mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 09:07:46 +02:00
fed4802b729bcfa2e787e949eab50f2cbaf4366a
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
24429024e7 |
feat: add Fireflies connector and summary-ready routines (#13890)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Apps gives agents governed access to external tools through stored credentials. > - Routines start work when an external service sends an event. > - Fireflies provides meeting transcripts and summaries through an official hosted MCP server. > - This PR adds that connection and accepts signed meeting events through the shared app webhook flow. > - Agents can review completed meetings with the same permissions and audit records as other work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Operators need agents to read Fireflies meetings and start follow-up work when a summary is ready. The Apps catalog lacks Fireflies. The shared app webhook flow needs to accept its signed deliveries. **Proposed solution** Use the official Fireflies MCP endpoint with OAuth or a vaulted bearer API key. Extend the existing Another app or script flow with signed webhook support. Verify the raw-body signature and pass the JSON payload as external data. Select Meeting Summarized in Fireflies. Deduplicate identical signed deliveries, including setup deliveries. **Alternatives considered** A separate REST connector would duplicate the governed MCP path. Polling, legacy V1 payloads, and automatic provider-side webhook registration are outside this change. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing MCP Tool Gateway & Apps and Scheduled Routines surfaces. It adds a provider to those systems. It does not introduce a second integration framework. **Additional context** A GitHub search found no existing Fireflies issues or PRs. Provider references and verification limits are in `doc/connections/FIREFLIES.md`. ## What Changed - Add the official Fireflies catalog definition, generated registry, provider evidence, and branded artwork. - Reuse Access → Connect, dynamic discovery, Permissions, vault storage, policy, and audit behavior. - Classify Fireflies sharing, movement, and access revocation as writes. - Preserve Off and Ask first restrictions during OAuth reauthorization and API-key replacement. New actions retain normal defaults. - Add `app_webhook` authentication to the shared Another app or script flow. Accept bearer tokens or raw-body HMAC-SHA256. Preserve earlier `fireflies_hmac` triggers and revision snapshots for compatibility. Existing text columns need no migration. - Verify `X-Hub-Signature` or `X-Hub-Signature-256` against the exact request body. Preserve generic event payloads and deduplicate identical signed requests. - Keep the routine wizard generic. Show one webhook URL and secret in Another app or script. Keep all new app webhook event names provider-neutral. Keep provider setup instructions in the connector documentation. - Pass generic webhook JSON to the task in an explicit external-data block, capped at 16,384 characters. Keep strict meeting validation for existing legacy Fireflies triggers. ## Verification - Feature implementation commit `0882dc8a1`: all 54 CI checks passed; two conditional Storybook checks skipped. This includes full tests, typecheck, build, browser E2E, canary dry run, and security checks. Greptile rated this commit 5/5; all review threads are resolved. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, and token gates passed on the final code. Targeted connector, gateway, webhook, revision, and UI suites passed during implementation. After the provider-neutral follow-up, all 84 app-webhook and routine-service tests passed; the final payload-to-task assertion also passed in the 72-test routine suite and a clean-config rerun. - The long local `pnpm test:run` invocation started before the final edits and was stopped after the final-commit CI suites passed. It reported one generic webhook test failure while those files were changing; that test and the entire routine suite passed on the final source, including a clean-config reproduction. The interrupted local run is not counted as a full-suite pass. - In the embedded browser, completed official OAuth consent and discovered 20 live actions. Real meeting listing, transcript retrieval, and summary/action-item retrieval succeeded as the selected agent. Turning a live read Off blocked its test; catalog refresh preserved the restriction. - Embedded-browser Another app or script setup, back/save/resume, narrow layout, and a signed synthetic Fireflies delivery succeeded. The UI reported authentication passed without creating a task. Fixtures cover signature tampering, malformed requests, ordinary app event names, duplicate/setup deliveries, rotation, revisions, pause/archive, and company isolation. - Existing MCP browser suite: 8 passed and 2 provider-dependent cases skipped. Branding checks passed; connector artwork and webhook setup were checked at desktop/mobile widths and in light/dark modes. - An unauthenticated POST to a correctly formatted public webhook URL reached the staging tenant verifier through the existing Cloud gateway. - A real Fireflies webhook delivery remains unverified. A staging