; its initial cancellation/timing failure is retained below. Master moved again while those checks ran, requiring this final integration rather than treating the prior head's green result as current acceptance. - Previous head `9d9737b496911a6054d0ea22d1b42b28b115e9ab` includes master `d30c8f42b842327ee1c18c41a2efd6ba623da5cd`; that head was subsequently conflicted by moving master. The master merge preserved durable account-bound writes and Coordinator UX. Workspace typecheck/build, 416 focused UI tests, and 142 affected comment-route tests passed. A stable full UI run on preceding head `938ad1665` passed all 9,833 tests across 836 files; its final full workspace build also passed. - Greptile found nested proposal project inheritance and Classic bound-revision links on `91be74952`. Both were fixed with 142 interaction-route tests, 113 focused UI tests, and UI/server typechecks. Its next review identified a valid draft-preservation bug in the new Classic loading UI. Head `9d9737b49` keeps loading/error notices outside editors and annotations while preserving dirty drafts; 115 focused review UI tests pass, including pending/failed revision loads and continued draft editing. All related threads are resolved. Greptile completed a fresh 5/5 review of `9d9737b496911a6054d0ea22d1b42b28b115e9ab` with no open findings. - CI on `938ad1665` exposed an integration regression with the newly merged durable startup saves: the personal preference gate blocked the task page before its first session lookup. The guarded title editor now mounts while that lookup is pending, with presentation-specific tools still gated. All 216 affected component tests pass. The unchanged five-test `disconnect-write-recovery.spec.ts` browser suite passes against a newly launched disposable local-trusted PostgreSQL instance on port 33219, including the exact failed startup-save journey. No live provider, hosted authentication or production proof is claimed. The helper-owned test server exited and the port has no listener. UI typecheck, built-browser assets, token and whitespace checks pass. - Initial durable-write merge tests found duplicate imports and unscoped draft fixtures, fixed before 416 focused tests passed. A sandbox typecheck could not create its IPC socket; the supported rerun passed. The first revision-link test used a wrong Return to latest button assertion, corrected before the 113-test pass. The startup E2E reproduction initially still failed because an outer shell gate also blocked the page; the subsequent fix passed all five cases without changing the test or its timeouts. A focused loading-header assertion initially used an incorrect fixture title; correcting it preceded the 216-test pass. These failures remain recorded. - Earlier routing gates fell back to GitHub-hosted runners while master was moving or conflicted. Superseded queued runs were cancelled, then the `938ad1665` routing gate explicitly selected the ephemeral RunsOn fleet. Its CI actively executed and completed most tests; only the diagnosed startup E2E shard and aggregate failed, alongside the valid Greptile finding. Auxiliary GitHub-hosted workflows also completed successfully on earlier heads, so queueing alone is not an administrative blocker. Fresh [CI on `9d9737b49`](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40744012678) is the acceptance target; the previously failing startup E2E shard now passes. A different signoff E2E shard failed during executor resubmission when its fixture run was cancelled as `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review`. The exact unchanged journey passed locally (1 test, 46 seconds), and the preceding head with identical server/signoff code passed that CI shard. This supports a bounded rerun but does not establish the timing failure's root cause. After the workflow finished, GitHub accepted one rerun of that failed shard and its dependent aggregate; both passed, completing all checks on that head. The failure log is retained at `/tmp/pr17983-9d9737-e2e7.log` and the local reproduction at `/tmp/pr17983-signoff-repro.log`. No assertion or timeout was weakened. - On the first merge, full workspace typecheck/build, all 9,622 UI tests, 267 tests across seven affected server suites, two migration checks, map validation, token gates, and the PR diff whitespace check passed. Greptile then found duplicate local task-search filtering and lost completed item-review detail. Both are fixed, with 42 passing focused UI tests and passing UI typecheck/build. - A subsequent Greptile review found attachment confirmations without working links and mobile history without a visible host. Confirmation layouts now derive the authenticated immutable-content endpoint from the attachment ID, and Needs You uses the existing full-screen mobile sheet. All 119 focused tests pass, including missing/stale display URLs, both review layouts, and both mobile history entry buttons. UI typecheck/build and token checks pass. Full workspace typecheck/build also pass after the second master merge. - Greptile gave head |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
7c58ea07b2 |
