Files
PaperClipAI/ui/src/lib/pipeline-learnings.ts
T
DottaandPaperclip 43b005b704 Add pipeline workflow primitives and operator UI (#7903)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The pipeline subsystem models repeatable work as items moving
through stages, with agent automation, review gates, blockers, drift
notices, and linked work.
> - Operators need this to be usable as one coherent workflow surface,
not just as backend primitives or disconnected route experiments.
> - The branch now carries the pipeline data model, service/routes,
CLI/tutorial path, aggregation feeds, operator UI, stage automation
controls, liveness/retry handling, and follow-up polish that make the
primitive reviewable end to end.
> - This pull request is the single review target for that pipeline
workflow primitive stack.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can evaluate the full operator
experience and server contract together against `master`.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

No public GitHub issue exists for this work. The underlying feature
request is described inline.

### Problem or motivation

Paperclip needs a first-class way to model multi-stage agent/company
workflows where upstream items can spawn downstream work, request
review, carry fields across pipelines, surface drift, retry automation,
and show operators where work is blocked or active. Without a unified
pipeline primitive, these workflows spread across ad hoc issues,
routines, and comments, making the state hard to inspect or operate.

### Proposed solution

Add the pipeline workflow primitive stack: database schema and
migrations, shared validators/types, server services and REST routes,
aggregation and liveness helpers, CLI/tutorial smoke support, and the
React operator UI for pipeline lists, boards, item detail,
review/learnings views, settings, stage automation, secrets, carry-over
fields, and retry/recovery flows.

### Alternatives considered

- Keep workflows as loosely linked issues and routines: rejected because
operators need a single board/detail/settings surface for repeated
workflow patterns.
- Ship backend primitives first and defer UI: rejected for this branch
because the operator experience is the main way to validate the
primitive.
- Add a narrower one-off content workflow: rejected because the same
primitives are useful across future company processes.

## What Changed

- Added and evolved pipeline schema, migrations, shared contracts,
server services, REST routes, route tests, and CLI/tutorial smoke
support.
- Added pipeline aggregation, health/liveness, drift acknowledgment,
blocker/carry-over, automation retry, stage automation environment, and
permission recovery behavior.
- Added the operator UI for pipeline index/board/item
detail/settings/review/learnings flows, including stage secrets,
automation controls, markdown/item descriptions, linked issue assets,
liveness banners, and source automation metadata.
- Refactored issue document frame rendering through the shared
`DocumentFrameHeader` component to keep document controls consistent
with the pipeline document surfaces.
- Kept this PR as the single base-branch review target for the current
pipeline branch.

## Verification

Current branch refresh:

- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-service.test.ts` — 31
passed
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/pipelines-routes.test.ts` — 19
passed
- `pnpm --filter ./server typecheck` — passed
- `pnpm --filter ./ui typecheck` — passed
- Verified Pipelines remains gated by `enablePipelines === true`:
sidebar item is hidden unless the flag is enabled, direct pipeline
routes redirect to `/dashboard` when disabled, and the Experimental
settings UI still has no Pipelines toggle.
- GitHub status checks on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
all complete with no failing conclusions, including Actions, Socket,
Superagent/Security, and Greptile Review
- Greptile summary on `df071c710646de625131064c3fb6588b5e97964a` —
Confidence Score 5/5
- GitHub review-thread sweep — 0 unresolved Greptile threads

Previously recorded during branch development:

- Server pipeline service/route and aggregation tests
- Shared validator tests
- UI pipeline page/settings/item-detail/learnings/liveness tests
- Pipeline tutorial smoke path

## Risks

- High review surface: this is a large feature branch spanning database,
shared contracts, server behavior, CLI/docs, and UI.
- Migration ordering and schema compatibility need reviewer attention
because this branch has been kept current across multiple `master`
syncs.
- GitHub still reports merge state `BLOCKED` because the PR is awaiting
normal human review/branch-protection completion; all current status
checks are green.
- Branch-name checklist exception: this PR uses the pre-existing
requested branch name, which predates the current public-branch naming
rule. The PR title/body avoid internal issue references.

> 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 coding agent based on GPT-5, with repository tool use,
shell execution, git/GitHub CLI operations, and local verification
commands. Earlier commits in this branch were assisted by Paperclip
agents and other AI coding agents as recorded in commit authorship.

