DottaandPaperclip
3b8324a233
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub connections send review requests to an assigned agent. > - A PR needs one main comment that shows its current review state. > - The response ledger used one comment per incoming request. Pushes and follow-up messages created more placeholders. > - Thread subscriptions also accepted requests addressed to external bots. Recovery could leave an acknowledged request without a final notice. > - This pull request shares the main PR comment, filters other recipients, and reconciles stopped work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related: #16874 showed the repeated placeholders. #15416 introduced the per-request response path. The prior summary path used one PR-level marker. **What happened?** Repeated pushes created new main PR comments. A subscribed `@greptile review` message also woke the Paperclip bot. If execution stopped before staging a milestone, its comment could keep claiming that work was active. **Expected behavior** One bot keeps one main comment per PR. Progress and review results update it. A message addressed to another recipient does not wake the bot unless it also explicitly mentions this bot. Stopped work gets an accurate notice. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept two review requests in one PR conversation. 2. Add `@greptile review` to that subscribed conversation. 3. Fail the assigned run before it stages a milestone. Run channel maintenance. ## What Changed - Add a durable main PR response target. Keep per-request receipts and the existing publication lease. - Recover the target from App-owned provider markers. Adopt older placeholders and point verified duplicates to the current review. - Use a queued notice before a PR run starts. Preserve version ordering and final responses. - Filter leading mentions addressed to another recipient. Explicit mentions of this bot take precedence. Incidental mentions keep normal thread behavior. - Reconcile acknowledged requests after terminal execution. Show paused state for saved requests on a blocked task. Preserve newer work and confirmed or uncertain tool delivery. - Keep a request open when its stale acknowledgement is suppressed. Close placeholders after replies published elsewhere. Retire old coalesced placeholders before replacing their receipts. Resolve native request identity when legacy wake fields are absent. - Update guidance, connection documentation, and feature/access maps. ## Verification - Red: all three behavioral regressions failed on the original code. A second review created a second comment; an external-bot request was processed; stopped execution retained its working placeholder. - Green: the same three cases passed after the fixes. - Review regressions also failed before their repairs: a delayed acknowledgement closed a new request; normal and stored formal-review receipts left a live placeholder; coalesced completion lost a duplicate receipt; native terminal work without legacy wake fields stayed queued. All 13 combined regression and safety cases passed after repair. - The same legacy receipt-loss bug was also reproduced in the superseded-acknowledgement branch. Its four affected cases passed after adding retirement before that receipt replacement. - A further review regression reproduced paused requests rejecting resumed progress and skipping stopped-run cleanup. Four cases failed before repair; all eight resume and neighboring safety cases passed afterward. Both paused-notice branches keep the request open. - Repeated paused maintenance reproduced two needless GitHub edits. The writer now skips an identical complete comment body. Nine affected cases passed, covering repeated maintenance, resumption, stopped work, final assessment preservation, and main-comment reuse. - Safety cases cover lost receipts, legacy adoption, newer progress, published assessments, provider-verified mention aliases, and old replies that must not complete new requests. - `pnpm -r typecheck`, `pnpm build`, map validation, and module boundaries passed. The server TypeScript check passed after the final repair. The broader local GitHub workflow and policy run passed 188 tests. Full CI passed on the final commit (`554979d79285b68bcbf90cd639e3d2d053f4ea4b`), including all three chat shards, server/workspace/Runner suites, typecheck, build, and E2E gates. Greptile is 5/5 with no open review findings. One serialized job received a runner shutdown signal mid-test; its single retry passed. - Preserved failure evidence: the first CI run exposed an overbroad recipient filter and an old queued-text assertion. The next commit passed all three CI chat shards. Greptile then found the receipt transitions covered by the new regressions above. Local full-suite runs were stopped when those defects required source changes; no clean full local pass is claimed. - Tests use real PostgreSQL and controlled provider responses. They do not establish a live GitHub App rollout. The original instance needs the fixed server before its comments change. ## Risks - Leading mentions now select a recipient even when that account has no Paperclip connection. A leading human mention also selects that person. Mid-message incidental mentions retain normal subscription behavior. - Existing comment adoption edits only comments proven by this endpoint's request ledger or prior summary marker and App identity. Deleted and replaced comments remain protected. - Failure cleanup uses current authority and does not replace newer progress or unresolved provider writes. It does not restart failed execution. - No schema migration is required. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. The exact serving model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. The model used reasoning, tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## 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>
12 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
External chat and email
People can talk to an assigned agent through configured external channels, bind their identity, exchange files, and inspect delivery state. Each provider has a different identity, threading, and attachment contract.