fix(issues): guard prepared task promotion by status version (#16893)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Integrations can prepare a backlog task before its assigned agent starts. > - A person can change its status or assignment during preparation. > - An unconditional promotion can replace that newer decision. > - Safe promotion needs a saved revision that includes every assignment path. > - This pull request checks that revision under the task row lock and derives policy cleanup from the locked row. > - The benefit is safe initialization recovery with the existing company, task, and run authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Prerequisite #16896 has merged. This PR now targets master and contains only the conditional promotion API. The prerequisite fixed the confirmed baseline first-upload browser regression. **What happened?** A client that saves a task's initial documents and then sends an unconditional status update can override a concurrent status or assignment decision. The update validator previously dropped an expected version, so clients could not make this promotion conditional. Some direct assignment and release paths also did not advance the revision. **Expected behavior** A prepared task moves from backlog to todo only if its original status and assignment revision still matches. A stale request returns 409 before a task mutation, audit publication, or wake. Policy cleanup preserves unrelated saved settings. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a backlog task and save its statusVersion before preparing it. 2. Release its assignment, or change an assignee and then restore that assignee. 3. Send `{ "status": "todo", "expectedStatusVersion": <original revision> }` to its PATCH endpoint. 4. The stale promotion must return 409. A matching revision on an unchanged backlog task must succeed. Duplicate and related PR searches found no existing prepared-task promotion fix. ## What Changed - Accept an optional nonnegative expectedStatusVersion for exactly a status-only backlog-to-todo promotion. Reject extra public fields before parsing can discard them. - Check the current revision and backlog state under the issue row lock. Reject stale requests before checkout adoption or execution-control effects. - Add SQL migration 0358 to advance the revision for both assignee fields at the database boundary. Release, administrative release, direct writes, and assignment round trips now invalidate an old version. - Derive guarded policy cleanup from the locked row. Preserve review limits and protected authorization when removing a monitor. Reject derived ownership changes or review decisions. - Add schema, real HTTP/PostgreSQL, concurrency, migration replay, and policy regression coverage. Update the response type, OpenAPI, developer docs, and access map. ## Verification - Red before the initial fix: stale requests returned 200 instead of 409, validation removed the expected version, and a stale active task could adopt a checkout. - Review found two further defects. Four new release/direct-assignment tests showed unchanged revisions. The real HTTP/service test returned 422 for a valid two-field promotion after monitor cleanup. Helper tests also proved that cleanup lost valid review limits and protected authorization. All now pass after focused repairs. - Green: 124 route and policy tests, including 7 real Express/PostgreSQL cases, 37 existing route tests, and 80 policy/helper tests. The real row-lock race preserves a policy edit committed while promotion waits. - Green: all 23 database client tests, plus 9 focused assignment and replay checks. Historical migration 0227 receipt recovery cannot remove the new assignment trigger. Reapplying migration 0358 leaves existing rows unchanged and installs one trigger. Combined status/assignment writes increment once; unchanged assignees do not increment. - Earlier verification passed all 218 schema/route/service cases and the generated OpenAPI capability test. Rebased focused regressions passed all 27 selected cases. Final server TypeScript passed after all repairs; shared TypeScript passed. Migration safety/numbering, five-snapshot retention, map validation, and diff checks pass. - The baseline browser attachment case failed twice on the earlier head. Separate #16896 proved the lost-composer cause, passed 335 component tests and the real first-upload journey, and has green CI with a 5/5 review. No assertion or timeout was weakened. - Some early local checks were blocked by missing or stale sibling dependency artifacts. This worktree now has its own frozen offline install and standard SDK prerequisites. The failures and successful reruns remain in the task evidence. - Before rebasing, head `3304bb00de6ad6a248b5e046c008072ad20ac8f5` passed all CI (55 successful checks and one neutral), Greptile 5/5, and a secondary source review at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The secondary reviewer did not execute project tests, inspect CI, or exercise a live agent journey. Earlier incomplete and must-fix assessments remain visible; both established findings are repaired above. - After #16896 merged, all five CAS commits were rebased onto master `87d9386ae637c652d1fed09d2046be1bcaeb413b`. Migration 0358 was regenerated because master added another 0357. Range comparison shows no other change to the CAS patches; inherited UI commits are absent. The original head is preserved locally. - Rebased head `1c0264e51a280b1dbf597725a7e42e72d4be1b1b` passes all 124 route/policy tests, 9 selected assignment/promotion tests, and all 24 database client/snapshot-drift tests. Database build, migration checks, generated snapshot linkage, five-snapshot retention (0354–0358), maps, and diff checks pass. Fresh-head CI and review are pending. No deployment or live agent journey was performed for this API. ## Risks - The guard supports prepared backlog promotion only. Other statuses or mixed public mutation fields return 422. A stale revision or non-backlog row returns 409. - Preserve the original version from a server that already advertises this guard before initialization. Older versions did not track every assignment path. Reconcile older or uncertain initialization instead of fetching a new revision and blindly retrying. - Migration 0358 is SQL-only and idempotent. It adds no table, column, or task backfill. Its separate trigger survives historical status-migration replay. - Existing authorization and unguarded updates remain in place. Guarded promotion does not provide a general lifecycle or review-stage control API. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used tool calls, code execution, and test-first regression verification. ## 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> |
