mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 19:35:04 +02:00
Devin Foley
521271ebb7
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Instances commonly run from published container images, and operators need to observe which build a container actually serves > - `/api/health` now reports the running build commit, and server-info already falls back to `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_COMMIT` when git is unavailable > - But published images carry no `.git` and never received `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_COMMIT`, so containers report `commit: null` — verified live against a current image > - That leaves the new deployment-verification field inert exactly where it matters most: containerized deploys > - This pull request bakes the exact build commit into both image variants at build time, mirroring how `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_VERSION` is already stamped > - The benefit is that containers report their true commit on `/api/health`, so deploy tooling can verify a rollout actually shipped ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Companion to #10563 (which exposed the `commit` field on `/api/health`). Inline description following the bug report template: **What happened?** A container from a published image responds to `GET /api/health` with `"commit": null`. The image has no `.git` directory and the `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_COMMIT` fallback that `server-info` supports is never provided at build time, so git metadata resolves as unavailable. **Expected behavior** A container reports the commit it was built from, the same way it already reports its build version via the baked `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_VERSION`. **Steps to reproduce** Run any published image (e.g. `ghcr.io/paperclipai/paperclip:sha-c4f6264-cloud`) and `curl /api/health` — `commit` is `null` even though the build commit is known at image-build time. **Paperclip version or commit** `sha-c4f6264-cloud` (first image containing #10563). ## What Changed - `Dockerfile`: new `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_COMMIT` build arg, exported as an ENV in the production stage (the `cloud` stage inherits it), directly parallel to `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_VERSION`. Empty for local `docker build`, which keeps the normal fallbacks. - `.github/workflows/docker.yml`: both build jobs pass `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_COMMIT=${{ github.sha }}`. ## Verification - Reviewed the plumbing end-to-end: `build-commit.ts` reads `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_COMMIT` (validated as a full SHA), `server-info.ts` `readGitInfo` falls back to it when the git CLI fails, producing `available: true, fullSha` — which `/api/health` surfaces as `commit`. - Verified live that a current published image reports `commit: null`; this change repairs that on the next build. Post-merge, the first master image should report its commit — I'll be verifying that as part of managed-deploy validation. - No test changes: the fallback path is already covered by existing server-info tests; this PR only supplies the env at image build. ## Risks - Low. Two build-time stamps; no runtime code changes. A wrong SHA would only mislabel the build (same failure mode `PAPERCLIP_BUILD_VERSION` already carries), and `${{ github.sha }}` is the exact commit the workflow builds. ## Model Used Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, extended thinking, via Claude Code with tool use and code execution); diagnosis included live probes of a running container's `/api/health`. ## 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 (no test-affecting changes; server suites unaffected) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (n/a — build-time stamps only) - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (Dockerfile comments document the arg) - [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