Files
PaperClipAI/ui/src/components/AppsExperimentalGate.test.tsx
T
DottaandPaperclip f712cedbc2 feat(mcp) [split 7/8]: activate Apps and gateway UI (#9562)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - Governed MCP access spans contracts, runtime enforcement, adapters,
UI surfaces, and operator verification
> - The parity reference PR #9534 is too large for effective automated
or human review
> - The feature therefore needs a linear stack whose individual diffs
stay below the 100-file review limit
> - This pull request is split 7/8 and focuses on Apps/Gateways UI and
feature-flagged activation
> - The benefit is a standalone, testable review boundary while
preserving byte-for-byte parity at the top of the stack

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

- Related parity reference: #9534
- Problem: The standalone UI foundation needs feature-flagged routes,
navigation, app detail flows, gateways, Storybook scenarios, and QA
configuration.
- Proposed solution: Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components,
navigation/route activation, remaining page integrations, Storybook
stories, and QA Vite configuration.
- Alternatives considered: keeping #9534 as one 403-file review, or
rewriting the feature to manufacture seams; both were rejected in favor
of path extraction plus compile-driven boundary moves.
- Roadmap alignment: this advances the existing governed MCP/tool-access
work already represented by #9534; it does not introduce a separate
roadmap initiative.
- Stack position: base branch is
`pap10341-split/06-ui-tools-foundation`.
- Merge policy: merge bottom-up, in order, only after the complete
eight-PR stack has been reviewed and the top-of-stack parity gate
remains empty.
- Requested review: UXDesigner sanity pass on Apps/Gateways flows and
flag-off behavior; Greptile on every PR.

## What Changed

- Adds Apps/Gateways pages and components, navigation/route activation,
remaining page integrations, Storybook stories, and QA Vite
configuration.
- Keeps this PR below 100 changed files and independently typecheckable.
- Preserves the final tree from #9534 when combined with the other seven
stack levels.

## Verification

- `pnpm typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — all gates clean
- Focused UI Vitest run with `NODE_ENV=test` — 17 files, 147 tests
passed

## Risks

- Navigation or flag regressions could expose incomplete experiences;
activation remains controlled by existing experimental settings.
- Stack risk: merging out of order can expose incomplete layers;
mitigate by following the documented bottom-up merge policy.
- Parity risk: later edits to an intermediate branch can drift from
#9534; mitigate by re-running the empty top-of-stack diff before merge.

> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex, exact model ID `gpt-5.4`; runtime-managed context
window; medium reasoning with repository, shell, Git, GitHub CLI, and
code-execution tools enabled.

## 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] Internal references are omitted except the execution-plan link
explicitly required for this coordinated split stack
- [x] My branch name describes the change 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


## Stack Coordination

- Internal execution plan:
[PAP-13874](/PAP/issues/PAP-13874#document-plan)
- Parity reference: #9534
- Stack: #9556 → #9557 → #9558 → #9559 → #9560 → #9561 → #9562 → #9563
- Merge bottom-up only after full-stack review and an empty parity diff
at #9563.


## UI Evidence

QA captured these from the live Garden MCP split stack at 1440px and
verified clean rendering:

![Apps
connections](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/42512d030c96f678c379fbd97d8b7c1737d654fc/doc/screenshots/garden-mcp-split-stack/apps-list.png)

![Gateway
detail](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/42512d030c96f678c379fbd97d8b7c1737d654fc/doc/screenshots/garden-mcp-split-stack/gateway-detail.png)

![BYO connect
wizard](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/42512d030c96f678c379fbd97d8b7c1737d654fc/doc/screenshots/garden-mcp-split-stack/byo-connect.png)

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-07-14 15:40:08 -05:00

85 lines
2.7 KiB
TypeScript

// @vitest-environment jsdom
import { flushSync } from "react-dom";
import { createRoot, type Root } from "react-dom/client";
import { QueryClient, QueryClientProvider } from "@tanstack/react-query";
import { afterEach, beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
import { AppsExperimentalGate } from "./AppsExperimentalGate";
const mockInstanceSettingsApi = vi.hoisted(() => ({
getExperimental: vi.fn(),
}));
vi.mock("@/api/instanceSettings", () => ({
instanceSettingsApi: mockInstanceSettingsApi,
}));
vi.mock("@/lib/router", () => ({
Navigate: ({ to, replace }: { to: string; replace?: boolean }) => (
<div data-testid="navigate" data-to={to} data-replace={String(replace)} />
),
Outlet: () => <div data-testid="apps-content">Apps content</div>,
}));
async function flushReact() {
for (let index = 0; index < 5; index += 1) {
await Promise.resolve();
await new Promise((resolve) => window.setTimeout(resolve, 0));
}
flushSync(() => {});
}
describe("AppsExperimentalGate", () => {
let container: HTMLDivElement;
let root: Root | null = null;
async function renderGate() {
root = createRoot(container);
const queryClient = new QueryClient({ defaultOptions: { queries: { retry: false } } });
flushSync(() => {
root!.render(
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
<AppsExperimentalGate />
</QueryClientProvider>,
);
});
await flushReact();
}
beforeEach(() => {
container = document.createElement("div");
document.body.appendChild(container);
});
afterEach(() => {
flushSync(() => root?.unmount());
root = null;
container.remove();
vi.clearAllMocks();
});
it("redirects to the dashboard when apps are disabled", async () => {
mockInstanceSettingsApi.getExperimental.mockResolvedValue({ enableApps: false });
await renderGate();
expect(container.querySelector('[data-testid="navigate"]')?.getAttribute("data-to")).toBe("/dashboard");
expect(container.querySelector('[data-testid="apps-content"]')).toBeNull();
});
it("renders apps routes when apps are enabled", async () => {
mockInstanceSettingsApi.getExperimental.mockResolvedValue({ enableApps: true });
await renderGate();
expect(container.querySelector('[data-testid="apps-content"]')).not.toBeNull();
expect(container.querySelector('[data-testid="navigate"]')).toBeNull();
});
it("renders nothing while the flag is loading", async () => {
mockInstanceSettingsApi.getExperimental.mockImplementation(() => new Promise(() => {}));
await renderGate();
expect(container.querySelector('[data-testid="navigate"]')).toBeNull();
expect(container.querySelector('[data-testid="apps-content"]')).toBeNull();
});
});