mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-31 06:04:11 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
a0e3ac62a7
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their work. > - The task list lets people find saved work and open its context. > - Product journeys can exercise the same task UI on local and Cloud targets. > - The shared suite lacks a search and status-filter journey with control tasks. > - This pull request adds that journey with exact task identity checks. > - The benefit is reusable evidence that search, filters, and task navigation work together. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Product E2E coverage for task search, status filters, and saved task navigation. **Current behavior** The shared journey suite covers task creation and assignment. It does not prove that a search excludes an unrelated task, that a status filter excludes a matching completed task, or that the selected task retains its saved content. **Proposed behavior** An explicit `task-search-filter` selection creates three owned tasks. It searches through the production task list, applies Backlog, and opens the exact target. It verifies reload and Back navigation, saved task fields, and zero agent runs for all three tasks. **Reason and benefit** The same journey can run against a managed local stack or an attached Cloud target. Independent assertions reject missing evidence and plausible wrong results. Deployment qualification and daily-plan admission remain separate gates. **Breaking changes** None. Existing journey selections keep their behavior. Related work: #16979 fixes status filtering before pagination. #15403 covers saved task views. This journey tests the existing search/filter interaction and does not add a new UI or saved-view feature. ## What Changed - Add a zero-run browser journey with one target and two owned controls. - Compare exact visible task identities after search, filtering, reload, and Back navigation. - Verify saved company, owner, title, description, status, and zero agent runs through the public API. - Register dispatch, source hashing, closed success checks, and browser reporting validation. - Add adversarial oracle tests and a campaign dispatch test. Document the selection and its feature-map scope. - Exercise the real browser flow with a stateful UI/API port across Coordinator, combined Tasks, and legacy shells. Inject missing ownership, wrong destinations, lost filters, changed saved context, and unexpected native work. - Use the combined Tasks shell's named Backlog view for reload persistence, as required by its existing view-preset contract. Preserve the successful polled result snapshot and link the case to feature coverage. ## Verification - First attached Cloud attempt failed during Backlog selection. Its cleanup passed and it started no model work. The original failed result is preserved; the corrected candidate passed a fresh attached campaign below. - Local Chromium reproduces the cause: the legacy StatusIcon and text label produce the accessible checkbox name `BacklogBacklog`, so the prior exact `Backlog` lookup finds no status control. - The selector now stays inside the Status group and accepts the explicit and duplicated names. Three real Chromium regressions pass, including a separate assignee called Backlog. - Latest focused journey checks: 130 passed. Runner typecheck and map checks passed. Unexpected browser/API failures retain only closed source-owned stage codes. Screenshot privacy guards and all exact identity, content, filter, and zero-run checks are unchanged. - Fresh attached Cloud qualification passed at `e3dfc0ae37e8ac74e9a07ca24421ea6c96f9bcfc`: [sanitized report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41114233380-1/). All five independent search/filter/reload/reopen/no-agent checks and all five phases, including cleanup, passed. The browser journey started zero agent runs. - Runner typecheck passed: `node node_modules/typescript/bin/tsc -p tests/runner-e2e/tsconfig.json`. - Focused oracle, contract, and campaign tests passed: 101 unique tests. The campaign suite was rerun after its new dispatch test: 30 passed. - Direct browser-flow tests passed: 23 tests. These call the real `taskSearchFilter` function through a stateful UI/API port. They do not establish live browser or Cloud qualification. - Latest focused search, oracle, catalog, and report checks passed: 127 tests across five files. - Full runner Vitest completed with 5,204 passes, two skips, and three failures outside this change. Two local embedded PostgreSQL fixtures failed at bootstrap. The Pi controls test expects profile version 35 while the unchanged base declares 37. These failures remain recorded; the PR does not change those fixtures or pins. - The remaining Node support suite passed separately: 137 tests. The standard unit launcher stops before these tests after a Vitest failure. - Credential-free discovery passed: `node --import ./cli/node_modules/tsx/dist/loader.mjs tests/runner-e2e/launch.ts --suite product-journeys --list`. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` passed. `git diff --check` passed. - All 58 current-head check runs are green, the additional security status passed, Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5, and no review threads remain unresolved. Typecheck, test, build, browser CI, and fresh attached Cloud acceptance passed. Daily-plan admission follows merge. ## Risks - Task-list control labels and link structure can change. Such drift fails the journey and needs an update. - The journey creates three board-assigned tasks. It records ownership before creation and records each returned ID immediately. The existing target provider owns cleanup. - Local assertion tests do not prove that a deployed Cloud target passes. The target owner must record a fresh live pass before admission to a daily plan. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The host does not expose an exact model version or context limit. Used repository search, TypeScript tools, and tests. ## 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>