mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-23 17:33:51 +02:00
scotttongandClaude Opus 5
34355e5109
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - An agent that needs a decision asks in the task composer, which renders a question set one question per page > - Single-choice questions use radio options, and the composer also ships a "Next" button and pagination arrows > - Selecting a radio option also set a pending advance, waited for a short confirm animation, and turned the page on its own > - That takes the page away from the reader while they are still reading it, and a misclick costs them the question > - Nothing on the option says that clicking it will navigate > - This pull request makes selection answer the question and nothing else > - The benefit is that moving between questions is always something the reader chose to do ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** In the task composer, selecting an option with a radio button jumps to the next question. `QuestionForm.toggleOption()` set `pendingAdvance` for any single-select question that was not on the last page, and an effect then read `--motion-question-confirm`, waited that long, and called `setPage(page + 1)`. With reduced motion it advanced immediately, with no pause at all. The result is that a click meant to answer a question also navigates away from it. There is no way to read the rest of the page after choosing, and no way to undo the jump other than pressing the back arrow. **Expected behavior** Selecting an option records the answer and stays on the question. Moving to the next question stays an explicit act. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Get an agent to ask a question set with two or more single-choice questions. 2. Open the question in the task composer. 3. Click one of the radio options. 4. Before this change the composer moves to the next question on its own. **Paperclip version or commit** `45586170e` on `master`. **Deployment mode** Local. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core bug). **Additional context** Every route forward already shipped beside the options, so removing the shortcut traps no one: - a footer button that reads "Next" on any page but the last, and the submit label on the last; - previous and next pagination arrows; - "Skip" on questions that are not required. The same question sets render outside the composer in `IssueThreadInteractionCard`, which never had the auto-advance. This change brings the two surfaces to the same behavior. ## What Changed - `QuestionForm` no longer sets a pending advance when a single-choice option is selected. The effect that turned the page is removed with it. - Selecting an option still clears a submit error about a missing answer, which is the case that error is about. - The confirm-before-advance animation existed only to soften the jump. Its `--motion-question-confirm` token, its keyframes, its class, and the now-unused `confirming` prop on the option button are removed. - Tests that asserted the jump now assert the opposite: selection leaves the page number unchanged, "Next" advances, and number-key selection stays on the same question. ## Verification - `npx vitest run ui/src/components/task-chat` — the composer, interaction card, protocol card, and motion token suites pass. - `npx vitest run ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx` — 87 tests pass, including four new tests for the stationary behavior. - `npx tsc -b ui` — clean. - Keyboard: options keep `role="radio"` inside a `radiogroup`, and a test asserts that number-key selection selects without navigating. ## Risks Low. One deliberate behavior is removed. It costs a reader one extra click per question on multi-question sets, and the explicit control for that click already existed and is already tested. ## Model Used Claude Opus 5 (`claude-opus-5`), 1M context, extended thinking, with tool use and code execution. ## 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 - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@paperclipai/ui
Published static assets for the Paperclip board UI.
What gets published
The npm package contains the production build under dist/. It does not ship the UI source tree or workspace-only dependencies.
Storybook
Storybook config, stories, and fixtures live under ui/storybook/.
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui storybook
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook
Typical use
Install the package, then serve or copy the built files from node_modules/@paperclipai/ui/dist.