DottaandPaperclip
5cea9c7c0e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and their assigned tasks. > - A task pause controls execution without changing task status. > - Resume can remove that pause and request work from eligible assignees. > - The preview counted blocked tasks and former executors as wake targets. > - The release route correctly skipped those targets, so the dialog promised work that did not start. > - Resume also trusted stale pause snapshots after tasks were reopened. > - This PR aligns preview with execution eligibility and rechecks current task state when releasing a pause. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Pause an assigned blocked task, then open Resume. The dialog says that one task will resume and offers to wake one agent. Applying it only removes the pause. The route skips blocked and backlog tasks. A former executor can also inflate the wake count after reassignment. **Expected behavior** The dialog must distinguish removing a pause from starting work. Its wake count must use the current assignees and statuses accepted by the release route. Blocked work must stay blocked. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open an assigned blocked task. 2. Choose Pause work, then Resume task. 3. Inspect the wake count and apply Resume work. Related runtime recovery work is tracked separately in #17097 and #17439. This PR does not change remote execution recovery. ## What Changed - Share the resume status list between preview and release. Count only current assignees on todo, in-progress, and in-review tasks for resume wakes. - Explain that Resume removes the pause. Show the existing preview warnings, including tasks that remain idle. - Disable and uncheck the wake option when no agents qualify. Send the same choice to the server. - Reevaluate previously skipped pause members after reopening or releasing another hold. Retain active-pause and unsafe-execution guards. - Add real PostgreSQL and HTTP-route regressions plus browser coverage for both task interfaces. Keep draft, ancestor-pause, and Stop/reconciliation coverage. - Update the task coordination maps. Add an opt-in dedicated test database URL for hosts where embedded PostgreSQL cannot start. ## Verification - Final head `9548eb16736f632cc111a5c13a9a994ec1d95a13`: all 55 completed checks pass, with two optional Storybook checks skipped. [CI 40188094904](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40188094904) passes, including typecheck, build, all general/serialized suites, and all eight E2E shards. Greptile is 5/5 on this commit; the reopened-task finding is fixed and resolved. - Red: the real PostgreSQL regression receives three agents instead of the one eligible current assignee on the original code. - Green: all 27 tree-control service, route, and unit tests pass. They cover current assignees, blocked/backlog exclusions, reopened tasks, company boundaries, remaining pause holds, and execution blockers. - The reopened-task route regression fails on the previous implementation: skipped members never reach preflight/wake, and an unsafe replay releases the hold instead of returning 409. All cases pass with the fix. - Browser: all five applicable cases pass together (90 seconds): blocked-work resume in both interfaces, draft/ancestor-pause cases in both interfaces, and the process Stop/pause/reconciliation/restart/cancel lifecycle. The optional native-runner fixture is skipped locally because its fixture binary is not configured. - All 157 task-page component tests pass on the prior commit; subsequent changes affect the server route and Stop fixture only. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass before rebase, and CI typecheck/build passed on the previous PR commit. Server typecheck passes again after the route fix. The final-head CI run also passes these full checks. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`, and `git diff --check` pass. - Full `pnpm test:run` was attempted but did not complete: this host cannot initialize embedded PostgreSQL, and unrelated workspace-runtime tests timed out. The focused database tests and E2E suite use disposable PostgreSQL 18 instead. All general-test and serialized-test CI shards passed on the previous PR commit; the final-head CI run also passes every test shard. - The first CI run caught the existing Stop test trying to check a disabled wake option for blocked legacy work. It now asserts zero wake targets and retains the no-execution-before-reconciliation checks. - Earlier E2E attempts exposed fixture problems: assignment started the fixture before it was paused, and the classic interface had two matching editor nodes. The fixture now enables dispatch after the hold exists and scopes the final assertion to the task composer. No product assertion was removed. ## Risks Resume preview is a snapshot. The release route still checks current status, assignment, and execution blockers. It does not bypass approval, budget, or recovery gates. Pause, cancel, and restore keep their existing affected-agent semantics. The test database override only accepts a dedicated database name ending in `_test`; it runs migrations before the suite and closes its clients afterward. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, browser control, and code execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID or context-window size. ## 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>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api requires operator rollout admission, a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.