callback is available for the operator walkthrough. Live API-key authorization, credential expiry, and a new meeting's summary completion were not tested against the provider. Fixtures cover these protocol and lifecycle paths where applicable. - Storybook follow-up `c54174faa`: 27 production-component stories cover every UI change, with a source-to-story map in the connector documentation. Static Storybook build, UI typecheck, token gates, and Playwright checks for all stories and the mobile footer pass. All PR checks passed for this Storybook follow-up; Greptile reviewed `c54174faa` at 5/5. ## Risks - Fireflies may change its hosted MCP tools or OAuth behavior. Tool discovery stays dynamic. Experimental search/fetch tools are not required. - Public webhook setup requires HTTPS and a separate signing secret. Fireflies normally emits events for meetings owned by the configuring account. - Reauthorization touches shared MCP permission code. Regression tests cover existing restrictions, new actions, connection removal, and other gateway callers. - Webhook receipt grants no tool access. The routine agent still needs an authorized Fireflies connection. - New generic triggers rely on provider event subscriptions. Without a sender-supplied idempotency key, changed request bytes count as a new event. Existing legacy Fireflies triggers retain summary-only filtering and per-meeting deduplication. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, model `gpt-6-astra`. Used reasoning, repository editing, code execution, and embedded-browser testing. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
30ff3d7c58 |
feat(routines): expose activity gate API (#9438)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Scheduled routines provide recurring control-plane work without manual intervention > - The new activity gate can suppress scheduled runs when no external work occurred > - The core scheduler and database support landed without a public create/update contract > - Agents, operators, and managed plugins need validated fields plus discoverable semantics to opt in safely > - This pull request exposes the activity gate through routine APIs, revisions, plugin contracts, tests, and skill documentation > - The benefit is backward-compatible control over idle scheduled work without losing activity-triggered follow-up ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8534 ## What Changed - Added shared activity-gate policy and scope enums with create/PATCH validation. - Persisted activity-gate fields through routine creation, updates, revision snapshots, pipeline snapshots, and revision restores. - Defaulted legacy revision snapshots during restore and added regression coverage for pre-field snapshots. - Extended managed-plugin routine declarations, production reconciliation, and the SDK test harness to preserve non-default gate settings. - Added end-to-end API coverage for create/PATCH/list/detail round-trips, defaults, and invalid enum rejection. - Documented schedule-only semantics, activity windows, own-run/read-action exclusions, scopes, and an hourly quiet-night watcher example. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-e2e.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/plugin.test.ts packages/plugins/sdk/tests/testing-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/plugin-managed-routines.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts -t 'activity gate|preserves declared activity gate settings|resolves routine agent and project refs'` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm check:token-gates` - GitHub CI: all final-head checks green; Storybook visual regression skipped by path rules. - Greptile: 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Low risk: defaults remain `always` and `company`, preserving existing routine behavior and old revision snapshots. - Managed plugin manifests can now declare the same validated gate settings as the public routine API; omitted values retain core defaults. - Revision snapshots now include the new fields so policy changes are not lost or treated as no-ops during restore. > For core feature work, checked `ROADMAP.md`: this extends the existing Scheduled Routines roadmap item and does not duplicate a separate planned capability. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-5.5 via Codex CLI, with repository tool use and code execution; context-window size was not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b3c0fadd63 |
