mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
Devin Foley
fcb84d472d
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Chunked company-import transfers are deduplicated by content: a
byte-identical zip that already finished an apply is rejected
> - The rejection said only "this exact package was already imported by
a completed transfer" without saying where that import went
> - Users who could not find the earlier import read the rejection as
data loss and kept retrying, or exported again and created duplicate
companies
> - This pull request makes the declaration response carry the company
the completed apply created, and both clients name it in the error
> - The benefit is that the dedupe rejection now points at the existing
import instead of implying it vanished
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The `alreadyCompleted` rejection when re-declaring a chunked
company-import transfer.
**Subsystem affected**
Shared transfer contract
(`packages/shared/src/company-import-transfer.ts`), transfer declaration
route (`server/src/routes/companies.ts`), web import page, CLI import
command.
**Current behavior**
`POST /api/companies/import/transfers` returns `alreadyCompleted: true`
with no pointer to the earlier import. Web and CLI raise "This exact
package was already imported by a completed transfer. Re-export the
package to import it again."
**Proposed behavior**
The response includes an optional `company` field (`{id, name,
issuePrefix} | null`) resolved from the completed run's company link.
Web and CLI raise a shared message: `… It created the company
"Paperclip" (PAPA) — open it from the company switcher. Re-export the
package to import it again.` A company that was deleted since (or a link
that was never written) degrades to `null` and the original message.
**Breaking changes**
None. The new response field is optional; old clients ignore it.
## What Changed
- `CompanyImportTransferCreated` gains optional `company`, plus a shared
`buildAlreadyImportedMessage` used by both clients.
- The declaration route's `alreadyCompleted` branch resolves the landed
company null-safely via `companyService.getById`.
- Web (`ui/src/pages/CompanyImport.tsx`) and CLI
(`cli/src/commands/client/company.ts`) raise the shared message.
## Verification
- `cd packages/shared && npx vitest run
src/company-import-transfer.test.ts` — 3 tests (named company, id
fallback, no-company original message).
- `cd server && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/company-import-transfer-routes.test.ts` — 24 tests; the
re-declaration test now asserts the company payload and the
deleted-company null path.
- `cd cli && npx vitest run
src/__tests__/company-import-transfer.test.ts` — 17 tests; new test pins
the named-company message.
- `cd ui && npx vitest run src/pages/CompanyImport.test.tsx` — 23 tests.
- `pnpm run typecheck` clean in shared, server, ui, cli.
## Risks
- Low risk. The lookup runs only on the `alreadyCompleted` branch and is
null-safe; the transfer run is already scoped to the requesting actor
(user + instance context in the actor key), so the response never names
a company the caller did not import.
## Model Used
- Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic) with extended thinking
and tool use, via Claude Code.
## 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
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge