mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-03 17:51:58 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
0c48f5e727
## Thinking Path > - Completion guidance can link a saved task document even when the user requested only a file. > - The validator loads document publication proof when the objective requests a document or the completion report cites one. > - The success tests added in #18661 all requested both a document and a CSV. > - Those tests therefore could not detect loss of the cited-document branch. > - This test requests only a CSV and resubmits the actual guidance link with a registered file receipt. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Addresses the [coverage warning on #18661](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/18661#discussion_r4447457009). **What happened?** The earlier success cases exercised the document-requested condition. The independently cited-document condition lacked regression coverage. **Expected behavior:** A file-only objective can cite a verified saved-document guidance link alongside the required registered file. **Steps to reproduce:** Publish a task document, register a CSV, request only the CSV, obtain the saved-document href from completion guidance, and submit both pieces of evidence. Removing only the cited-document lookup must make this case fail. **Paperclip version or commit:** Current master after #18661. **Deployment mode:** Local source tests with real PostgreSQL and native publication receipts; the remote CSV reader is controlled. No deployment is part of this follow-up. ## What Changed - Allow the existing registered-file test helper to accept a file-only objective. - Add one success case using real document publication, file registration, and the server-generated guidance href. - Keep production source and the existing negative cases unchanged. ## Verification - All 27 native completion feedback tests pass on current production code. - The new case fails when only `|| citesTaskDocument` is temporarily removed from publication lookup. The production file is restored exactly afterward. This demonstrates a coverage gap; it does not establish a new production defect. - Server typecheck and `git diff --check` pass. - Full repository CI passed, including both required E2E and verify aggregate gates. Greptile scored the current head 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The separate optional Paperclip review is queued and has supplied no finding. The preceding production PR records its separate local full-suite timeout and isolated passing retry; this follow-up uses the focused local suite and full CI rather than repeating that long local run. ## Risks Low risk: only the existing test file and its fixture helper change. The new case depends on real document/file publication contracts, including the CSV receipt requirement. ## Model Used OpenAI `gpt-6.1-sol` through Codex, with reasoning, code editing, shell execution, and automated tests. The context-window size is not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>