Files
PaperClipAI/ui/src/lib/interaction-resolution-error.test.ts
T
39279aa34f feat(ui): shared error, connectivity and query foundation for disconnects (#15754)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board reads API data and keeps the current task on screen.
> - A restart or temporary network failure can interrupt those reads.
> - Separate page error handlers can hide cached data or expose raw
server codes.
> - The app needs one connection state, readable error copy and a
consistent read policy.
> - This change provides that foundation and moves affected read
surfaces onto it.
> - The dependent write layer in #17960 preserves edits and submissions
across the same failures.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

Temporary API failures could replace loaded content with errors.
Different surfaces handled the same outage differently. Some showed raw
server codes. A successful query to an unrelated service could also
falsely report that Paperclip had recovered.

**Expected behavior**

Keep cached content visible. Show one connection banner during sustained
trouble. Confirm recovery through the Paperclip health probe or its
WebSocket. Retry transient reads and show readable errors for permanent
failures.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Open a populated task or workspace page.
2. Interrupt API requests with a 503 or a dropped connection.
3. Keep an unrelated external request in flight.
4. Confirm that cached content remains and that the external result
cannot clear the outage.
5. Restore the API and check that reads refresh.

The write layer first merged into this feature branch in #15769 now has
its own dependent PR, #17960. This PR contains the shared foundation and
read changes. Merge this PR first.

## What Changed

- Classify API errors and provide readable error copy, including
non-JSON proxy responses and Retry-After handling.
- Use one connection store and health probe with bounded backoff.
Confirm recovery from the server health probe or live-updates WebSocket.
- Pause reads while disconnected, retry transient errors, and refresh
active reads after recovery.
- Keep cached data visible through shared query views and affected page,
panel and plugin read surfaces.
- Add one app-level connection banner and support the pending-write
count consumed by the dependent write layer.
- Add a query-error rendering guard. Call it directly from the existing
CI step. Update development documentation.

## Verification

- Historical-chat lookup now follows the same ready/stale roster state
as rendering. Three regressions fail before the fix; the six new cases
pass after it, including working Retry, fresh data, no-cache error,
permanent 403 and company isolation. All six focused query/recovery
suites pass 200 tests. Final-commit CI passes and Apex is 5/5 with no
unresolved findings. Canary Dry Run initially refused a preview version
that was already on npm. It passed after one rerun with fresh registry
metadata; no check was disabled.

- Integrated current master and retained both transcript interest
registration and connectivity reporting on socket open. The seven
focused recovery/query suites pass 288 tests, and UI typecheck and
production build pass. All 9,451 UI tests across 799 files pass on the
merge commit. Final-commit CI passes and Apex is 5/5 with no unresolved
findings.

- Current head `70d9335d732219352ef0f98414439766bbcb33df`: all hosted CI
checks pass. Apex is **5/5** on that head with no unresolved findings.
The branch has no merge conflict. GitHub still requires code-owner
approval.

- The foundation passes 9,430 UI tests in 804 files. After integrating
current master page paths, 190 focused page tests pass.
- Two unrelated-success regressions fail before the latest fix. With the
fix, 62 focused UI tests, all six guard tests and UI TypeScript pass.
- The composed foundation and write layer pass **9,505 UI tests in 808
files**, UI TypeScript, a production UI build, and query-error, token
and map guards.
- A real Chromium journey on the composed source injects a 503 during
title save. The loaded task stays visible; one reconnect banner appears;
the edit saves after recovery; another task stays unchanged; the saved
title survives reload.
- Full recursive local checks were not repeated because Runner
compilation exhausted local disk during another repair. Hosted checks
must pass before merge. No new staging deployment is claimed.

- Latest review follow-up: a cached CaseDetail now survives a failed
HTTP 429 refresh. Its page regression fails before the fix and passes
after it. Eighty focused foundation tests, UI TypeScript, build and
guards pass after that change.
- Earlier CI evidence is retained: several foundation jobs received a
runner shutdown signal together. The write-layer head also failed an
unchanged Runner descriptor close test with `provider_transport_failed`.
The same Runner source passed that suite in the foundation run. New CI
runs cover the updated heads; no check or assertion was weakened.

## Risks

- Shared retry defaults change the time before transient read errors
appear. Permanent errors still fail promptly.
- ApiError.message now contains readable copy. Callers that compare raw
codes must use ApiError.code.
- Cache success can come from another service or local data. It must not
confirm Paperclip recovery.
- Durable writes are reviewed separately in #17960. This PR does not
change database or mutation contracts.

## Model Used

Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) produced the original work
with tool use. OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, assisted with restoration,
integration, tests and review fixes. The Codex session does not expose
its exact serving model ID or context window size.

## 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: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Amy (Opus) <claude@users.noreply.github.com>
2026-10-27 21:22:07 -07:00