||
|
|
880d4ae60f |
fix: reject done when an executionPolicy replace discards a live review cycle (#13178)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The issue PATCH route applies executionPolicy edits and status changes through one transition function, so both can arrive in a single request > - A replacement executionPolicy regenerates stage ids, which orphans the stored currentStageId; the orphaned-stage path clears executionState > - When a review cycle is live (pending or changes_requested), that clear lets a caller-supplied `status: "done"` stand although the review never ran > - This pull request rejects `done` on that combined write and leaves every other requested status — including board cancellation — on the established abandon-and-clear path > - The benefit is that a review gate cannot be bypassed by attaching a fresh policy object to a completion request ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #13176 Refs #13001 (same transition function, distinct defect) Supersedes #13164 — same fix, resubmitted on a correctly named branch with the review findings addressed: the guard no longer rejects board cancellation, and the internal ticket reference is gone. ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issue-execution-policy.ts`: in the orphaned-stage branch, reject the transition with 422 `unexecuted_review_stage` only when a live review cycle (pending or changes_requested) meets a requested status of `done`. All other requested statuses — including `cancelled`, where abandoning the cycle is the intent — fall through to `clearExecutionStatePatch` exactly as a bare policy edit does. - `server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`: regression coverage for the rejected `done`, the preserved board cancellation, a routine non-`done` status change on the same path, the unchanged-policy `done` route to the stored reviewer, and the bare policy edit. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server vitest run src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts` — 75 tests pass locally. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` passes. - Manual reasoning check: PATCH `{executionPolicy: <new object>, status: "done"}` on an issue whose `executionState.status` is `pending` or `changes_requested` now returns 422; the same request with `status: "cancelled"` or with no status clears the orphaned stage as before. ## Risks - Low risk. The only newly rejected request is one that previously discarded a live review while claiming completion — a silent-bypass bug, not a supported workflow. Callers intending to cancel or repurpose an issue mid-review are unaffected. ## Model Used - Anthropic Claude — SWE-2 Max agent via Devin CLI, tool use and code execution; the original fix commit was authored by an earlier agent pass on the same task. ## 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 - [ ] 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: Waseem Ilyas <1478353+Waseemilyas@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
317ed367d4 |
Handle incomplete task policies and preserve review limits (#15593)
Apply the reviewed change for Handle incomplete task policies and preserve review limits. Validation: local typecheck/build and focused regression tests, passing exact-head CI, Greptile 5/5, and independent source review. The PR records full-suite evidence and any local environment limitations. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
0f12721ee9 |
fix(server): let board users cancel issues with an active review stage (#10655)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server enforces an issue execution policy. It gates status changes while a review or approval stage is active. > - A board user could not cancel a task while an agent reviewer held the active stage. The API returned "Only the active reviewer or approver can advance the current execution stage". > - Board users own the board. They must always be able to edit and cancel any task. > - This pull request adds a board override to the execution stage transition. A board cancel clears the pending stage state and proceeds instead of raising an error. > - The benefit is that board users can always stop work, even while a review is pending or the stored stage state has drifted. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. Description follows `bug_report.yml`: **What happened?** A board user set a task to `cancelled` while the task had an active reviewer stage held by an agent. The PATCH failed with "Task Update Failed... only the assigned approver or reviewer...". The same failure occurred when the stored stage state had drifted: the server silently forced the task back to `in_review` instead of honoring the cancel. **Expected behavior** A board user can always edit and cancel any task. A board cancel must clear the pending review stage and apply the requested status. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a task assigned to agent A with agent B configured as reviewer in the execution policy. 2. Let agent A hand the task off so the review stage becomes active. 3. As the board user, set the task status to Cancelled. 