mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
8148fc0b1e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The release workflow drafts the next stable's release notes when a beta publishes (`draft_stable_notes`) > - The draft nests each referenced PR's summary under its commit subject, and it fetches each summary with its own `gh pr view` call > - A beta range now references more than 1,500 PRs, so these serial calls do not finish inside the job's 10-minute timeout > - This pull request fetches the summaries in batches of 50 per GraphQL query > - The benefit is that the job finishes in under a minute and pushes the notes branch again ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The `draft_stable_notes` job of [run 42763789753](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42763789753) (beta `2026.1110.0-beta.0`) reached its 10-minute timeout. GitHub cancelled it during "Draft stable notes from the published beta", while a `gh` process was still running. The beta itself published and its smoke tests passed. The `release-notes/v2026.1110.0-beta.0` branch was not pushed. **Expected behavior** The job writes the notes draft and pushes the branch for every beta, whatever the size of the commit range. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Publish a beta whose range from the last stable has many PR-referencing commits. This range has 1,586 commits, and 1,583 different PRs. 2. `draft-stable-notes.sh` calls `gh pr view <n>` once for each commit, one after another. 3. The job reaches `timeout-minutes: 10` before the loop ends. **Paperclip version or commit** `09e24dd12c36251dd12af2d73dbc715ce990f922` (beta `2026.1110.0-beta.0`). This was the first beta to run the job after #12124 added the PR summaries; earlier betas skipped it. ## What Changed - `scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh`: - Collects the unique PR numbers first. Fetches their bodies 50 per `gh api graphql` query (aliased `pullRequest(number:)` fields), into a temporary cache that `enrich_pr` reads. - Parses the raw response with `jq`, not with `gh --jq`. When any number in a batch is not a PR (for example, an issue reference), gh exits non-zero and does not apply its `--jq` filter. The other PRs in the batch still have usable data. - The output format does not change. A missing `gh` or `jq`, a failed batch, a cache directory that `mktemp` cannot create, or `DRAFT_NOTES_SKIP_PR_ENRICHMENT=1` still gives bare subjects. - No code comments are added (per `CONTRIBUTING.md`); this description holds the explanation. - `scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs`: - The enrichment tests now use a fake `gh` that answers GraphQL like GitHub. - New tests: batching (120 PRs make 3 queries, and a repeated PR is fetched once); a batch with a non-PR number; a failed batch; a failed `mktemp`; prose-only and empty bodies; the opt-out. - Range tests now run with enrichment disabled, so an authenticated `gh` on the test machine cannot reach GitHub. - `package.json`: adds the test file to `test:release-registry`. These tests did not run in CI before. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs`: 17 pass. They also pass with macOS bash 3.2 first on `PATH`. - `node scripts/ci-profile/node-test.mjs scripts/draft-stable-notes.test.mjs scripts/release-lib.test.mjs`: 31 pass. - Red check: the new tests against the old script fail 5 cases (all batching and enrichment cases). The `mktemp` test fails against an unguarded `mktemp` call. - Live run on the real range: `./scripts/draft-stable-notes.sh 2026.1110.0-beta.0` finished in 47 seconds. It wrote 4,596 excerpt lines for 1,583 PRs. - Parity: for 40 randomly sampled PRs from that range, the new excerpts are byte-identical to the old per-PR `gh pr view` output. - `shellcheck`: no new findings. The two remaining notices were there before this change. ## Risks - Low. The change touches only the post-publish draft job, and every failure still gives the bare-subject draft. - `jq` is now needed for the PR summaries. GitHub's Ubuntu runners include it. Without `jq`, the draft has no summaries, the same as without `gh`. - I did not change `release.yml`. The job already checks out `master`, so after this merges, re-running the failed job of run 42763789753 should push the missing notes branch with the fixed script. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`) via Claude Code, with tool use (shell, file editing, test runs, read-only GitHub API calls). ## 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 - [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>