## 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)
- [ ] 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
- [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

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-06-26 12:02:44 -05:00

125 lines
4.2 KiB
TypeScript

import type { PipelineCompanyCaseEvent } from "../api/pipelines";
import { formatShortDate } from "./utils";
export type LearningEventPresentation = {
sentence: string;
kind: "review" | "forced_move" | "unknown";
};
function asRecord(value: unknown): Record<string, unknown> {
return typeof value === "object" && value !== null && !Array.isArray(value)
? (value as Record<string, unknown>)
: {};
}
function asString(value: unknown): string | null {
return typeof value === "string" && value.trim().length > 0 ? value.trim() : null;
}
function eventItemTitle(event: PipelineCompanyCaseEvent): string {
const payload = asRecord(event.payload);
return (
asString(event.case?.title) ??
asString(payload.itemTitle) ??
asString(payload.caseTitle) ??
asString(payload.title) ??
"Untitled item"
);
}
function eventActorName(event: PipelineCompanyCaseEvent): string {
const payload = asRecord(event.payload);
return (
asString(event.actorAgent?.name) ??
asString(payload.actorName) ??
asString(payload.reviewerName) ??
asString(payload.decidedByName) ??
"Someone"
);
}
function payloadText(event: PipelineCompanyCaseEvent, ...keys: string[]): string | null {
const payload = asRecord(event.payload);
for (const key of keys) {
const value = asString(payload[key]);
if (value) return value;
}
return null;
}
function reviewVerb(decision: string | null): string {
if (decision === "request_changes") return "sent back";
if (decision === "reject" || decision === "drop") return "declined";
return "approved";
}
export function formatLearningEvent(event: PipelineCompanyCaseEvent): LearningEventPresentation {
const payload = asRecord(event.payload);
const title = eventItemTitle(event);
if (event.type === "review_decided") {
const actor = eventActorName(event);
const decision = asString(payload.decision);
const toStageName =
asString(event.toStage?.name) ?? payloadText(event, "toStageName", "stageName", "targetStageName");
const stageCopy = toStageName ? ` moving to ${toStageName}` : "";
const note = payloadText(event, "reason", "note");
const noteCopy = note ? ` - note: ${note}` : "";
return {
kind: "review",
sentence: `${actor} ${reviewVerb(decision)} '${title}'${stageCopy}${noteCopy}.`,
};
}
if (event.type === "transition_forced") {
const fromStageName = asString(event.fromStage?.name) ?? payloadText(event, "fromStageName");
const toStageName =
asString(event.toStage?.name) ?? payloadText(event, "toStageName", "stageName", "targetStageName");
const fromCopy = fromStageName ? ` from ${fromStageName}` : "";
const toCopy = toStageName ? ` to ${toStageName}` : "";
const reason = payloadText(event, "reason", "note");
const reasonCopy = reason ? ` - reason: ${reason}` : "";
return {
kind: "forced_move",
sentence: `'${title}' was moved by hand${fromCopy}${toCopy}${reasonCopy}.`,
};
}
return {
kind: "unknown",
sentence: `'${title}' changed.`,
};
}
export function learningDayKey(value: string | Date) {
const date = new Date(value);
if (Number.isNaN(date.getTime())) return "Unknown";
return date.toISOString().slice(0, 10);
}
export function learningDayLabel(value: string | Date) {
const date = new Date(value);
if (Number.isNaN(date.getTime())) return "Unknown";
const today = new Date();
const startOfToday = new Date(today.getFullYear(), today.getMonth(), today.getDate()).getTime();
const startOfDay = new Date(date.getFullYear(), date.getMonth(), date.getDate()).getTime();
const diffDays = Math.round((startOfToday - startOfDay) / 86_400_000);
if (diffDays === 0) return "Today";
if (diffDays === 1) return "Yesterday";
return formatShortDate(date);
}
export function groupLearningEventsByDay<T extends { createdAt: string | Date }>(events: T[]) {
const groups: Array<{ key: string; label: string; events: T[] }> = [];
for (const event of events) {
const key = learningDayKey(event.createdAt);
const existing = groups.find((group) => group.key === key);
if (existing) {
existing.events.push(event);
continue;
}
groups.push({ key, label: learningDayLabel(event.createdAt), events: [event] });
}
return groups;
}