mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
faf72cb1d5
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip uses a shared company context for browser providers and
consumers.
> - Vite can load a new consumer module while an older provider is
mounted.
> - Recreating the context disconnects that consumer from the mounted
provider.
> - The consumer then reports a missing provider even though one is in
its React ancestry.
> - This change preserves the context object across development module
refreshes.
> - Bounded global error diagnostics distinguish development bundles and
otherwise context-free promise rejections.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
A refreshed company consumer can throw `useCompany must be used within a
CompanyProvider`. A real Vite and Chromium reproduction confirms that a
retained provider and a refreshed consumer can hold different context
objects. Global promise rejections also lack the bounded document state
already attached to React boundary errors.
**Expected behavior**
A refreshed consumer should read the mounted provider. Error reports
should identify the loaded bundle mode and bounded browser state while
preserving monitoring opt-in, sign-out, and privacy behavior.
**Steps to reproduce**
Run `pnpm test:e2e:browser-context`. The isolated Vite fixture renders
the real CompanyProvider, imports a new timestamped consumer module, and
renders that consumer below the retained provider. The test fails before
the context change and passes after it. The SDK regression invokes its
real unhandled-rejection handler with an undefined reason.
## What Changed
- Keep the React context object in Vite's per-module `hot.data`. Account
values stay in React.
- Add an isolated browser regression with mocked API responses and no
live instance, discovered by the existing Chrome CI shards.
- Add document-state diagnostics to global errors while preserving
earlier boundary snapshots.
- Tag events with development or production bundle mode and the type of
an unhandled rejected value.
- Document the new test command and diagnostic fields.
## Verification
- Company context, browser context, and Sentry suites: 59 passed.
- `pnpm test:e2e:browser-context`: passed in Chromium. The original
context code fails the reproduction.
- Real SDK tests preserve DSN/sign-out behavior and omit request
context, breadcrumbs, and private DOM data.
- `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed.
- `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed.
- `pnpm build`: passed.
- Local `pnpm test:run` exited in the general-server phase: 13,819
passed, 86 skipped, 21 failures in unchanged filesystem and host-port
suites. Cache permission and long-path failures also reproduce on the
unmodified base; seven other failures involve local runtime port
ownership. This is not a full local pass.
- Full Linux CI and review passed at a0b5270662 (53 successful checks;
two conditional checks skipped). Three jobs interrupted by a runner
shutdown passed on rerun. Greptile is 5/5 with no unresolved comments.
The real browser regression also passed in the normal Chrome CI shard
(3.2 seconds).
- Code-owner approval remains required because the dedicated test
command changes `package.json`.
- Scanned the diff and PR text for credentials and private data before
pushing.
## Risks
The context cache applies only to development hot reload. It retains the
context object, not account state. Production continues to create an
ordinary React context. The diagnostic hook adds only bounded state and
type values, preserves boundary snapshots, and returns the original
event if enrichment fails. It does not suppress errors or restore raw
breadcrumbs. The global rejection diagnostics do not identify the
promise's originating operation by themselves.
## Model Used
OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code editing,
and command execution. The runtime does not expose a more specific 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
- [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 (focused suites and
Chromium regression; full local limitations documented above)
- [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>