4. The update fails with the reviewer-only error. Related work: #5487 touches the execution-policy approver UI. It does not address the board cancel path. ## What Changed - `server/src/routes/issues.ts`: the issue PATCH route now passes `allowBoardOverride` when the actor is a board user. - `server/src/services/issue-execution-policy.ts`: when `allowBoardOverride` is set and the requested status is not `in_review` or `in_progress`, the transition clears `executionState` and proceeds. This applies both while a stage decision is pending and when the stage state has drifted, so a board cancel is no longer rejected or silently flipped back to `in_review`. - Reviewer gating is unchanged for everyone else: a board user who is the active participant still uses the normal approve / request-changes flow, and non-participant agents still receive the 422 guard. - Assignee-only board updates on an `in_review` task keep the stage state coherent: reassigning to an eligible stage participant re-pends the stage with them as the current participant, while reassigning to a non-participant (or unassigning) dissolves the review back to `in_progress` instead of persisting an `in_review` issue with no execution state or an ineligible participant. - New unit tests and route tests cover board cancellation of an active review stage and of a drifted pending review, plus reviewer swap, non-participant reassignment, and unassignment during an active review. ## Verification - In `server/`: `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` — 2 files, 73/73 tests pass on top of current `master`. - In `server/`: `pnpm run typecheck` passes. ## Risks - Low risk. The override branch runs only for board actors and only for target statuses other than `in_review` and `in_progress`. Cancelling clears `executionState`, so a later reopen starts from a fresh stage state. Agent-facing flows and reviewer gating are unchanged. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic), model ID `claude-fable-5`, running in Claude Code (Claude Agent SDK) with extended thinking and agentic tool use. ## 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 |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
27f8c8dbcf |
feat(server): cap agent review rounds and escalate exhausted reviews to the responsible human (#10650)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Execution policies let one agent implement and another review, cycling through changes-requested → addressed rounds > - Nothing bounds that cycle: no round counter, no escalation, no termination signal — two agents can ping-pong indefinitely, especially when the review's success criteria drift to something the implementer cannot satisfy > - On a real multi-agent instance this produced 6+ unattended rounds (~8 runs) that continued even after the human had merged the PR under review > - This pull request counts consecutive agent-initiated changes-requested rounds and, at a configurable cap, hands the still-pending review to the responsible human instead of bouncing back to the implementer > - The benefit is that unattended review loops terminate in a human decision instead of burning runs forever ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #10643 ## What Changed - `IssueExecutionState.changesRequestedCount` (schema + type, default 0): consecutive agent-initiated changes-requested rounds on the current stage. Carries through executor resubmissions, resets to 0 on approval, and resets when a **human** makes the changes-requested decision — the cap targets unattended agent↔agent ping-pong, never human review. - `IssueExecutionPolicy.maxReviewRounds` (optional, 1–50, default null → server default `DEFAULT_MAX_REVIEW_ROUNDS = 3`). - At the cap, the transition records the reviewer's changes-requested decision as usual but keeps the stage **pending** with the responsible human (`responsibleUserId`, falling back to `createdByUserId`) as the participant: the issue is assigned to that human and the pending review surfaces through the existing attention/review UI. The human then approves, requests changes (resetting the counter and handing back to the implementer), or re-scopes. - The escalated hold is sticky: transitions from anyone other than the escalated human no longer re-select a configured agent participant for the stage (which would have silently undone the escalation on the next unrelated PATCH). The escalated human's own decisions flow through the normal participant decision branch. - Issues with no responsible human keep today's hand-back behavior; the counter still accumulates so operators can see the churn. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts` — 8 new cases: round counting on hand-back, count carried through resubmission, escalation at the default cap, sticky hold across unrelated transitions, human changes-requested resets the counter, human approval completes the stage, no-responsible-human fallback, and a `maxReviewRounds: 1` policy override. - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts` and the full `@paperclipai/shared` suite (387 tests) — schema additions are backward compatible (both fields optional with defaults; persisted states without the counter parse as 0). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared exec tsc --noEmit` and `cd server && pnpm run typecheck`. ## Risks - Behavior change: an agent-only review loop that previously ran forever now escalates to a human after 3 agent rounds by default. Instances that want longer loops can set `maxReviewRounds` per policy. Flows where a human participates are unaffected (human decisions reset the counter). - Escalation requires a `responsibleUserId`/`createdByUserId` on the issue; without one, behavior is unchanged. - Persisted execution states from before this change parse with `changesRequestedCount: 0` — no migration needed. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code — extended thinking, agentic tool use. No other models involved. ## 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 |
||
|
SamandSami Rusani
|
39666aa906 |
fix(server): clarify execution policy decision comments (#9105)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Execution policies let issues move through enforced review and
approval stages before work is considered done.
