mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 16:02:36 +01:00
DottaandClaude Opus 5.5
38068de553
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Runner E2E cases run from Allure TestOps plans through
`runner-full-stack-e2e.yml`
> - #19549 added the "Reliability — staging soak" plan. Its selection
fails closed until real TestOps identities are committed
> - Registration run
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42289820474 on
master (02214b1a3c) completed. It created plan 135 with cases 885–891
and assigned the plan to the standing GitHub job 166
> - This pull request commits those identities into
`reliability-testops.mjs`
> - The benefit is that a TestOps launch of plan 135 now selects the
seven reliability cells
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
Refs #19549
Refs #19601
**What happened?**
The Reliability TestOps plan exists in TestOps, but the repository still
had an empty `reliabilityRegistration`. A launch therefore failed closed
with `product_regression_testops_reliability_unregistered`.
**Expected behavior**
A launch of plan 135 maps each TestOps case ID to its runner E2E cell
and runs it.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Launch plan 135 from TestOps before this change.
2. The selection fails with `reliability_unregistered`.
## What Changed
- `tests/runner-e2e/reliability-testops.mjs`: set
`reliabilityRegistration` to plan 135 and the seven case IDs from the
registration receipt.
## Verification
- `node --test tests/runner-e2e/reliability-testops.test.mjs
tests/runner-e2e/product-regression-testops.test.mjs`: 28/28 pass.
- `registeredReliabilityCases()` with plan-2 IDs reserved resolves all
seven cells: 885 interrupt-redirect, 886 reassign-midrun, 887
three-turn-revise, 888 long-silent-command, 889 tree-pause-release, 890
queue-steer (Codex), 891 queued-across-restart.
- The registration receipt from run 42289820474 reports `complete: true`
with assignment and parameters created.
## Risks
- Low risk. The change only adds identities. A launch of plan 135 runs
seven paid cells under the existing admission and budget caps. Nothing
runs per PR or on a schedule.
## Model Used
- Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) in Claude Code with tool use
(shell, GitHub CLI), standard context.
## 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
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>