mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-13 07:12:00 +01:00
DottaandClaude
8d2bf78323
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The Runner support suite checks that the plugin SDK's public types come only from reviewed source inputs, pinned by git blob hash in `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json` > - #19614 landed those pins, generated against an older master; since then `package.json` and ten files under `packages/shared/src` changed > - So `source-sdk-public-type.test.ts` (2 tests) and `source-sdk-evidence.test.ts` (1 test) fail the `ci / Runner support suite` check on every PR merge ref > - This pull request regenerates the source pins with the script made for that job > - The benefit is a green Runner support suite for every open PR again ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Since #19614 merged, `ci / Runner support suite` fails on every PR (for example #20047 and #20538) with `SDK public source proof unavailable` and `Source SDK evidence privacy check failed`. **Steps to reproduce** 1. On master at902f376796, run `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts source-sdk`. 2. Two tests in `source-sdk-public-type.test.ts` fail. **Expected behavior** The source pins match the committed tree, and the suite passes. ## What Changed - `tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.json`: source pins regenerated with `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs902f376796--write` (11 changed blobs, plus new source files). The script reports `runtimePinsChanged: false`: the lock, compiler, parser and zod pins are unchanged. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run --config tests/runner-e2e/vitest.config.ts source-sdk`: 5 files, 68 passed, 1 skipped (before: 2 failed). ## Risks - Test registry only, no product code. The next change to a pinned input under `packages/shared/src` or `packages/plugins/sdk/src` will need the same resync, as before. ## Model Used - Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), Anthropic, via Claude Code with tool use (shell, file editing, test execution). ## 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 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>