mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-31 06:04:11 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
aa58fa1073
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip lets people manage work done by agents. > - Tasks, Inbox, and Needs You must stay usable as work history grows. > - The Coordinator views bypassed some existing collection optimizations. > - Navigation fetched complete decision cards for a count, and Tasks mounted every loaded row. > - This PR uses the canonical attention rules for small count and task-ID responses. It also restores bounded rendering and the optimized Inbox selection. > - The benefit is less data and less initial rendering work without a second definition of pending work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Coordinator navigation fetched the full attention feed on every cold collection visit. Tasks rendered the entire loaded collection. Coordinator could also select the old Inbox loader when Streamlined UI was off. **Expected behavior** Fetch only the projection needed by each surface. Start with a bounded set of rows. Keep complete task membership, accurate counts, current permissions, and stable loaded rows. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Coordinator and open Tasks or Inbox with an empty browser query cache. 2. Observe a complete attention-card download for the navigation badge. 3. Open a large task list and observe that every loaded row mounts at once. 4. Disable Streamlined UI while keeping Coordinator enabled, then open Mine and observe three overlapping compact task reads. Related work: #17756, #3744, #17983, and #18312. ## What Changed - Add board-only attention count and complete task-ID projections. Reuse canonical company, privacy, addressee, deduplication, dismissal, snooze, and archive rules. Skip card bodies, plan/image reads, and presentation roster lookup. - Share the small count read across desktop and mobile navigation. Reuse the page-owned response on Needs You and Needs attention. Keep the newest known count through navigation, including zero. - Use the task-ID index for Needs attention and keep task row hydration in batches of at most 100. - Render 100 task rows initially, across the whole expanded tree. Reveal 150 more at a time through scrolling or a button. Keep existing rows through refresh and append. Defer offscreen leaf layout with shared tokens. - Keep Coordinator on the optimized Inbox when Streamlined UI is off. Use index reads for expanded project recents. - Add real-database, component, and production-build browser regression checks. Update the access and feature maps. ## Verification - All required CI checks pass on `1c68ac8957490a6c8585ba0939355f536c8120bf`: typecheck, build, server/workspace tests, serialized database suites, and eight E2E shards. Greptile is **5/5**, with its row-retention finding fixed and the review thread resolved. Storybook checks were intentionally skipped; Paperclip Review completed neutral. - Workspace typecheck and production build passed locally. The final rebased source also passed UI typecheck and production build. Token gates and map checks passed. - The attention service suite passed all 34 tests on disposable PostgreSQL. Final targeted checks cover compact projections, complete-set counts, quality approvals, snoozes, private tasks, and board/company access. Database response capture confirms compact projections do not read plans or images. All 31 OpenAPI tests passed after registering both endpoint contracts. - Six production-build browser journeys passed: desktop, mobile, Coordinator Inbox with Streamlined UI off, Needs You, Needs attention, and an older server page followed by task open/Back. They verify the initial 100-row budget, scrolling, retained DOM identity/height, one owner per attention read, complete task membership, 220 retained rows on Back, and less than 2 px of return-position difference. - The row-budget and Inbox regressions fail against original source and pass with this change. The final three affected UI suites passed 40 tests, and the broader Inbox/IssuesList suites passed 101 tests serially. ### Controlled production-build comparison Baseline `b31ec0a2dc079e32272a8f618425fe92b68bbaec` versus PR head `1c68ac8957490a6c8585ba0939355f536c8120bf`. Isolated baseline asset `index-CS9uPxMx.js`; candidate asset `index-BxJeTQ30.js`. Both UI builds used the same warm disposable API server and database, with 220 tasks and 110 pending board approvals. Chromium **151.0.7922.34**, 1440 × 900 viewport, **4× CPU throttle**, loopback with no added network latency, alternating baseline/candidate order. Cold cases use a new browser context with network cache disabled; warm cases navigate within the same context. Other host workloads are uncontrolled. Readiness requires the destination collection's first visible task row, then two animation frames. Inbox readiness waits for its canonical Mine route so previous-page rows cannot satisfy the measurement. Five paired samples per case; cold Inbox has a second five-pair confirmation wave because the first result was slower. Times below are **milliseconds**; parentheses show