PaperClipAI/.github/ci-duration-pr.md at 6a4c193906159c96eb9730bfbc209fa07ead3f7b

DottaandPaperclip e40de0c9e8 perf(ci): refresh test weights and narrow graph dependencies (#18464 )
## 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>
3.0 KiB Raw Blame History

Thinking Path

Linked Issues or Issue Description

What Changed

Verification

Risks

Model Used

Checklist

3.0 KiB

Raw Blame History
