mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-20 15:09:57 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
a8b652b085
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - GitHub review bots turn authorized repository events into agent tasks and publish the result on the pull request. > - Cloud Apps send callbacks through a relay, but the direct callback recovery worker reported that URL as broken. > - Reconnecting the same App then prevented a new authorized publication from updating its existing working comment. > - Report-only runs could also produce an action-required check when no complete assessment was available. > - This pull request preserves comment identity across reconnects, verifies fresh signed delivery after repair, and keeps report-only results neutral. > - Users can receive the review without changing repository access or making an advisory bot block their pull request. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A review could be saved in Paperclip while GitHub kept showing “Working on this…”. A same-App reconnect changed the runtime generation and the existing response receipt then failed with “GitHub response binding changed”. Cloud callback recovery also compared the relay URL with a direct tenant URL. An incomplete or failed report-only run could produce an action-required check. **Expected behavior** A fresh authorized attempt updates the same App-owned comment after reconnect. Stale attempts and revoked people remain denied. Cloud relay delivery does not produce a direct-callback mismatch. Report-only checks remain neutral and explain incomplete work honestly. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Accept a GitHub request and publish its working comment. 2. Reconnect the same App before the agent publishes its result. 3. Submit the result and inspect the working comment and check. 4. Separately, let a report-only run end without an assessment and inspect its check conclusion. Related: #16138 addresses the separate classification of local authorization errors as provider credential failures. This change fixes the response binding and report-only paths themselves. ## What Changed - Bind durable response comments to the App and agent. Keep per-attempt runtime generation checks and provider comment ownership checks, including legacy receipts. - Exclude Cloud-managed Apps from the direct webhook recovery scan and its stale callback-mismatch warning. The Cloud inbox owns relay retries. - Let a fresh authenticated event from the bound installation verify webhook delivery after repair. Keep signature, runtime epoch, installation, and credential lease checks. - Keep report-only assessment and terminal-run checks neutral. Preserve incomplete/error text and gated-review behavior. - Add integration regressions for reconnect races, legacy comments, failed runs, Cloud recovery, and foreign or forged webhook traffic. Update connector documentation. - Correct the assigned-tool search guidance to name the actual input fields (`offset` and `schemaOffset`) and show valid arguments. The failed automatic review had an input-schema rejection before tool execution; this clarifies recovery without expanding tool access. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - GitHub policy and integration suite: 291 tests passed (`vitest run server/src/services/chat-github-review-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/chat-channels.integration.test.ts -t 'GitHub|github'`). - The report-only policy regression failed before the fix and passed after it. - `pnpm build` passed. - Assigned tool discovery: 24 tests passed. Its guidance now maps returned pagination offsets to the correct input fields and tells the model to omit unused optional fields. - Full `pnpm test:run` is running. It encountered a 15-second timeout in the unrelated authenticated Workspace calendar-write test. That test passed on one isolated rerun. - After the review-requested module extraction, server typecheck and both direct/Cloud recovery activity integration checks passed. - All 55 non-skipped CI checks passed for `32e690279d847e44a6946b6c7cfb110fb11aff79`. Greptile scored that commit 5/5 with no unresolved findings. Live staging publication verification follows deployment. ## Risks - A durable response can now survive a same-App reconnect. Fresh authorization, runtime generation checks for each publication attempt, App ownership, and the publication lease still fence writes. - Report-only failures intentionally become neutral. The check still reports the failure; it does not claim a complete assessment. - Cloud-managed callbacks rely on their existing durable relay inbox. The direct callback recovery worker remains unchanged for direct installations. - No schema migration or permission expansion. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with code inspection, editing, test execution, and browser verification. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## 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>