feat(routines): add date variable controls (#8655)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Scheduled routines can prompt agents with variables that are filled in at dispatch time. > - Existing routine variable handling supported plain text-like values, but date inputs need a structured contract so routines can pass consistent date values. > - Operators also need date variables to be easy to configure and override from the routine UI. > - This pull request adds a date variable type across shared validation, server dispatch, and UI editing/run dialogs. > - The benefit is that routine authors can define date inputs once and agents receive validated ISO-style date values when routines run. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #219 Feature request: - Problem/motivation: Scheduled routines need first-class, typed date variables so operators can configure dates without relying on free-form text conventions. - Proposed solution: Add an `x-date` routine variable type with shared parsing/validation, server dispatch support, and UI date-picker controls in routine variable editors and run dialogs. - Alternatives considered: Continue treating dates as plain text, but that leaves validation and formatting to individual operators and agents. - Roadmap alignment: This is a focused improvement to the completed Scheduled Routines milestone and does not duplicate an active roadmap item. Related PR search: - Searched existing PRs/issues for `routine date picker`, `date variables`, and `scheduled routine date variable`; no direct duplicate PR was found. ## What Changed - Added the shared `x-date` routine variable contract, parsing, defaults, and validation coverage. - Extended routine dispatch to validate and pass date variable values. - Added date input controls to the routine variable editor and routine run variables dialog. - Added focused tests for shared validation, server dispatch, and the UI date controls. ## Verification - `git diff --check public/master...HEAD` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineRunVariablesDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/RoutineVariablesEditor.test.tsx` - 5 test files passed - 68 tests passed ## Risks Low to medium risk. This adds a new routine variable type across shared/server/UI paths, so the main risk is compatibility with existing routine variable payloads. The change keeps existing variable types intact and adds targeted validation tests for the new date behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex coding agent based on GPT-5, with terminal, git, GitHub CLI, and local test execution capabilities. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
d6d7a7cea6 |
Add routine revision history and restore flow (#5285)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Routines are the scheduled/recurring work surface that keeps a company operating without manual kicks. > - Operators need routine edits to be auditable and recoverable, especially when routines control assignments, prompts, triggers, and webhook secrets. > - Documents already have revision-style safety, but routines did not have equivalent history or restore semantics. > - This pull request adds append-only routine revisions across the database, shared contracts, server routes, and board UI. > - The benefit is safer routine iteration: users can inspect history, compare changes, restore older definitions, and avoid overwriting newer edits. ## What Changed - Added `routine_revisions` storage, latest revision pointers on routines, shared types, validators, and API docs for routine revision history. - Added server service/route support for listing routine revisions, conflict-aware routine saves, and append-only restore operations. - Added a History tab on routine detail with revision preview, structured change summaries, description line diffs, dirty-edit blocking, restore confirmation, and restored webhook secret surfacing. - Extracted the line diff helper from `DocumentDiffModal` into `ui/src/lib/line-diff.ts` for reuse. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and renumbered the routine revision migration to `0077_unusual_karnak` after upstream `0076_useful_elektra`. - Made the `0077` routine revision migration idempotent so installs that already applied the branch-local `0076_unusual_karnak` can safely advance. - Updated the plugin SDK test harness routine fixture with the new revision fields required by the shared `Routine` contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/routine.test.ts` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/lib/line-diff.test.ts ui/src/components/RoutineHistoryTab.test.tsx ui/src/lib/workspace-routines.test.ts ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/routines-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk typecheck` passed after updating the SDK test harness fixture. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-sdk build` passed; this refreshed local generated SDK output needed by plugin example typechecks. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds routine revision storage and backfills existing routines. The migration is ordered after upstream `0076` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` / duplicate-object guards to tolerate earlier branch-local migration application. - Restore behavior intentionally appends a new revision instead of mutating history; callers expecting an in-place rollback need to follow the new latest revision pointer. - Restoring webhook triggers recreates webhook secret material, so users must copy newly surfaced secrets after restore. - Conflict-aware saves now reject stale routine edits when the client sends an older `baseRevisionId`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent, with shell/tool use in a local git worktree. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Screenshots: not attached in this draft PR; the new UI flow is covered by component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |