mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
8610e7934e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app that people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The npm release includes the Paperclip server and a vendored runner. > - The vendored runner imports ACPX when it starts a Codex agent. > - The server package did not include the ACPX version that the runner needs. > - A fresh canary install therefore stopped with `ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND` after onboarding. > - This pull request bundles the patched ACPX runtime with the server package. > - The benefit is that a fresh npm install can load the vendored runner. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public issue exists for this bug. A GitHub search found no duplicate or related pull request. **What happened?** A fresh `npx paperclipai@canary onboard` command completed onboarding. The server then failed to start. Node could not resolve `acpx` from the vendored Paperclip runner. **Expected behavior** The server should start after onboarding from a fresh npm cache and a temporary data directory. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `npx paperclipai@canary onboard --data-dir "$(mktemp -d /tmp/paperclip-canary.XXXXXX)"`. 2. Select Quickstart. 3. Start Paperclip. 4. Observe `ERR_MODULE_NOT_FOUND` for `acpx`. **Paperclip version or commit** `paperclipai@2026.831.0-canary.6` **Deployment mode** Other: local trusted Quickstart through `npx`. **Installation method** npm through `npx`. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Codex. **Database mode** Embedded PGlite. **Access context** Board operator during onboarding. **Node.js version** Node.js 26.4.0. **Operating system** macOS. **Relevant logs or output** ```shell Cannot find package 'acpx' imported from .../node_modules/@paperclipai/server/dist/vendor/paperclip-runner/drivers/acpx/codex-runtime-adapter.js ``` **Relevant config (if applicable)** No custom configuration was required. **Additional context** The published adapter utilities contain a nested `acpx@0.12.0`. Node cannot resolve that nested package from the sibling vendored runner. Installing `acpx@0.13.1` at the clean package root makes the failing runner import succeed. **Privacy checklist** The log excerpt contains no user path, token, company name, or other private value. ## What Changed - Added `acpx@0.13.1` as a bundled server runtime dependency. - Added a version-specific patch check for the ACPX versions used by the server and adapter utilities. - Added release-package coverage for the server ACPX bundle. ## Verification - `pnpm test:release-registry` passed 98 tests. - `node --test scripts/acpx-patch-packaging.test.mjs` passed 12 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/server-package-build-script.test.ts` passed 4 tests. - `node --test scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` passed 12 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - A clean extracted server tarball contained the patched `acpx@0.13.1` runtime. - The previously failing vendored runner module imported from that clean tarball. - The repository-wide test suite was stopped before completion at the maintainer's request because it takes too long for this urgent packaging fix. ## Risks - Risk is low. - The server tarball grows because it now contains ACPX and its production dependencies. - The release stager now uses a version-specific marker to verify the ACPX patch. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex with `gpt-5.6-sol`. - The model used reasoning mode, tool use, and code execution. - The context window size was not disclosed. ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>