DottaandPaperclip
87d9386ae6
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agent Chat lets a person attach files before the first message. > - The first upload creates the saved chat task while the upload is still pending. > - Initial history loading used that new task ID to reset the open composer. > - Resetting the composer discarded its pending upload even when the server saved the file. > - This pull request uses the conversation's stable draft key for its history readiness. > - The benefit is a first message that retains its selected files and their saved references. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The first file upload in a new Agent Chat saved on the server but disappeared from the composer. The initial history change in #16878 can unmount the active composer when an empty chat receives its task ID. The pending upload belongs to that unmounted composer, so the new composer has no selected file. **Expected behavior** The same conversation keeps its active composer and pending file while the task is created. Sending the message binds the saved attachment once. Initial history loading for an existing conversation and ordinary task still waits before mounting its composer. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open Agent Chat for an agent with no saved conversation. 2. Attach a text file before sending a message. 3. Let chat creation finish while the upload is pending. 4. Observe that the file chip disappears, although the attachment POST returns 201. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced by a deterministic real-composer regression on master2e5bf12411. The existing browser case also failed twice in #16893 before this prerequisite fix. **Deployment mode** Built from source. Browser acceptance uses a disposable local-trusted server, embedded PostgreSQL, Chromium, and a simulated agent. Related: #16878 added the initial history gate. #15769 covers durable writes during disconnects; this change fixes an in-flight upload lost during first-chat creation. Duplicate searches found no existing fix for this transition. ## What Changed - Use the stable conversation draft key for readiness and timeout state when available. Ordinary tasks keep their task ID as the readiness key. - Add desktop and mobile regressions with a deferred real-composer upload. Check the same editor, file receipt, and one send after chat creation. Keep coverage for deferred initial history on saved conversations. - Update the Agent Chat feature map with the first-upload journey and its verification scope. ## Verification - Red: both new desktop and mobile tests found that the editor became null during the draft-to-saved-chat transition, losing the pending file. - Green: `node node_modules/vitest/vitest.mjs run ui/src/components/TaskChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/task-chat/TaskChatComposer.test.tsx --maxWorkers=2` passed all 335 tests. - The existing Chromium first-upload journey passed after the fix. It checks the visible chip, saved attachment, no premature agent run, and the attachment count after send and reload. Command: `pnpm exec playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/agent-chat-projects.spec.ts --grep 'first upload creates the chat' --workers=1`. - The browser run built the shipped UI. Token gates, palette and character checks, map validation, and diff checks passed. - Earlier local browser attempts did not reach the assertion: dependencies installed without lifecycle scripts lacked the packaged PostgreSQL library symlinks, then an anchored title filter matched no test. Ran the native package's setup, corrected the filter, and preserved both setup logs. The deterministic component regression supplies the local failing-before proof. - An initial direct UI typecheck lacked generated Storybook catalogs. The standard `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` generated them and passed. - Independent source review found no actionable issue. The readiness key matches the parent thread key, and conversation changes retain their existing remount boundary. - Review found one documentation overstatement: the browser test checks the attachment count after reload, while the component test checks the submitted Markdown reference and receipt ID. Corrected the map and this description to separate those assertions. No production code or browser assertions changed. - Current commitc6a2734311has 55 successful checks and 2 skipped checks. Greptile is 5/5 with the finding resolved. The separate Paperclip review is neutral/incomplete: it inspected the changed code but its reads of the parent IssueDetail source stalled. It reported no actionable defect. The independent source review described above did inspect the parent identity boundary. - Full current-commit CI is the repository-wide gate. No deployment or live model was used. ## Risks - A conversation draft key must stay stable while its task is created. Agent Chat already uses that key for its composer draft and thread identity. - A different conversation key resets readiness. Existing conversation and ordinary task history still use their initial loading gate. - No visual values, API contracts, upload retries, or attachment authorization changed. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed by this session. Used tool calls, code execution, and test-first regression verification. ## 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 feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.