mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
f42a66bf04
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Pipelines are a control-plane workflow surface where operators need confidence that setup, intake, board movement, review, and learning flows keep working. > - The tutorial flow is broad enough that regressions can slip through unit tests when UI state, route behavior, and workflow fixtures drift apart. > - End-to-end coverage gives reviewers a realistic smoke path through the pipelines tutorial experience. > - This pull request ports the pipelines tutorial flow into Playwright and updates the variable flow covered by the scenario. > - The benefit is stronger browser-level regression coverage for a high-value onboarding/workflow path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists. Inline feature request: **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: `tests/e2e`, server startup, and the pipelines UI workflow. **Problem or motivation** The pipelines tutorial flow lacked focused browser-level regression coverage for setup, intake, board movement, detail/review surfaces, and learning flow behavior. This left a broad user-facing workflow dependent on narrower unit coverage. **Proposed solution** Add a Playwright spec that boots a throwaway Paperclip instance and exercises the tutorial flow across setup, intake, board movement, item detail, review queue, learnings, agent fan-out, drift acknowledgement gates, child-terminal gates, and stale approvals. **Alternatives considered** Unit tests alone are faster but do not validate the integrated browser workflow. A release-smoke-only path would be broader than necessary for this tutorial-specific coverage. **Roadmap alignment** This supports the roadmap theme of easier onboarding and stronger first-run confidence without adding a new core feature surface. **Additional context** The local host used for this PR is missing Chromium’s `libatk-1.0.so.0` dependency, so the full browser run needs CI or a machine with Playwright system dependencies installed. ## What Changed - Added a Playwright e2e spec covering the pipelines tutorial flow. - Covered agent fan-out, drift acknowledgement gates, child-terminal gates, stale approvals, setup/intake, board movement, item detail, review queue, and learnings. - Added Playwright config support needed by the new tutorial flow. - Updated the tutorial variable flow assertions in the ported spec. ## Verification - Attempted `/srv/paperclip/home/paperclipai/paperclip/node_modules/.bin/playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/pipelines-tutorial-flow.spec.ts` - Local result: the throwaway Paperclip server booted and `covers agent fan-out, drift acknowledgement gates, child-terminal gates, and stale approvals` passed. - Local blocker: the second Chromium test failed before executing because this host is missing the Playwright system library `libatk-1.0.so.0`. CI should run this on an image with browser dependencies installed. ## Risks Medium risk for CI duration/flakiness because this adds browser-level coverage over a broad workflow. The test is intentionally scoped to one spec file and uses the dedicated e2e config/server path. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5 coding agent with repository tool use and local shell execution. Context window was not surfaced by the runtime. ## 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 - [ ] 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [ ] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>