Dotta
a4308b9791
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People group tasks into projects and use those projects to keep work in context. > - Deployment journeys already test task creation and assignment. > - They do not yet prove that a new project and its task keep the same saved relationship after reload. > - This pull request adds an explicit browser journey for that gap. > - Independent API reads and visible task properties must agree on the exact records and selected settings. > - The journey uses no model runs. Each deployment must pass before a daily plan can include it. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The deployment-targeted Product E2E suite can now check project creation and task context through the production dialogs. **Current behavior** The suite covers standalone task creation and assignment. It does not prove that a newly created project contains the task selected in the composer, or that the relation survives reload. **Proposed behavior** Select `project-task-context`. Create a unique project and a self-assigned task with that project selected. Reopen the project, open its task, and reload. Require exact saved company, project, title, prompt, user assignment and standard work mode. Require no agent runs before or after reload. **Reason and benefit** The same journey can qualify different deployments. It catches lost project links and incorrect saved context without a model call or a separate QA-only test implementation. ## What Changed - Add the browser flow and an independent saved-state oracle with positive and negative cases. - Scope project and task navigation to unique links in the main content so sidebar links cannot bypass list coverage. - Bind reopened routes to saved project and task references. Verify the main project heading and visible task content instead of a hidden duplicate sidebar label. Keep browser failures as closed stage codes. - Register the journey, its closed success checks, and its source files in the definition hash. Default model-matrix selections stay unchanged. - Associate qualification-report coverage with project lifecycle, project task context and task creation. Reject retained browser-only passes containing run IDs, provider/model metadata or native/legacy execution. - Add `project` to the existing durable ownership resource contract. A target provider remains responsible for cleanup of its own project fixtures. - Update discovery expectations, the deployment journey guide and the projects feature map. ## Verification - Focused runner tests: 110 passed across the new oracle, discovery, journey contracts and existing report subprocess checks. The first sandboxed attempt blocked the existing report subprocess IPC socket; the same selection passed with local IPC enabled. - Late review regression checks: both report association and unexpected browser-only model work reproduced as failing tests before the fix. The final contract, saved-state oracle and report catalog selection passed all 72 tests. Runner typecheck passed again after these changes. - Browser readback: the old project-name selector failed in Chromium when a hidden sidebar label preceded the production project heading. All six browser regression cases now pass, including missing rows, wrong project/task destinations and a wrong project property. The fixture uses the production heading and task-row overlay conventions. Credential-free Node 24 imports pass. - Current-master integration: 208 focused catalog, project/search, campaign and reporting tests passed. All nine project/search browser regressions passed. Runner typecheck, map checks and Node 24 imports for both journeys passed. The combined catalog, dispatch, source hashes, success checks, browser-only guard and feature associations retain both selections. - The first deployment qualification created both owned records but failed during later readback with a generic browser code. Authentication, setup, collection and cleanup passed. That failed grade is retained. The corrected source subsequently passed a fresh attached QA campaign; the original failure remains preserved. - New oracle alone: 7 tests passed after the final catalog mapping change. - `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` — passed; structural checks only. - Credential-free `--suite product-journeys --list` — passed and lists this browser journey. - `node node_modules/typescript/bin/tsc -p tests/runner-e2e/tsconfig.json` — passed after building required plugin, runner and eval-kernel declarations. The initial fresh-checkout check failed because those declarations were not built. - All current-head CI gates passed, including repository typecheck, tests, build and browser checks. Greptile reviewed the exact head at 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Fresh attached QA passed at `f19557c9eebde14c2def37195d6b154c23eb9690`: [sanitized report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/evals-qa-smoke-41119722363-1/). All five independent checks and authentication, setup, journey, collection and cleanup passed; zero agent runs started. ## Risks - This adds an opt-in test and changes no production behavior or schema. UI control changes can fail the journey. - The target provider must support durable `project` ownership before it can run this case. Project cleanup must settle owned tasks, reject foreign linked tasks and archive the project while preserving history. - Source registration alone does not include the candidate in any saved daily plan. A fresh pass against that deployment is required first. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with code inspection and tool execution. The host does not expose the exact underlying model revision or context-window size. ## 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 (no duplicate journey found) - [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
6.7 KiB
navigation
| navigation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Projects and repositories
People group tasks into projects, attach goals and repositories, and configure the context and defaults used by project work.
