DottaandPaperclip
433d94ee0b
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Feature recipes and Storybook help contributors find behavior, examples, and verification steps. > - Independent feature changes currently update shared catalogs, indexes, and review hashes. > - Those shared files cause merge conflicts and repeated bookkeeping during parallel work. > - This pull request stores metadata in each feature recipe and story, then generates the combined views. > - Contributors can merge independent work without editing a common index. Git and PR evidence retain change and review history. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Maintaining the product, agent-access, and Storybook maps while multiple agents change different features. **Current behavior** A story or recipe change can update `catalog.json`, `INDEX.md`, review hashes, verification tables, and tracked generated navigation. Two unrelated changes then conflict in the same files. **Proposed behavior** Each story declares capability links and classification in `parameters.paperclip`. Each feature recipe declares its navigation and optional verification guidance. Startup, build, and UI typechecking discover these sources and generate ignored indexes and Storybook pages. **Reason and benefit** A routine change edits its own source files. Aggregate metadata is rebuilt from the merged checkout. There is no sidecar registry, shared review journal, or hash acknowledgment to maintain. **Breaking changes** The tracked Storybook catalog and index paths are retired. Consumers use `ui/storybook/generated/` or `maps/generated/` after generation. Contributor instructions and the existing feature-gap browser suite use the new paths. Story and overview IDs remain stable. ## What Changed - Move the existing annotations into 262 story files. Preserve classifications, capability associations, exports, and explicit IDs. - Discover all 35 feature recipes. Store section/order beside each recipe and move durable verification routes out of the shared table. - Remove tracked catalogs, inventories, overview pages, and inline preview ordering. Keep authored preview behavior in `preview-base.tsx`. - Generate the Storybook guide, feature/access Markdown indexes, gap report, page-reference inventory, and preview wrapper automatically. - Update the map contracts and maintenance skills to use Git history and revision-specific PR/CI evidence. - Add schema, identity, regeneration, and actual Git merge tests. Run these through the existing UI Vitest suite. Add focused browser navigation checks. This is one coordinated migration. Most of the 367 changed files contain only moved metadata or deleted generated content. Review the generator scripts, map contracts, Storybook configuration, and tests first. No product API or authorization behavior changes. ## Verification Passed: - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`: 35 paired areas and 175 capabilities. - `node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs --check`: 262 suites and 2,485 authored stories after incorporating current master. - `node --test scripts/check-maps.test.mjs scripts/storybook-catalog.test.mjs scripts/storybook-feature-index.test.mjs`: 28 tests, including independent branches merged in both orders with identical generated output and no tracked changes. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run storybook/map-tooling.test.ts`: the CI entrypoint runs those map tests. - `pnpm check:token-gates`. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` before the final master rebase. - `pnpm build-storybook`: all 2,517 original story/docs URLs retained. Current master contributes exactly four additional recovery stories. - Focused Playwright navigation checks: search and open a feature without examples; expand verification guidance and check source links; retain capability order and follow a related Foundations suite. The final clean Storybook build passed after deleting every ignored map output. Post-rebase UI typechecking and both browser tests passed. The working tree stays clean after generation. The concurrent-cleanup regression fails with `ENOENT` without the fix and passes with it. All GitHub CI gates passed on `00fc7ec18e`, which also received Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved findings. The final merge commit `1c3c5143a6` incorporates master and resolves only the two modify/delete conflicts by retaining removal of the aggregate index and catalog. Master’s new workspace feature and access guidance is preserved. Map validation, catalog generation, overview generation, all 28 map tests, and diff checks pass after conflict resolution. The maintainer explicitly requested merging without another Greptile review. CI has not been rerun to completion on this merge commit. The local repository-wide `pnpm test:run` was stopped before completion after the earlier CI matrix passed; it is not reported as a local pass. No screenshot baselines or production acceptance are claimed. To repeat the browser check against an owned Storybook server: ```sh PAPERCLIP_GAP_STORYBOOK_URL=http://127.0.0.1:6136 pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/storybook-visual/feature-gap-stories.config.ts map-navigation.spec.ts ``` ## Risks - Existing branches need a one-time rebase to move their catalog changes into local annotations. The PR incorporates the recovery changes from current master. - Changing the same story or capability can still produce a meaningful conflict. This removes the shared aggregate bottleneck. - The generator uses Storybook's existing CSF parser. Literal-only annotations and parser regression tests protect the current contract. - Generated Markdown is available after running the generator; the published Storybook provides a browsable guide. - Shared source changes still require review. Removing hashes removes mechanical acknowledgments; it does not establish runtime parity. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser-test tools. The exact deployment model ID and context window were 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 on the previously reviewed head `00fc7ec18e`; final conflict-resolution checks are documented above - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups on `00fc7ec18e`; another review was waived by the maintainer - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
5.9 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pipelines, review queues, and learnings
With the pipeline experiment enabled, people move structured work through configured stages, inspect stage automation, review outputs, and retain learning records.
