DottaandPaperclip
433d94ee0b
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context window were not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
4.1 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Developer previews and diagnostic labs
Contributors can inspect design examples, interaction labs, and performance fixtures. These are development surfaces and do not count as production feature verification.
Implementation: route registration, design guide, long-thread fixture.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
design: inspect shared components and layout examples in the design guide or Storybook.interaction-labs: exercise synthetic bootstrap, task-chat, denial, and collaboration states.performance: measure the provided long-thread fixture with known data and environment.route-gates: distinguish dev-only, experimental, historical, and fallback surfaces.
How to get to it (user POV)
preview-lab
Use /design-guide, registered /ux-lab/... routes, or Storybook; consult ui/src/App.tsx for the current gated set.
performance-fixture
Open /tests/perf/long-thread only in an appropriate development environment.
Driving it with Playwright
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a development/test environment. Confirm the route is registered for the current build before claiming the page is available.
preview-lab
Automated: onboarding variant is an example component contract. There is no claim of full automated acceptance coverage for every lab page.
Manual: Open the specific fixture state, inspect controls and layout, then repeat the affected interaction in the actual product host. Report fixture results separately from persisted task/company results.
performance-fixture
Automated: task thread component does not establish a performance budget. Timing/scroll measurements need a dedicated browser run.
Manual: Record browser/build/data size, exercise scrolling and rendering in the long-thread fixture, and retain timing or trace evidence. Its composer is disabled; test composing separately in a real task. Confirm representative real-task behavior before extrapolating fixture measurements.
Gotchas
- An unmounted or obsolete lab file remains in the conservative page inventory but is not a shipped entry point.
- Intended developer use is not a universal runtime gate: Design Guide and global lab/performance routes are also registered in production builds.
- Screenshots of a lab do not prove live provider behavior, persistence, or authorization.
Storybook verification
performance
Scope: browser Storybook: A screenshot/story is optional context, not the required performance evidence. Production: Use existing browser performance harnesses. Record build/browser/data size, timing/trace and scrolling. Long-thread fixture has a disabled composer; task-chat HTML harness uses a plain textarea and simulated updates. Sources: Source: IssueChatLongThreadPerf.tsx, README.md, README.md. Tests: scrollback.spec.ts, issue-detail.perf.spec.ts
route-gates
Scope: browser Storybook: No isolated story required to prove actual route registration, redirects or gates; isolated gated-control examples remain useful. Production: Drive real routes under their actual development, experimental, production and fallback settings. Do not assume every lab is dev-only: global long-thread/lab/design routes also exist in production registration. Sources: Source: App.tsx. Tests: No dedicated test asserted; use the feature recipe.
Documentation scope: Developer labs and fallback pages
Developer and fallback surfaces are identified. Each synthetic fixture and performance budget is not a production journey and needs its own measurement.