> - Active reviewers and approvers must include decision rationale when
approving or requesting changes.
> - The server already requires the decision comment to arrive in the
same `PATCH /api/issues/:id` request as the status change.
> - When callers post a normal comment first and then send a status-only
`PATCH`, the existing 422 only says a comment is required.
> - This pull request keeps the atomic decision behavior but makes the
API error and docs explicit about the same-request requirement.
> - The benefit is that agents and API clients can recover immediately
by sending `{ status, comment }` together instead of dead-ending on an
ambiguous validation error.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Fixes #9049.
Duplicate/related search completed before implementation: searched open
PRs for `9049`, `Approving a review or approval stage requires a
comment`, `Requesting changes requires a comment`, and `same PATCH`. I
did not find a direct open PR for the same error-message/docs fix.
Related PRs found but not duplicates: #8302 documents cross-agent review
gates in the skill API reference, and #5487 covers human approval UI.
## What Changed
- Expanded execution-policy 422 messages for approve and request-changes
decisions to say the comment must be included in the same `PATCH`
request and prior comments are not considered.
- Tightened unit coverage so the comment-required branches assert the
new actionable guidance.
- Documented the same-request `{ status, comment }` decision shape in
the execution policy guide, issue API reference, and agent communication
guide.
## Verification
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts --reporter verbose`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk exec node
../../../scripts/ensure-plugin-build-deps.mjs`
- `CI=true corepack pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`
- `git diff --check`
## Risks
Low risk. This does not change execution-policy state transitions or
relax the atomic decision guard; it only makes the existing requirement
explicit in errors and docs.
> 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 Codex), operating in Codex desktop with repository
file access, shell validation, and GitHub CLI workflow. Exact context
window size is not surfaced by 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 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: Sami Rusani <sr@samirusani>
|
||
|
Harshit KhemaniandClaude Fable 5
|
3e1dc90bf2 |
fix(execution-policy): final-stage approval terminates the policy instead of rewinding to stage 1 (#7893) (#7936)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Issues can carry an embedded multi-stage `executionPolicy` (e.g. QA → CodeReviewer → CodePusher) driven by `applyIssueExecutionStageTransition` in `server/src/services/issue-execution-policy.ts` > - On approval, the next stage was picked with `nextPendingStage()`, which scans the **whole** stage list from index 0 for the first id not in `completedStageIds` > - Stage ids are regenerated whenever the embedded policy is re-sent or edited mid-flow (a supported operation — the existing "reassigns the active stage when the current participant is removed" test depends on it), so earlier `completedStageIds` can stop matching the current policy; a final-stage approve then "finds" stage 1 pending again and rebuilds a first-stage review (#7893) — an endless re-review loop that can recycle indefinitely against a moving main tip > - This pull request makes approvals advance with a forward-only scan (only stages *after* the one being approved), so approving the last stage always terminates the policy, and adds a guard so an already-completed execution state is terminal for `status=done` > - The benefit is final-stage approvals close the issue as the policy intends, with no behavior change for non-final advancement or reject/changes_requested verdicts ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #7893 ## What Changed - `server/src/services/issue-execution-policy.ts`: - New `nextPendingStageAfter(policy, completedStage, state)` helper — forward-only scan from the approved stage's index; the approval path uses it instead of `nextPendingStage()`. Approving the final stage therefore always yields `nextStage === null` → completed state → the caller's `done` flows through. - New guard: `requestedStatus === "done"` with an already-`completed` execution state returns without restarting the chain at stage 1 (closes the same loop when a stale completed state lingers). - Reject/`changes_requested` verdicts and intact-state forward advancement are untouched. - `server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`: 4 regression tests, including one that reproduces the exact rewind (regenerated stage ids + final-stage approve → previously reassigned QA at `currentStageIndex 0`; now terminal completed) and an explicit final-stage rejection test pinning the unchanged path. ## Verification - `npx vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts` → 54 passed (50 pre-existing + 4 new). - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` → clean. - The rewind was confirmed empirically against unmodified code first (a test asserting the buggy output passed pre-fix and flips post-fix), plus brute-forced realistic operation sequences (checkout dances, status round-trips, interim comments per the agent flow documented around #4889) to verify intact-state flows are unaffected. - Related suites (`issue-execution-policy-routes`, `issue-comment-reopen-routes`, `issues-service`, `issue-thread-interaction-routes`, `issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes`) also pass locally. ## Risks - Behavior deliberately preserved: non-final approvals (forward scan is identical when state is