min–max. Paired savings are the median of individual before-minus-after pairs, not the difference between medians. | Journey | Pairs | Baseline median (range) | Candidate median (range) | Median paired saving | Faster pairs | | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | | Cold Tasks | 5 | 2752 (2542–3025) | 2300 (2275–2524) | 328 | 5/5 | | Cold Inbox | 10 | 2536 (2283–2927) | 2582 (2117–2856) | 37 | 5/10 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 5 | 2054 (1826–2479) | 1448 (1419–1548) | 635 | 5/5 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 5 | 2020 (1485–2254) | 1568 (1289–1848) | 350 | 5/5 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 5 | 1747 (1609–1948) | 1327 (1238–1355) | 472 | 5/5 | Cold Tasks, warm Tasks, warm Inbox, and Back improved in every measured pair. **Cold Inbox latency is inconclusive:** the two waves pointed in opposite directions, with the candidate faster in 5/10 pairs. This PR claims less badge work there, not a proven cold Inbox latency improvement. The canonical badge response shrank from **200,039 to 359 decoded bytes** (encoded HTTP transfer: **8,125 to 598 bytes**). The compact response also skips card payloads, plans, images, and presentation-only roster work. These are measured mechanism reductions, separate from end-to-end latency. Needs You still owns its full card feed; Needs attention owns its complete task-ID projection. Reproduction setup and assertions are in `tests/perf/collections/README.md`. <details> <summary>Individual paired readiness measurements (ms)</summary> | Journey | Pair | Baseline | Candidate | | --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | | Cold Tasks | 1 | 3025 | 2283 | | Cold Tasks | 2 | 2542 | 2275 | | Cold Tasks | 3 | 2752 | 2424 | | Cold Tasks | 4 | 2783 | 2300 | | Cold Tasks | 5 | 2641 | 2524 | | Cold Inbox | 1 | 2927 | 2702 | | Cold Inbox | 2 | 2422 | 2629 | | Cold Inbox | 3 | 2409 | 2606 | | Cold Inbox | 4 | 2621 | 2769 | | Cold Inbox | 5 | 2539 | 2856 | | Cold Inbox | 6 | 2283 | 2117 | | Cold Inbox | 7 | 2466 | 2558 | | Cold Inbox | 8 | 2674 | 2286 | | Cold Inbox | 9 | 2696 | 2389 | | Cold Inbox | 10 | 2533 | 2183 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 1 | 2479 | 1423 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 2 | 2228 | 1548 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 3 | 2054 | 1419 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 4 | 1826 | 1448 | | Warm Tasks navigation | 5 | 1954 | 1518 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 1 | 2020 | 1661 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 2 | 2198 | 1848 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 3 | 1733 | 1497 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 4 | 2254 | 1568 | | Warm Inbox navigation | 5 | 1485 | 1289 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 1 | 1721 | 1330 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 2 | 1747 | 1275 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 3 | 1948 | 1355 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 4 | 1609 | 1327 | | Task → Back to Tasks | 5 | 1790 | 1238 | </details> ### Failed attempts and limits - The local full repository command hit embedded PostgreSQL startup failures and 16 failures in the untouched native session executor suite; it was stopped. The full local suite is not claimed green. CI on the final revision provides the broad test result. - A concurrent local UI run hit timing failures under host contention. Inbox/IssuesList subsequently passed all 101 tests serially. No tests were weakened to address these timeouts. - CI caught two integration gaps introduced during this work: missing OpenAPI entries for the new endpoints, and an attention fixture incompatible with the routine filters added on master. Both were fixed; the affected 31 OpenAPI and 40 UI tests pass. - The final revision's first CI attempt failed two untouched tests: scheduled-retry batch cancellation and the tool-access audience/archive race. Both failed jobs passed when rerun without changing the revision. Their original failed attempts remain visible in [the workflow history](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41083379875). - Browser evidence uses synthetic disposable data. This PR is not deployed staging or production verification. ## Risks - New attention sources must preserve canonical eligibility. Both projections call the existing collector, so they share its permissions and complete-set behavior. - The count and task-ID caches must not stand in for full decision cards. Each projection has its own key under the existing attention invalidation prefix. - A row budget can omit descendants if applied per parent. The tests cover one global budget across a large expanded tree, refresh, append, reset, and incremental loading. - Local browser evidence uses synthetic data and is not staging deployment proof. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact backend model deployment ID and context window were 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 (affected suites; broad-run limitations are listed 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>