Implementation: pipeline board and item hosts, pipeline configuration.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
stages: configure stage order, behavior, and automation assignees.items: create or inspect items, grouping, stage state, and work references.review: act on the pipeline review queue and inspect the resulting transition.learnings: inspect the separate learning view and its source context.
How to get to it (user POV)
pipeline-board
Open /pipelines, /pipelines/:pipelineId, and its Settings route.
item-review-learning
Open /pipelines/:pipelineId/items/:caseId, /review-queue, or /learnings.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Enable pipelines and prepare a disposable pipeline with at least two stages and a fixture agent. Record any associated case type.
pipeline-board
Automated: pipeline UI helpers cover grouping and presentation helpers; pipeline service covers service behavior.
Manual: Configure stages and a harmless automation, add an item, and inspect its stage. Follow its task/work references and observe the resulting transition. Reload grouping and settings; verify rejected or failed transitions leave the item in an intelligible state.
item-review-learning
Automated: pipeline tutorial browser suite targets a fixture journey; it does not qualify arbitrary stage automation or learning quality.
Manual: Open a pending review, inspect its source output and revision, accept or reject, and verify the persisted stage outcome. Follow a learning record to its source context and confirm it belongs to the intended pipeline/company.
Gotchas
-
Learnings is filtered case-event history, such as review decisions and forced moves, not a separate authored learning-record system. The UI visibility flag is separate from API authorization.
-
These routes are experimental and may redirect or deny access when disabled.
-
ReviewQueue and Learnings are hosted from the pipeline module; a page-file inventory alone misses them.
-
Pipeline items and free-standing cases share records but have different navigation contexts.
Storybook verification
stages
Scope: ui Storybook: Mount PipelineSettings ordered stages, automation assignees/env, invalid transitions, unsaved state, saving and failed save. Production: POST/PATCH stages and PUT /pipelines/{id}/transitions must persist valid order/configuration, enforce ownership and reject invalid transitions; actual automation execution remains separate. Sources: Source: PipelineSettings.tsx, pipelines.ts. Tests: PipelineSettings.test.ts, pipelines-service.test.ts, pipelines-routes.test.ts
items
Scope: ui Storybook: Mount Pipelines/PipelineItemDetailView board grouping, item creation/details, stage/health/work references, empty/loading and failed transition. Production: GET/POST /pipelines/{id}/cases and POST /cases/{id}/transition must maintain company scope, valid stage changes and linked work; fixture stage state does not prove automation. Sources: Source: Pipelines.tsx, PipelineWorkReferences.tsx, pipelines.ts. Tests: Pipelines.test.tsx, pipelines-service.test.ts, pipelines-routes.test.ts, pipelines-tutorial-flow.spec.ts
review
Scope: ui Storybook: Mount ReviewQueue and item review pending output/revision, accept/reject/request-changes, bulk selection, stale/conflicting submission and errors. Production: POST /cases/{id}/review and /companies/{id}/review-cases/bulk must authorize reviewer, persist correct outcome/transition and reject stale or invalid input. Sources: Source: Pipelines.tsx, pipelines.ts. Tests: Pipelines.test.tsx, pipelines-routes.test.ts, pipelines-service.test.ts, pipelines-tutorial-flow.spec.ts
learnings
Scope: ui Storybook: Mount actual Learnings export with filtered case events, review/forced-move entries, source links, empty/loading/error. This is event history, not a separately authored learning-record system. Production: GET /companies/{id}/case-events in pipelines routes needs existing company/access contract tests; a rendered event cannot establish learning quality. Sources: Source: Pipelines.tsx, pipeline-learnings.ts, pipelines.ts. Tests: Pipelines.test.tsx, pipelines-routes.test.ts, pipelines-service.test.ts