mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
556b249897
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents save Markdown documents through native tools and REST routes. > - The native write_document handler trims the supplied body. > - This removes final newlines and can change Markdown whitespace. > - This pull request preserves the original body after required-content validation. > - Agents can now write and read the same Markdown string across these paths. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The native write_document tool removes leading and trailing whitespace. A body with one final newline loses that newline on read-back. The REST document PUT and write_task_document preserve it. **Expected behavior** The native write_document tool must preserve the supplied Markdown body exactly. Required-content checks and key and title normalization must stay in place. REST-backed paths retain surrounding whitespace and keep their existing escaped-line-break conversion for single-line payloads. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Write a disposable document through write_document with a final newline. 2. Read the document and compare the full body with the supplied string. 3. Repeat through write_task_document and REST. These paths preserve the string. Related work: Refs #18824. That change aligns document keys. This change preserves body strings. A search of open and closed PRs found no duplicate fix. ## What Changed - Use a separate untrimmed required-string helper for the document body. Keep the existing requiredString callback signature and all other field normalization. - Add real tool-handler, database, and authenticated HTTP tests for create, update, read-back, and replay. Cover leading spaces, hard breaks, blank lines, final newlines, no final newline, Unicode, and mixed line endings. - Keep blank and invalid bodies rejected. Document whitespace preservation and the existing REST escaped-line-break exception. - Fix the Runner support archive-scanner shutdown defect exposed by CI: rejected ZIP scanners now receive SIGKILL so an ignored SIGTERM cannot leave publication waiting for process closure. Keep all secret and archive limits unchanged. A real child-process regression fails before the change and passes afterward. - Address all three initial review findings: callback type compatibility, contribution comment policy, and the REST documentation limit. ## Verification Final tested head: `c9ff8cf3f83aa19e5d8313c65816a3a2e6562368`. - All applicable [CI checks](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/43019885807) passed. This includes typecheck, build, Runner support, Rust, native Runner, general tests, serialized suites, all eight E2E shards, and the required aggregate gates. - [Greptile review](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/runs/130520170309) passed on this head with confidence 5/5. All three review threads are resolved. The independent Paperclip review also reports 5/5 with no findings. - Red at `7368a0b15c2f02107778a961144d86e2eb59a952`: `pnpm --dir server exec vitest run src/services/native-runtime/task-document-body.integration.test.ts` failed because write_document removed the final newline. Cross-task and REST cases passed. - Green on the final source: 176 tests passed across the document body, document key, native tool authority, task scope, document service, and document route suites. The tests cover create, update, exact read-back, replay, blank rejection, revision guards, and company scope. - The ZIP shutdown regression failed before repair with “scanner did not stop”. After repair, 54 tests passed across zip-inspection-shutdown, private-reporter-artifacts, manual-private-cell-report-assets, and private-evidence-budget. The regression uses a real process that ignores SIGTERM. - Earlier CI runs had two archive-related timeouts. The source repair above replaces blind reruns. The Runner support suite and aggregate verify gate now pass. - A disposable live native document reproduced the original whitespace loss. REST preserved the same string. The fixed handler passed local integration tests. The running service has not been deployed. - Local environment: Linux x64, Node 25.9.0, Vitest 5.0.3, and embedded PostgreSQL. Local Rust preparation was unavailable because cargo is absent. Final-head CI passed Rust verification. `pnpm verify --explain` requested broad CI because evidence.ts is a global input. Required CI supplied that coverage. ## Risks Low risk. The change retains required-content validation. The product change affects document body whitespace handling. The CI repair forcefully stops only already-rejected archive scanners; it retains fail-closed publication and all existing scan limits. It does not change schema, authorization, revision guards, receipts, or persistence. ## Model Used CI repair continuation: GPT-6.1, using repository tools and code execution. OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 (the exact serving model ID and context window were not exposed in this session). Used reasoning, repository tools, 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 - [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>