intact), rejections at any stage, reopen-from-done (state cleared on reopen, fresh chain still starts at stage 1), and explicit `in_review` restarts. - The policy schema has no terminal-state field, so per the issue's Ask the policy simply terminates and the requested `done` status flows through. ## Model Used - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) via Claude Code, agentic mode with tool use (subagent implementation + independent adversarial review subagent), extended thinking 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 (none found for #7893) - [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 — server-only change) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (N/A — internal stage-advance semantics) - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green (will confirm once CI runs on this PR) - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups (pending first review) - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
c65ab09d9f |
fix(recovery): wait for provider quota resets (#9635)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI-agent companies and keep assigned work moving safely. > - The recovery subsystem decides whether a failed agent run should retry, wait, block for configuration, or escalate to another owner. > - Provider usage-limit failures currently arrive as generic `adapter_failed` results, so stranded-work reconciliation can create takeover recovery even when the provider states that capacity will reset later. > - Credential and model lookup failures are also configuration problems, not evidence that another agent should take over the task. > - This pull request classifies those failure families at recovery time and persists the classification on the run. > - Quota failures now schedule a monitor for the original assignee at the parsed reset time, or after a bounded default backoff when no reset time is available. > - The benefit is that transient provider capacity waits no longer wake recovery owners, while configuration failures stop with an actionable classification. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this exact change. **What happened?** When an assigned issue's latest run failed with a provider usage-limit message such as "try again at 12:00 AM (UTC)," recovery treated the run as generic `adapter_failed` work and could create a takeover action. Missing credentials and `model_not_found` failures followed the same generic path. **Expected behavior:** Provider quota failures should keep the original assignee and schedule a monitor for the reset time, without creating recovery work or immediately waking another owner. Missing credentials and model lookup failures should be classified as `configuration_incomplete` and blocked with the configuration fix recorded. **Steps to reproduce:** 1. Assign and start an issue for an agent. 2. Record a failed heartbeat run with `errorCode: adapter_failed` and a provider quota/reset message. 3. Run stranded assigned-issue reconciliation. 4. Observe that the old behavior routes the issue through generic recovery instead of waiting for provider capacity. Reproduced on `master` at `9af96461d`. This is a core recovery bug, not adapter-specific, and applies to built-from-source deployments with either embedded PGlite or Postgres. Related work checked: #9288 adds adapter-side Claude provider-limit classification; #5392 suppresses some recovery creation for quota-class errors; #9634 is a broader recovery-routing change with overlapping provider-quota behavior. This PR is the narrow recovery-service fix with focused parsed-reset, fallback-backoff, zero-takeover, and configuration-failure coverage. ## What Changed - Added conservative recovery-time classification for provider quota, missing-credential, and model-not-found adapter failures. - Parsed provider reset timestamps with a default one-hour backoff when no usable reset time is present. - Persisted `provider_quota` or `configuration_incomplete` metadata on the failed heartbeat run. - Scheduled quota monitors for the active issue owner, including the current review participant, without creating recovery actions or enqueueing takeover wakes. - Routed configuration failures to blocked recovery with actionable evidence instead of a takeover. - Added unit and embedded-database regression coverage for parsed/fallback quota timing, zero CTO/recovery wake behavior, and configuration classification. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/services/recovery/provider-failure-classification.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts` — 4 files passed, 66 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. ## Risks - Recovery behavior changes for text-matched adapter failures; matching is intentionally conservative, and unmatched failures retain the existing generic recovery path. - Provider reset strings do not always include a date or timezone; parsing chooses the next future matching time and falls back to a one-hour wait when the timestamp is unusable. - This overlaps the provider-quota portion of broader recovery-routing PR #9634, so only one implementation should land if both remain open. - No schema, migration, API contract, or UI changes are included. No documentation update is needed because this corrects internal recovery behavior without changing operator commands or configuration. > 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 with model `gpt-5.4`, medium reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The runtime does not expose its configured 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 - [ ] 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
|
dbebf30c89 |
