DottaandPaperclip
16689de291
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Tasks need a clear way to resume after a setup failure. > - A shared repository can contain another task that the assigned agent cannot read. > - Paperclip correctly stops before the agent starts, but the user must then understand workspace settings to recover. > - This pull request gives that failure a single Retry button and selects a clean copy of the configured repository through normal admission. > - The task keeps its assigned agent and execution settings, while access checks and existing work remain protected. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16895 classifies the restricted source failure. This change adds the user recovery action. #16906 handles retained files after execution; this change handles a setup failure before execution starts. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Recovery of a task whose shared repository includes a task workspace the assigned agent cannot read. **Current behavior** The task stops before provider work and asks the user to understand workspace choices or access grants. **Proposed behavior** Show Retry above the task message box, independent of loaded conversation history. One click requests one attempt using a clean checkout of the configured remote. Show Retrying while the request is pending. Show an error only if the request fails. **Reason and benefit** The user can resume work without understanding repository isolation or changing access to another task. **Breaking changes** None. The recovery source value is server-owned. The public workspace selection request does not accept it. No migration is required. ## What Changed - Add one Retry control above the composer in both task conversation views. It stays available when an older notice is outside the loaded comment pages. - Bind recovery to the latest failed run, current assignee, and recorded proof that provider work did not start. - Use the existing atomic recovery route and pending workspace selection. Normal admission clears the old session and creates the isolated checkout. - Choose a fresh task-owned branch for recovery, including fixed project branches, existing task branches, and adapter branch overrides. Preserve the model, environment, setup commands, pending user workspace choices, previous files, and all execution gates. - Update execution documentation and both workspace maps. ## Verification - Passed all 461 tests in the eight affected database, Git, HTTP, workspace binding, and conversation suites after the review fixes. An additional 292 tests passed after the final compatibility fixes, including IssueDetail and recovery action routing. - Concurrent HTTP retries produce one wakeup. Paused projects and runs that started provider work reject recovery without changing the workspace. - Real Git tests exclude private files, private commits, and unpublished original files from the clean checkout, preserve the original, and exercise reuse, cleanup, and reopen. - Verified in a running local app: a task failed twice, displayed only Retry, and reached Done after one click. A second browser test put the failure notice behind 501 newer comments and used a fixed project branch. Retry stayed visible and the task reached Done. The credential-free process worker used the selected checkout and wrote its result there. This does not claim a live model-provider run. - The first manual fixture lacked a responsible-user membership and failed after successful workspace recovery. Corrected the fixture, retained that failure evidence, and verified the full flow with ordinary authorization. - Full typecheck, build, token gates, and map checks passed. The full local suite was stopped after review changed its source during execution; current-head CI provides the complete suite result. - An earlier unrelated peer-comment read test hit a socket hangup. The next complete affected-suite run passed; the first failure is retained in local evidence. - Current-head CI hit an unchanged runner credential-concurrency test failure. That lane passed on the preceding commit, and all 42 credential tests passed locally. The original failed job is retained; the one-time rerun passed. All latest-head CI checks are green (55 success, 2 skipped, 1 neutral), and Greptile is 5/5 with both review threads resolved. ## Risks - A remote repository outage can still prevent the next attempt. Retry does not grant access or copy unpublished files from the old checkout. - Recovery accepts only the latest recorded pre-provider failure and preserves normal execution gates. This limits duplicate work and stale recovery requests. - No database migration, dependency, or lockfile change. - The first review found fixed-branch retry loops and dependence on paginated notice history. Both had failing regressions before the fixes and now pass targeted tests and the combined browser journey. - Full CI then caught assumptions about missing run evidence and unrelated recovery actions. The final changes tolerate absent evidence and scope the new lookup to board-owned actions with valid run IDs. The previously failing suites now pass locally. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.