mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 08:22:20 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
7df55f3dcc
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - Chat channels turn external messages into shared task workflows. > - The main service still contains some provider decisions. > - These decisions belong with the existing channel modules. > - This pull request moves webhook recovery and payload-scope decisions to their provider modules. > - Shared authorization, persistence, and runtime ownership keep their current order. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16235. Stack part 2/3. Base: `master`. #16276 is merged. **What existing behavior does this improve?** Provider ownership and readability in the chat channel service. **Current behavior** The entry point combines shared workflows with provider decisions. **Proposed behavior** Provider modules own their decisions. Shared modules own product state and authorization. **Reason and benefit** Maintainers can find provider behavior in its channel folder. **Breaking changes** None intended. Public service methods and durable data shapes stay compatible. ## What Changed - Move GitHub revoked-installation recovery classification to `github/webhook-scope.ts`. - Move Teams payload-scope validation to its message module. - Record normalized GitHub, Telegram, and Teams lifecycle events through one shared durable call. - Keep Slack callback ordering and persistence failures outside parser catches. - Reduce `chat-channels.ts` from 3,598 to 3,570 lines. ## Verification - The same 86 selected webhook/lifecycle integration cases passed before and after in an owned Linux container. - The same 17 selected Telegram edit and Teams edit/delete/restore cases passed before and after in that container. - The same 94 SDK adapter and lifecycle-normalization tests passed locally before and after. - Server typecheck and module-boundary checks passed. - Token comparison confirms the shared recording payload and runtime fence, plus the Teams scope and parser inputs. - The host database baseline failed before assertions because System V shared-memory IDs were exhausted. No other PostgreSQL server or host setting was changed. Database verification used an isolated container under its unprivileged user. - The extraction rebased without conflicts after #16276 merged. Git range-diff reports the same patch. The 94 SDK/lifecycle tests and server typecheck passed on this base. All CI gates pass on rebased head `d835d7c3815c168226fa646aec6370b6a8ac94c1`. Greptile reviewed that exact head at 5/5, with no inline findings or unresolved review threads. - Cumulative `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed. All 1,321 channel integration cases passed. The normal UI, CLI, database, adapter, plugin, and serialized API test selections ran. - The first Linux `pnpm test:run` returned 1. Original-source runs reproduced the local failures. Container-only repairs supplied missing tools, process reaping, and sufficient Node heap. The existing mocked-fetch CLI telemetry fixture passed with the image opt-out flag overridden only for that fixture. - One local venue limitation remains: adapter-utils T24 fails unchanged on both original and final source in the Linux container. Its entire 56-case suite passes before and after on the host. All other failed or aborted suites passed in repaired reruns. No test assertion or timeout changed. - These fixtures exercise application state and the service entry point. They do not prove live provider execution. ## Risks - A scope or ordering error could record an event for the wrong provider context. - The selected parser returns normalized data. The shared service keeps durable recording and runtime fencing. - No database migration or API change is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6, running in Codex with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment identifier 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 (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>