186 lines
7.3 KiB
TypeScript

import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
import { ApiError } from "../api/client";
import {
describeInteractionResolutionFailure,
interactionResolutionErrorCode,
interactionResolutionErrorMessage,
isInteractionAudienceDenial,
} from "./interaction-resolution-error";
const addressedAudience = { shortSummary: "Only CodexCoder or the board can respond", isOpen: false };
const humanOnlyAudience = { shortSummary: "Only the board can respond", isOpen: false };
const openAudience = { shortSummary: "Anyone can respond", isOpen: true };
/** Shapes an `ApiError` the way `errorHandler` serializes an `HttpError`. */
function denial(status: number, code: string, message: string) {
return new ApiError(message, status, { error: message, code, details: { code } });
}
describe("interactionResolutionErrorCode", () => {
it("reads the top-level code the API returns", () => {
expect(interactionResolutionErrorCode(denial(403, "interaction_human_only", "human-only"))).toBe(
"interaction_human_only",
);
});
it("falls back to the code nested in details", () => {
const error = new ApiError("nope", 403, { error: "nope", details: { code: "interaction_addressee_mismatch" } });
expect(interactionResolutionErrorCode(error)).toBe("interaction_addressee_mismatch");
});
it("returns null for an error with no structured body", () => {
expect(interactionResolutionErrorCode(new Error("network down"))).toBeNull();
});
});
describe("isInteractionAudienceDenial", () => {
it("recognizes every audience denial code the evaluator can return", () => {
for (const code of [
"interaction_human_only",
"interaction_creator_excluded",
"interaction_addressee_mismatch",
"interaction_governed_action_denied",
"interaction_run_attribution_required",
"interaction_scope_denied",
]) {
expect(isInteractionAudienceDenial(denial(403, code, "denied"))).toBe(true);
}
});
it("treats an uncoded 403 as an authorization refusal", () => {
expect(isInteractionAudienceDenial(new ApiError("Forbidden", 403, { error: "Forbidden" }))).toBe(true);
});
it("does not treat a server fault or a settled card as an audience denial", () => {
expect(isInteractionAudienceDenial(new ApiError("boom", 500, { error: "boom" }))).toBe(false);
expect(isInteractionAudienceDenial(denial(409, "interaction_already_resolved", "already resolved"))).toBe(false);
});
});
describe("describeInteractionResolutionFailure", () => {
it("keeps the server denial reason and names who can respond", () => {
const failure = describeInteractionResolutionFailure(
denial(403, "interaction_human_only", "This issue-thread interaction is human-only"),
humanOnlyAudience,
);
expect(failure.kind).toBe("audience_denied");
expect(failure.code).toBe("interaction_human_only");
expect(failure.message).toBe(
"This issue-thread interaction is human-only. Only the board can respond.",
);
// A policy denial is permanent: never invite a retry that will fail again.
expect(failure.message).not.toMatch(/try again/i);
});
it("names the addressed responder for an addressee mismatch", () => {
expect(
interactionResolutionErrorMessage(
denial(
403,
"interaction_addressee_mismatch",
"Only the addressed agent or an authorized human may resolve this issue-thread interaction",
),
addressedAudience,
),
).toContain("Only CodexCoder or the board can respond.");
});
it("still explains a denial when no audience is known", () => {
const failure = describeInteractionResolutionFailure(
denial(403, "interaction_creator_excluded", "This issue-thread interaction requires a resolver other than its creator"),
null,
);
expect(failure.message).toBe(
"This issue-thread interaction requires a resolver other than its creator.",
);
expect(failure.message).not.toMatch(/try again/i);
});
// PAP-17289: the responder clause explains a denial, so it must never
// contradict it. An open card has no narrower audience to point at.
it("does not append the open-default clause to a refusal it would refute", () => {
const failure = describeInteractionResolutionFailure(
denial(
403,
"interaction_addressee_mismatch",
"Only the addressed agent can resolve this interaction",
),
openAudience,
);
expect(failure.kind).toBe("audience_denied");
expect(failure.message).toBe("Only the addressed agent can resolve this interaction.");
expect(failure.message).not.toMatch(/anyone can respond/i);
});
it("keeps the server's own text for an uncoded 403 instead of inventing a cause", () => {
const failure = describeInteractionResolutionFailure(
new ApiError("Forbidden", 403, { error: "Forbidden" }),
openAudience,
);
expect(failure).toMatchObject({ kind: "audience_denied", code: null, message: "Forbidden." });
expect(failure.message).not.toMatch(/resolver audience/i);
expect(failure.message).not.toMatch(/try again/i);
});
it("restates the refusal without claiming an audience cause when a 403 says nothing", () => {
const failure = describeInteractionResolutionFailure(new ApiError("", 403, null), null);
expect(failure.message).toBe("You do not have permission to respond to this card.");
expect(failure.message).not.toMatch(/resolver audience/i);
});
it("does not ask for a retry when the card has already moved on", () => {
const failure = describeInteractionResolutionFailure(
denial(409, "interaction_superseded", "This confirmation was superseded by a newer request"),
humanOnlyAudience,
);
expect(failure.kind).toBe("settled");
expect(failure.message).toBe("This confirmation was superseded by a newer request.");
expect(failure.message).not.toMatch(/try again/i);
});
it("keeps the retry prompt for a genuinely transient failure", () => {
expect(
describeInteractionResolutionFailure(new ApiError("Request failed: 503", 503, null), humanOnlyAudience),
).toMatchObject({
kind: "transient",
message: "Paperclip is temporarily unavailable. Please try again in a moment.",
});
});
it("never shows a raw gateway code", () => {
const failure = describeInteractionResolutionFailure(
new ApiError("tenant_app_unavailable", 503, { error: "tenant_app_unavailable" }),
humanOnlyAudience,
);
expect(failure.kind).toBe("transient");
expect(failure.code).toBeNull();
expect(failure.message).not.toMatch(/tenant_app_unavailable/);
expect(failure.message).toMatch(/try again/i);
});
it("does not echo a raw code for a non-transient failure", () => {
expect(
interactionResolutionErrorMessage(new ApiError("internal_error", 500, { error: "internal_error" }), null),
).toBe("Couldn't submit. Try again.");
});
it("falls back to generic copy when nothing explains the failure", () => {
expect(describeInteractionResolutionFailure(undefined, null)).toMatchObject({
kind: "transient",
message: "Couldn't submit. Try again.",
});
});
it("leaves punctuation the server already wrote alone", () => {
expect(
interactionResolutionErrorMessage(denial(403, "interaction_human_only", "Agents cannot resolve this."), null),
).toBe("Agents cannot resolve this.");
});
});