Files
PaperClipAI/doc
DottaandPaperclip 6d46851920 test(e2e): add attended GitHub review bot journey (#17457)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip manages agents and the work they perform.
> - Product E2E checks verify real user paths through those agents.
> - A recorded GitHub review-bot walkthrough had no repeatable
registered case.
> - App setup, automatic triggering, publication, and task completion
need separate evidence.
> - This pull request adds an explicit attended journey to the existing
catalog and report tools.
> - Reusable setup profiles and independent assertions preserve the same
outcome across compatible targets.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs: #17262. This case remains an explicit attended attached-target
flow. It does not replace the shared deployment-target or
paid-operations framework.

**What existing behavior does this improve?**

The Product E2E catalog can now select and retain evidence for GitHub
review-bot setup and its first automatic review.

**Current behavior**

Recorded walkthroughs cannot be rerun as a fixed registered case. A
published review alone can hide a failed run or unfinished task.

**Proposed behavior**

Create and install an owned App, save automatic new-PR settings, create
a defective PR, and require correlated review delivery, an inline
finding, a consistent check, a successful run, and a Done task. Retain
failures and confirm owned-resource cleanup.

**Reason and benefit**

The case makes a useful external integration reproducible without
treating setup, unit checks, or report rendering as proof of a completed
live journey.

## What Changed

- Add two explicit attended cells for an existing configured agent in
local or Daytona execution.
- Declare hosting, account, connection, and credential prerequisites
through private setup bindings.
- Add fixed browser controls, ownership checks, independent grading, and
cleanup.
- Package declared screenshots through the existing sanitizer, manifest,
validator, and dashboard.
- Reject operations-managed execution until budgeted routing is
qualified.
- Document hosted QA credential setup and evidence limits.

## Verification

- Focused catalog, oracle, report, connection, and ownership checks: 127
tests passed.
- Inherited-environment preflight regression failed against the previous
commit and passed after the fix. Actual-run environment verification
remains required.
- Harness TypeScript check and full workspace typecheck passed. Full
build passed. The local full-test attempt was interrupted after repeated
embedded PostgreSQL startup failures; its exit code of zero does not
establish a pass; Exact-head Linux CI passed the full test, typecheck,
build, Runner, serialized, browser, and canary gates on
`abbddeade848edefc8de75f11cc9008b2cd52764`.
- A real hosted attempt published a rated review and inline finding. It
failed when its native session timed out before the task reached Done.
Cleanup passed. Full live qualification remains open.
- Credential scan found no known credential values in the authored files
or retained report corpus.

## Risks

- The full case creates external test resources and uses the configured
provider. It requires an explicit selection and current task authority.
It is excluded from default and CI matrices.
- Time and run limits are not a hard dollar cap. Missing dollar cost
stays unknown. Fixture setup does not weaken budget policy.
- Fresh personal OAuth, unattended authentication, runtime skill-read
proof, and cross-host qualification are separate claims.
- The selected live fixture needs environment/lifecycle recovery before
it can adopt a longer provider deadline.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 family through Codex, with reasoning, code execution, and
browser tools. The exact deployment model ID and context-window size are
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, including the available 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 described the issue in-PR following the enhancement
template
- [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues
or links
- [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal
ticket ID
- [x] I have run focused tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation
- [x] I have considered and documented risks
- [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green
- [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open findings
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge

---------

Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-24 12:16:26 -07:00
..
…