Implementation: endpoint setup, endpoint detail, email setup.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
providers: configure the available Slack, Discord, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, GitHub, AgentMail, and experimental iMessage Photon and Speko paths; availability still depends on gates and provider support.identity: link the external sender to the intended authorized Paperclip identity.conversation: route inbound messages to the selected agent and send replies to the correct thread.attachments: transfer supported files with inspectable delivery and failure states.lifecycle: inspect endpoint activity, repair auth, and disable delivery when required.
How to get to it (user POV)
external-thread
Message the configured bot/address from its external provider and follow the corresponding Paperclip conversation/task.
endpoint-management
Open /apps/chat/:endpointId/settings and the endpoint’s other available tabs; identity confirmation uses /chat-identity/confirm.
Driving it with Playwright and provider clients
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a
test provider account/channel with permission to send messages. Gates differ:
AgentMail bypasses the chat-connectors UI gate, GitHub uses
enableGitHubReviewBots, and other chat providers use enableChatConnectors.
Setup is covered in connection setup.
external-thread
Automated: channel integration uses provider fixtures; it does not prove a live Slack, Discord, Teams, Telegram, GitHub, email, or Photon delivery.
GitHub review comment regression (2026-10-19): repeated PR review requests reuse
one main App comment, including across restart and reconnect. Test a leading
request for an external bot (@greptile review) and verify it creates no wake or
acknowledgement. Stop execution before a milestone is staged, run maintenance,
and verify the existing comment reports the stop; saved requests on a blocked
task show paused state. Preserve newer progress and confirmed or uncertain replies.
Repeat terminal reconciliation with native identity and no legacy wake fields.
Check delayed acknowledgements, check-only assessments followed by formal reviews,
and combined requests with separate pre-upgrade placeholders.
Manual: For each supported provider being changed, send a unique message, verify the intended agent/company receives it, and inspect the actual external reply in the original thread. Repeat with an unlinked/unauthorized sender, duplicate inbound delivery, and one supported attachment. Record provider-specific results separately.
For Slack, enable Require at-mention and Allow direct messages. Send a plain DM and follow up without a mention: both should reach the agent, with top-level replies to top-level DMs. Channel messages and thread replies still require a mention when that setting is enabled. Disable direct messages and confirm a plain DM is rejected. Use a private channel for threaded conversations.
For Slack acknowledgement latency, mention the bot with and without an attachment.
Eyes should appear after authorized task/comment persistence, independently of
file preparation, subscription and agent startup. Duplicate delivery must keep
one receipt; the final reply must remove only its source message's eyes. Record
live mention-to-reaction timing separately from the PostgreSQL fixture tests and
the chat.slack.receipt transport span described in Observability.
During a top-level DM run, verify that the bot adds eyes to the source message and removes them when the final reply arrives. The pinned Slack SDK encodes a linear DM with an empty thread timestamp; receipt transport accepts that address while still validating the channel and the source message timestamp.
For an agent with two linked Slack endpoints, compare assignment preparation and tool discovery in the run trace. Endpoint checks may overlap in pairs. Confirm that both permitted tool sets remain available, then revoke one linked identity and confirm that the next preparation excludes it. The database regression uses real PostgreSQL with one connection and controlled credential resolution; it does not prove live provider latency or an end-to-end response target.
Catalog discovery rechecks live authority and current credentials without computing the unused compatibility fingerprint. Assignment snapshots and governed calls retain full revision resolution. The same regression verifies identical catalog membership, absence of digest SQL during discovery, and revocation on the next preparation. A faster component is not proof of a faster Slack reaction or final reply; measure those separately on the deployed revision.
