mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-01 23:43:16 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
e40de0c9e8
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Contributors need fast, reliable CI feedback. > - Diff-aware CI selects test files and partitions them into runner jobs. > - Stale cost estimates put several slow suites on the same runner. Broad imports also couple small tests to large modules. > - This PR refreshes test costs, runs independent graph discovery in parallel, and narrows three dependency boundaries. > - Selection safeguards and CODEOWNER-only AWS routing stay in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18398. This follows the audit of [PR #18427's verification run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41169978784). The audit found 403 selected general-server files without timing weights. Three suites measured at 232s, 122s and 116s shared one shard because each received a roughly 2s fallback weight. Local graph discovery across four projects took 43.7s serially and 21.7s with two workers. A reverse-order repeat took 37.7s serially and 22.6s with two workers. Both comparisons produced identical selection results. This is a local measurement, not a claim about production CI speed. ## What Changed - Refresh general-server costs for 1,285 of 1,309 current files and serialized costs for all 163 files from two successful protected-master Cloud readiness runs. Retain prior costs for unmeasured files, including dedicated chat and native-runner suites. - Record passing server file costs, including collection, setup and environment preparation. A weekly hosted workflow validates trusted source runs and opens a timing-only PR. It tests shard coverage, pauses while a refresh PR is open, and never merges automatically. - Discover at most two project graphs concurrently in isolated, heap-limited Node processes. Cache repeated inventory reads within one selection. Worker errors and timeouts retain the full task plan. - Fetch only the merge commit and parents for the selector. A real shallow-clone regression proves the complete diff still includes more than 300 files, renames and deletions. - Share the identical log viewer and run details between both AgentDetail pages. The viewer test imports the shared implementation and runs each of its 13 distinct cases once. - Extract the pure API error class while preserving the API client's public exports. Import delivery work signals through their existing narrow DB export. ## Verification - PASS: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. - PASS: 284 CI selection, timing, shallow-diff, sharding and routing tests. - PASS: 74 further cache, routing and graph-proof tests. - PASS: 94 targeted UI assertions across the viewer, run invocation, API errors/client and progress helpers. All 76 assertions in the 12 server suites made independently selectable also pass. - PASS: `pnpm check:token-gates`, module-boundary checks, YAML parsing and `git diff --check`. - PASS: [Full PR CI and required `ci / verify` aggregate](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41206683345), including all 12 general-server shards, all nine serialized shards, workspace groups, chat suites, Runner lanes and build checks. - PASS: [GitHub hosted real-workspace selector and cache/routing qualification](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41206683205). - PASS: Both Greptile and Paperclip reviews are 5/5 with no actionable findings or inline comments on `7dc65c51b8`. The PR has no merge conflicts. - PASS: The production refresh parser accepted all 107 structured file-cost records from a real successful server CI job, including setup/loading cost. - Local `pnpm test:run` completed all six chat shards successfully. The duplicate monolithic local run was stopped after the complete remote suite passed; it was not completed locally. The focused log-viewer command improved from 18.84s (26 duplicate variant cases) to 8.49s (all 13 distinct behavior cases). The dependency audit confirms 12 server files and the API-error test no longer need conservative always-run retention. Repartitioning the audited PR with the new costs changes the slowest shard from 810s to 591s of summed historical test execution (1,124 of 1,142 files measured). This is a workload simulation, not measured new CI wall time. ## Risks - Two graph processes use more peak memory. Each has a 2 GiB heap limit and a three-minute timeout. Any failure preserves the original task plan. Real workspace qualification runs in GitHub CI. - Historical logs contain test/hook costs only. New reporter records add loading/setup costs after merge. The manifests identify measurement coverage and source runs. These weights change placement, never permission to skip tests. - Runner load adds timing noise. The refresh uses medians and requires at least 90% measurement coverage in each lane. - GitHub may require approval to run checks on a PR created with `GITHUB_TOKEN`. Refreshes remain reviewable and do not merge themselves. - The shared viewer is a mechanical extraction. Both pages retain their existing exports, and the behavior assertions remain covered. AWS runner authorization is unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, reasoning, code execution and GitHub tools. The exact deployment ID and context-window size were 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 #` / `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 references) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass (focused checks and six chat shards; complete suite passed in CI as detailed above) - [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>
60 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
60 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
## Thinking Path
|
|
|
|
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work.
|
|
> - Contributors need predictable CI feedback.
|
|
> - Test shards use historical per-file costs to distribute their work.
|
|
> - New and changed tests make those costs stale.
|
|
> - This automated PR refreshes the costs from successful protected-master runs.
|
|
> - The refresh changes placement, while preserving test inventory and runner authorization.
|
|
|
|
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
|
|
|
|
**What happened?**
|
|
|
|
Test costs changed after the last timing refresh. Each manifest records the source runs and measurement coverage.
|
|
|
|
**Expected behavior**
|
|
|
|
Parallel test jobs should have similar workloads. Timing metadata must never authorize skipping tests.
|
|
|
|
**Steps to reproduce**
|
|
|
|
Run `node scripts/ci/refresh-test-durations.mjs` with GitHub Actions read access and a full master checkout.
|
|
|
|
## What Changed
|
|
|
|
- Refresh general-server and serialized timing weights from recent successful master verification runs.
|
|
|
|
## Verification
|
|
|
|
- The collector validates repository, workflow, branch, event, attempt, successful jobs, commit ancestry and measurement coverage.
|
|
- Timing validation and full shard coverage tests pass before this branch is pushed.
|
|
- Review the source run links and coverage recorded in both manifests.
|
|
- Required PR checks and review must pass before merge. GitHub may require approval to start checks for a PR created with `GITHUB_TOKEN`.
|
|
|
|
## Risks
|
|
|
|
- Runner load can distort measurements. Medians reduce this noise. Missing measurements retain previous weights.
|
|
- The changes affect balance, not which tests execute. There is no automatic merge or AWS authorization change.
|
|
|
|
## Model Used
|
|
|
|
- No model ran this refresh. The generator was authored with OpenAI Codex (GPT-6); exact deployment ID and context window were not exposed. It uses code execution and repository 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 (routine CI timing maintenance)
|
|
- [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs (the workflow pauses while a refresh PR is open)
|
|
- [x] I have described the issue in-PR following the bug issue template
|
|
- [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links
|
|
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
|
|
- [x] I have run the relevant timing and shard tests and they pass
|
|
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable (existing timing and shard tests cover these generated values)
|
|
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation (the manifests record source runs and coverage)
|
|
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
|
|
- [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green
|
|
- [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups
|
|
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge
|