Add low-trust review containment (#7530)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for AI-agent companies, so execution policy and trust boundaries are part of the product's safety contract. > - Low-trust review work needs narrower authority than normal same-company agents because hostile PRs, comments, attachments, and generated output can carry prompt-injection payloads. > - The current V1 shape gives trusted workers broad company context, which is useful for normal execution but too permissive for a reviewer assigned to hostile content. > - This branch adds a `low_trust_review` preset, source-trust tagging, route-level containment, and quarantine handling so low-trust output does not automatically flow into higher-trust wake context. > - The branch has been rebased onto current `origin/master`, and the low-trust migration was renumbered to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` to avoid collisions with existing `0091` through `0096` migrations. > - Greptile feedback was addressed by tightening low-trust detection, preserving project-level trust policy checks, fixing issue-kind promotion lookup, removing duplicate post-lease isolation assertion, documenting fail-closed source-trust behavior, bounding ancestry checks, enforcing runtime issue context for CEOs, awaiting accepted-plan monitor authorization, and making low-trust issue source-trust tagging atomic. > - The benefit is a first production slice of deny-by-default review containment with regression coverage for the main control-plane pivot surfaces. Fixes #7531. ## What Changed - Added shared trust-policy types and validators, plus database/source-trust fields for issues, comments, documents, and work products. - Implemented server enforcement for low-trust issue scope, agent self-view redaction, secret/plugin/runtime denial paths, promotion checks, and quarantined continuation/wake context. - Added focused low-trust regression tests for resolver behavior, source trust, route authorization, heartbeat preflight ordering, runtime containment, and quarantine redaction. - Added board UI affordances for selecting/reviewing the low-trust preset and surfacing source-trust badges in relevant issue views. - Added `doc/LOW-TRUST-PRESETS.md`, updated `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`, and committed the low-trust review contract plan under `doc/plans/`. - Rebasing note: the original `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql` migration was renamed to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied the old-numbered migration are not broken by the renumbered migration. ## Verification - Rebased branch onto current `origin/master` and force-pushed with lease to `origin/PAP-10211-low-trust-agent` at head `2719f31e3`. - Confirmed the PR diff does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml` or `.github/workflows` changes. - Resolved upstream UI/comment conflicts by preserving deleted-comment tombstone behavior and low-trust source-trust badges/metadata. - Renumbered the low-trust source-trust migration to `0097_low_trust_source_trust.sql`; the SQL uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so users who already applied an old-numbered copy are not broken. - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/source-trust.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-service-authz.test.ts ui/src/lib/trust-policy-ui.test.ts ui/src/components/TrustPresetSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm run typecheck:build-gaps` - `git diff --check` - GitHub checks pass on head `2719f31e3`: build, typecheck/release registry, general tests, serialized server suites, e2e, canary, verify, policy/review, Socket, and Snyk. - Greptile Review passes with Confidence Score 5/5 and zero unresolved Greptile review threads. - No design screenshots/images were added because the task explicitly says not to add them unless they are specifically part of the work. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches shared trust-policy contracts, server authorization paths, heartbeat context generation, migration metadata, and UI preset controls. - Low-trust containment is intentionally deny-by-default; legitimate future review workflows may need explicit allowlisted exceptions. - Plugin/runtime/security surfaces are broad, so regression tests cover the current known routes but future integrations must route through the same containment layer. - The PR is ready for review; GitHub checks are green and Greptile is 5/5. > 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 and GitHub CLI 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] UI changes are covered by focused tests; no screenshots were added per task instruction not to add design images unless specifically required - [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
|
57229d0f24 |
[codex] Add issue monitor liveness controls (#4988)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work must stay observable, governable, and recoverable. > - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue state transitions, and visible recovery behavior. > - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when the assignee still owns a future check. > - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad hoc comments. > - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior. > - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when to use monitors versus `blocked`. > - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits without weakening single-assignee task ownership. ## What Changed - Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state. - Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds, activity logging, and external-ref redaction. - Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child monitor scheduling. - Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces. - Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy: "board"`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts` - First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency. - After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites successfully. