DottaandPaperclip
5c7a025032
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Task conversations keep follow-up messages pending while an agent works. > - The screen combines optimistic sends, queue snapshots, and run input records. > - A late send response can restore a local queue flag after a run takes the message. > - A stale queue snapshot can then keep the same message in pending. > - This pull request matches the input record to its source queue and clears stale pending flags. > - The benefit is that consumed messages leave pending while unsent messages stay visible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A follow-up can remain in the task composer's pending row after a run takes it as input. Local queue state can outlive the send request. The old projection cleared that state for steering, but not for ordinary run-start input. A stale queue read can also retain the consumed entry. **Expected behavior** A message that a started run takes as input appears once in history and leaves pending. Other pending messages remain available. A message assigned to a run that has not started remains pending. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Send a follow-up while a task has a live run. 2. Let a started run record that message as input before or after the send response arrives. 3. Let a queue read still include the consumed message. 4. Observe the message remain pending on the base revision. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against master at `33d24e48ad` with controlled request ordering. **Deployment mode** Source checkout. Browser verification used the production task screen with a simulated native runner and delayed API responses. It did not run a live model or change a deployed instance. Related: [PR #15030](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/15030) addresses acknowledgement matching in the runner console. This change addresses the task-detail composer and does not modify that console. ## What Changed - Clear local pending flags when a started run records the comment as input. - Use live-run input IDs while the run-history query catches up. - Match stale queue entries by their primary or coalesced source wake ID, even when the snapshot targets the previous run or has no target. - Retain coalesced source queue IDs in run context and include receipt IDs in compact task run reads. - Keep unstarted run inputs and authoritative retries pending. Cover send ordering, same-run and successor delivery, queued snapshots, coalesced inputs, and retry consumption. - Add the delivery-race checks to the steering feature map. ## Verification - Before the fix, the first four request-order regressions failed with the consumed message still in pending. Coverage now includes 16 combinations of receipt source, send-response order, and stale snapshot kind. - Focused UI checks: 5 files and 233 tests passed. These cover task detail, queue projection, optimistic comments, queued-message controls, and the task-chat adapter. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Server receipt checks: 5 files and 139 tests passed with `PAPERCLIP_TEST_POSTGRES_TEMPLATE=0`. These exercise real database reads, coalesced heartbeat input, and polling routes. The default cached-template path timed out during setup on this host; the fresh-cluster path passed without longer timeouts. - Token gates and `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. - Browser: sent a follow-up with a delayed response in the production task screen. The consumed message moved into history. A second unsent follow-up stayed queued. Reload preserved both states. The API and runner were simulated. - `pnpm build` passed. - The full local repository test run was started, then stopped to isolate database setup timeouts. All 55 GitHub CI checks passed on `4ec6820cf1f89880b801fd5f938d72f54591c5e2`, including the full test matrix. One serialized server shard passed on its single rerun after a 15-second route-test timeout; the same 97-test route suite also passed locally. - Greptile reviewed the final head at 5/5. All review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Queue display depends on matching comment IDs, source queue IDs, and a recorded start time. Rows without start evidence stay pending. Newer queues remain visible until their own input receipt arrives. - Run context gains additive receipt metadata. No schema migration is required. Dispatch order, stored queue state, company access, and steering authority stay unchanged. - Browser evidence covers controlled response ordering. It does not establish deployment or live-provider behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact serving model ID and context-window limit are not exposed in this session. ## 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 #` 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>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.