mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-13 23:39:21 +02:00
Stefano Maffeis
68ba7ccae6
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The server config loader reads `.paperclip/config.json` and feeds it into the shared Paperclip config schema. > - When a config file exists but cannot be parsed or fails schema validation, Paperclip should not silently ignore it. > - The current `readConfigFile()` catch block treats invalid files the same as missing files, so startup falls back to defaults while the banner can still point at the ignored config path. > - This pull request keeps the missing-file fallback, but makes present invalid config files fail with a path-specific error. > - The benefit is safer startup behavior and a clear diagnostic that points at the invalid config field. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Fixes #8908 ## What Changed - Changed `readConfigFile()` to return `null` only when the config file is absent. - Added explicit errors for unreadable/invalid JSON config files. - Added explicit Zod validation errors that include the config path and invalid field path without printing config contents. - Added server tests for missing config, invalid JSON, schema validation failure, and valid config parsing. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/config-file.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` ## Risks Low risk for valid configs and missing configs. This intentionally changes behavior for present invalid config files from silent fallback to startup failure, which is the issue being fixed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex based on GPT-5, with repository file inspection, GitHub CLI, and local command 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 - [ ] 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