mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 15:55:46 +01:00
Nicky LeachandClaude Opus 5.5
6ce953ca52
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Runner support suite proves the plugin SDK public types from pins in `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json` > - Two of those pins follow the root lockfile: the `pnpm-lock.yaml` blob, and `lockSha256`, which must equal the `outputSha256` in `tests/runner-e2e/report-lock.json` > - The lockfile refresh #20824 changed the lockfile and `report-lock.json`. The registry kept the old values > - #20623 makes the refresh resync these pins, but its registry values come from the refresh before #20824 > - The refresh resyncs only when it commits a lockfile change. The lockfile is current, so the refresh after #20623 did nothing, and the pins stay stale > - This pull request regenerates the two pins with the existing `--write` command > - The benefit is that `ci / Runner support suite` passes again on master and on new pull requests ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #20824. Refs #20623. **What happened?** `ci / Runner support suite` fails on master at `e2cf9a670f` and on pull requests that merge master. `source-sdk-public-type.test.ts` and `source-sdk-evidence.test.ts` fail with "Reviewed SDK reference policy does not match public proof". `source-sdk-public-inputs.test.mjs` reports `pnpm-lock.yaml (changed)`. The refresh run after #20623 merged (run 43043576648) logged "Lockfiles and reporting-lock proof unchanged, nothing to do". **Expected behavior** The registry pins the committed lockfile, and `lockSha256` equals the `outputSha256` in `report-lock.json`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Check out master at `e2cf9a670f`. 2. Run `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-type.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-evidence.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.test.mjs`. 3. See the "Reviewed SDK reference policy does not match public proof" failure. ## What Changed - `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json`: regenerated with `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs $(git rev-parse HEAD) --write`. Only two values change: - `inputs["pnpm-lock.yaml"]`: `6d825f97…` → `d24edac1…`, the committed lockfile blob. - `lockSha256`: `b3208306…` → `17625672…`, the `outputSha256` in `report-lock.json`. - No other pin changes. The lockfile and `report-lock.json` do not change. ## Verification - Before the change, the three SDK proof test files fail with the policy mismatch. After the change, they pass. - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-type.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-evidence.test.ts tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.test.mjs tests/runner-e2e/prepare-report-lock.test.ts`: 4 files, 68 tests pass. - `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs $(git rev-parse HEAD) --check` reports `changed: false`. - Local run on macOS (darwin-arm64). Full regression is left to CI. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is test data only, and it uses the values that the registry command derives from the committed lockfile and the reviewed `report-lock.json`. - The same two values are in #20770. Whichever pull request merges first, the other one merges cleanly. - The refresh still resyncs these pins only when it commits a lockfile change. If the pins become stale with no lockfile change, the refresh does not repair them, and the support suite shows the failure and the fix command. > 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 Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, in Claude Code with tool use (shell, file editing). Extended reasoning was used. ## 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 - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>