Feature ID: projects.
Implementation: project list, project detail.
Agent access: companion.
Sub-features
lifecycle:projects/lifecycle— create, name, organize, and archive projects.task-context:projects/task-context— inspect project tasks and create work in the selected project.repositories:projects/repositories— configure repository/workspace sources and verify usable checkouts.defaults:projects/defaults— maintain project instructions, environment, goal, and budget context where offered.privacy:projects/privacy— create private projects, inspect access members, and manage their audience without publishing protected tasks.
How to get to it (user POV)
project-list
Open /projects, create a project, and enter its overview or Issues view.
repository-settings
Open /projects/:projectId/configuration and its repository/workspace settings.
Workspace storage shows the inherited installed default and allows an explicit
provider or Core/local choice. Conflicting defaults remain visible for repair.
project-access
Open /projects/:projectId/configuration, use Private project, and choose Manage access or View access according to your authority. Create a private project through the supported creation surface or API when needed for a fixture.
Driving it with Playwright and the Paperclip CLI
Preconditions: follow the baseline. Use a disposable project and a small repository you can access; record checkout and credential ownership.
project-list
Automated: projects UI and project detail are component tests.
Automated: the explicit project-task-context deployment journey
creates a project and a self-assigned task through the production dialogs. It
reopens both, verifies the project task list and task properties after reload,
and independently checks the saved company, project, prompt, assignment and
standard work mode with zero agent runs. Oracle tests
reject lost links and mismatched records. This describes coverage; each target
still needs its own live pass before daily promotion.
Manual: Create a project, add a task from its view, and reload. Verify the task belongs to that project, list counts are plausible, and links preserve company scope. Archive only the disposable project and inspect list/task behavior.
repository-settings
Automated: provider defaults and API overrides and storage selection UI cover inherited choices, explicit overrides, and configuration errors. These offline checks do not qualify live provider storage.
Automated: repository persistence and repository browser suite cover configured repository workflows.
Manual: Attach a small repository, save, and create a project task. Inspect the actual checkout/revision used by its run. Test an invalid repository and missing credentials without treating a saved URL as a working workspace.
project-access
Automated: Privacy production review covers persisted project audience changes, task inheritance, and actor intersections. Privacy controls covers UI controls and task-cache invalidation after membership removal. These tests do not prove both people’s live navigation.
Manual: As an ordinary authenticated project owner, create a private project and task. Add another company person and an eligible agent through Manage access, reload, and inspect their project discovery and task reads. The added person can view members but cannot change the audience. Remove them, reload their session, and retry direct project/task links. Confirm removing the owner is unavailable or rejected. Add a direct grant for one private task, then open the project to the company after inspecting the confirmation. Verify the project becomes discoverable, protected tasks remain private, and project-derived task access no longer substitutes for direct task access. Test the agent and its responsible person separately.
Sources: Project properties, access members, project routes, and authorization.
Gotchas
-
A private project’s member list is readable to an authorized project reader. Task access-grant inspection has a stricter management boundary.
-
/overviewnow selects Configuration, not a distinct overview page. Personal join/leave and star controls have their own persistence and should be checked when affected; Star/Unstar {project name} is the visible star action. -
Project name slugs change on rename and have no historical alias lookup. Reopen a renamed project through its stable UUID route, wait for the current Configuration form, and record the newly normalized URL before reloading.
-
Project repository configuration and a provisioned execution workspace are different records.
-
See workspaces, goals, and budgets for those features.
-
Do not assume a deleted or archived project should erase its historical task evidence.
Automatic repository skills
Creating or attaching a GitHub repository enqueues skill import without another setup step. Check Skills → Sources and the installed library afterward. Ordinary edits to older projects do not adopt their repositories; explicit adoption belongs in Sources. Removing a repository retains installed skills and originating project access but stops its automatic tracking. Changing the ref does not retarget existing skill references.
Documentation scope: Projects and execution workspaces
Provider-specific provisioning, multi-repository/submodule edge cases, Git reconciliation variants, and all service exposure combinations require deeper recipes.