mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 10:13:11 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
4173059081
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Mine shows a person's participation and requests that need their response. > - Automatic GitHub reviews should remain quiet until the assigned work needs human input. > - Review bots used completion requests to keep tasks in review while CI or a PR was still open. > - Those requests correctly entered Mine, despite the automatic-work filter from #16356. > - This pull request gives published reviews an existing provider-event wait in the in-review state and withdraws superseded completion requests. > - Real input requests and separate approval gates keep their current behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16356 Refs #13314 An advisory score below 5/5, pending or failed CI, or an unmerged PR does not by itself require a person's approval in Paperclip. The bot can track those conditions without adding a completion card to Mine. ## What Changed - Explain the quiet review lifecycle in the GitHub review instructions. Use a yielded provider-event wait, or an existing saved monitor, after publication. Report done when the configured completion conditions are met. - Keep a confirmed, published review in `in_review` during that wait. Reuse existing authorization and monitor delivery. Add no schema, timer, or polling loop. - Recognize the committed external wait in review attention and recovery. Shared execution receives a verified publication flag; GitHub receipt lookup stays with the GitHub module. Other chat waits keep their current status. - Withdraw an older system-created completion request only when the same bot has published both reviews and its new report has no attention request. Keep explicit cards, separate approval gates, and requests without the prior review evidence. Finish validation stays read-only; withdrawal commits atomically with the new status after checking current governance, the admitted result, and both low-risk contracts. - Update the product rule, capability maps, and regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit `7c502118eec36028d1b4537bb8797ef893940bf0`: 54 GitHub checks passed, two intentionally skipped, none pending or failed. Greptile is 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Rechecked server typecheck and build after the final authorization guard. - Passed: 195 tests across `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `status-arbiter.test.ts`, `review-instructions.test.ts`, and `issue-liveness.test.ts`. The database suite used an isolated PostgreSQL 18 container through `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL`. - Acceptance coverage: 3/5 stays in review outside Mine; 5/5 with pending completion conditions stays in review; 5/5 with satisfied conditions finishes quietly; a real repository-access request enters Mine until resolved. Also covers obsolete-card withdrawal, transaction rollback, rejected reports, separate approval gates, multiple reviewed heads, saved monitors, and revoked endpoints, repositories, or membership. - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check`. - The initial acceptance run exposed a missing authenticated user in the test fixture. Added the user required by the existing addressee authorization check. All 154 tests in that database suite then passed, including the final rerun. - Review found premature withdrawal during validation, stale repository access, and a missed receipt when a run reviewed multiple heads. The revision fixes all three and includes acceptance regressions. The saved-monitor commit guard now accepts the verified published-review state. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted but could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL failed to allocate semaphores (`semget: No space left on device`); a direct initialization probe confirmed the host resource limit. The isolated database run proves the affected suite, not the full repository suite. - These tests exercise persisted review receipts, finalization, and Mine queries. They do not prove a live model followed the new instructions or submit a live GitHub review. ## Risks - The bot must follow the new lifecycle instructions. A real explicit attention request still enters Mine. - Existing obsolete cards are withdrawn when the same bot publishes a later review and reports no human dependency. This change does not run a bulk cleanup of historical inbox entries. - Review attention now recognizes an external response path. It requires an applied current status decision, a successful bound run, and current conversation, repository, and principal authorization. - No migration or UI change. The full local test suite is unverified because of the host database limit; CI passes on the final commit. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size 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 (195 focused tests; full-suite limitation above) - [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>