For GitHub and Slack tool continuity, start a task from the channel, then admit a later monitor or retry run for the same task. Check that the later run can discover and call its channel tools without a new inbound message. For GitHub, also continue from a board message by the same accepted requester and complete the review in the original conversation, including when the original source is recorded only in legacy wake metadata. Revoke the linked identity and check that the next call fails. Repeat the boundary checks with another task, agent, company, and requester. The channel and provenance fixtures above cover these contracts with synthetic providers; record a live journey separately. For a long-lived task, repeat more than 100 continuations and check that tool access remains available. Fail a later GitHub run after a final answer and check that the earlier answer remains intact.
endpoint-management
Automated: channel integration covers shared endpoint/delivery behavior; live credential repair and provider ownership remain manual checks.
Manual: Inspect the bound agent and identity, recent activity, and delivery failure details. Repair a disposable credential, retry a safe message when offered, and verify exactly one external reply. Disable the endpoint and confirm new traffic is not silently processed.
For publication failures, reject one operation with a provider 403 and verify that its failure remains visible while unrelated tools and publications continue. Repeat with an authentication failure: the endpoint must require attention and stop provider traffic, while the connection's enabled setting remains unchanged. Reconcile persistent receivers and restart the service; authentication failures must remain stopped while transient disconnections can still recover. The PostgreSQL suite uses controlled provider failures for these cases; live provider credential repair remains a separate acceptance check.
GitHub connections in attention or revoked state show a repair notice above the settings. Reconnect GitHub → Reconnect saved App checks the same App with stored credentials and repairs delivery. Replace App credentials is the fallback, with the saved App ID, a link to its GitHub settings, and PEM upload or paste instructions. The production management Storybook's 04 Recovery group covers these views, pending/failure/success, mobile, and light theme with simulated provider responses. Verify actual credential validity and restored delivery separately against GitHub; a Storybook success does not establish live recovery.
For GitHub, submit a disposable PR and verify the summary heading uses the bot's display name and the check remains Paperclip Review. For two separate bots on one PR, verify their App-scoped checks and comments remain independent.
For GitHub publication recovery, interrupt a response after GitHub accepts a write and verify one summary, finding, and App-scoped check. Retry the same tool call and verify it returns the saved receipt. Include text longer than 500 characters and coverage with more than 50 entries. Change only the text suffix or final coverage entry and verify rejection without another write. Remove the durable publication and verify that a retry cannot dispatch a new write. Leave a transient failure queued, restart the instance, and verify publication resumes at its saved deadline without another inbound message. Revoked access and permanent rejections must stop retries. These recipes are separate from live provider proof.
Configure optional project and workspace defaults at the connection and destination levels. Start a new conversation and inspect its task workspace. Verify that inheritance, an explicit selection, and clearing a default remain distinct. Changing defaults must not move an existing conversation or interrupt its run.
For experimental Speko, enable chat connectors, choose an agent during setup, and verify the provider credentials. On an assigned task, use Talk to agent to open browser voice controls. Check microphone denial, mute, end/restart, navigation during a call, and access revocation. Inspect transcripts and the connection's call history. Callback preferences, incoming phone configuration, and incoming-call approval are separate settings and authorization journeys. The voice components and fixture tests cover presentation; they do not establish live answer retrieval or telephone playback. Those provider outcomes remain explicit release gates.
Gotchas
-
Visibility flags do not pause existing delivery. Disable the disposable endpoint itself to test stopped traffic.
-
One provider’s passing fixture does not qualify another provider or live delivery.
-
An accepted send request does not prove the recipient received the message or file.
-
Use steering and questions for their channel-specific interaction checks.
Storybook verification
attachments
Scope: ui Storybook: Mount TaskChatBubble attachments and ChatEndpointDetail provider-specific consent/upload/delivery failure and unknown-outcome states. Local email attachment dialog remains a prototype. Production: Transfer a disposable supported file through each affected provider; verify recipient delivery, read scope, duplicate/replay handling and failure/unknown state without treating notification as file-upload proof. Sources: Source: TaskChatBubble.tsx, ChatEndpointDetail.tsx, chatEndpoints.ts, chat-channels.ts. Tests: TaskChatBubble.test.tsx, task-chat-attachments.test.ts, chat-channels.integration.test.ts, issue-attachment-routes.test.ts
Documentation scope: Chat and email channel setup
Shared recipes name provider checks; each provider transport/thread/identity/file-size/type combination needs separate live evidence and deeper instructions.