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot captured from `http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces` with Playwright. ## Screenshots  ## Risks - Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or recovery issue creation. - Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue monitor columns and index. - External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads. > 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 repository tool use and terminal 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 - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots or Storybook review surfaces - [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
|
7ad225a198 |
[codex] Improve issue thread review flow (#4381)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and follow-up work with active runs > - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent work > - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and navigation clunkier than necessary > - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice > - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the broader task model ## What Changed - restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue thread - folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit thread scrolling behavior - surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee notices on the issue detail view - tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList` - added loose review-request handoffs through the issue execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the return assignee with execution_changes_requested"` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` ## Visual Evidence - UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should use the running preview for final visual confirmation. ## Risks - Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff 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 with tool use and code execution in the Codex CLI environment ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots or documented the visual verification path - [ ] 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
|
7f893ac4ec |
[codex] Harden execution reliability and heartbeat tooling (#3679)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Reliable execution depends on heartbeat routing, issue lifecycle semantics, telemetry, and a fast enough local verification loop to keep regressions visible > - The remaining commits on this branch were mostly server/runtime correctness fixes plus test and documentation follow-ups in that area > - Those changes are logically separate from the UI-focused issue-detail and workspace/navigation branches even when they touch overlapping issue APIs > - This pull request groups the execution reliability, heartbeat, telemetry, and tooling changes into one standalone branch > - The benefit is a focused review of the control-plane correctness work, including the follow-up fix that restored the implicit comment-reopen helpers after branch splitting ## What Changed - Hardened issue/heartbeat execution behavior, including self-review stage skipping, deferred mention wakes during active execution, stranded execution recovery, active-run scoping, assignee resolution, and blocked-to-todo wake resumption - Reduced noisy polling/logging overhead by trimming issue run payloads, compacting persisted run logs, silencing high-volume request logs, and capping heartbeat-run queries in dashboard/inbox surfaces - Expanded telemetry and status semantics with adapter/model fields on task completion plus clearer status guidance in docs/onboarding material - Updated test infrastructure and verification defaults with faster route-test module isolation, cheaper default `pnpm test`, e2e isolation from local state, and repo verification follow-ups - Included docs/release housekeeping from the branch and added a small follow-up commit restoring the implicit comment-reopen helpers that were dropped during branch reconstruction ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/http-log-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-run-log.test.ts server/src/__tests__/health.test.ts` - `server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts`, `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-comment-wake-batching.test.ts`, and `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts` were attempted on this host but the embedded Postgres harness reported init-script/data-dir problems and skipped or failed to start, so they are noted as environment-limited ## Risks - Medium: this branch changes core issue/heartbeat routing and reopen/wakeup behavior, so regressions would affect agent execution flow rather than isolated UI polish - Because it also updates verification infrastructure, reviewers should pay attention to whether the new tests are asserting the right failure modes and not just reshaping harness behavior ## 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) - [ ] 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> |
||
|
dotta
|
4077ccd343 | Fix signoff stage access and comment wake retries | ||
|
dotta
|
27ec1e0c8b | Fix execution policy edits on in-review issues | ||
|
dotta
|
ec75cabcd8 | Enforce execution-policy stage handoffs | ||
|
dotta
|
bce58d353d | fix execution policy decision persistence | ||
|
dottaandPaperclip
|
b3e0c31239 |
Add issue review policy and comment retry
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
