mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-12 22:56:58 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
eebdfe71b1
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - People send follow-up messages while an agent works. > - The queue above the composer holds those messages until delivery. > - The queue showed raw Markdown and had no screenshot previews. > - Submitted screenshots stayed in the composer until the save response arrived. > - This pull request shows formatted text and previews in the queue at submission. > - It keeps upload receipts so failed saves can restore the draft and its files. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Send a message with Markdown and screenshots while an agent works. The queue shows Markdown source. It has no screenshot previews. The composer keeps the submitted screenshots until the save response arrives. **Expected behavior** Show formatted text and screenshot previews in the queue. Clear the submitted previews with the text. Restore them if the save fails. Keep files added for the next message. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Open the Screenshot Submission Storybook case under Steering and queued messages. 2. Add a screenshot and formatted text. Select Send. 3. Leave the simulated save pending. Inspect the queue and composer. 4. Reject the save. Confirm the draft and screenshots return. Retry and complete the save. Related work: #19321 bounds the queued-message list. This fix keeps that scrolling behavior. ## What Changed - Hide submitted attachment previews as soon as Send clears the text. Keep their upload receipts until the request settles. - Use the shared Markdown renderer in queued rows. Show up to three compact screenshots with a count for more images. Strip standalone image syntax from the text preview. - Keep paragraph boundaries. Wrap thumbnails and controls within narrow rows. - Load queue previews only from local attachment and asset content paths. Add an opt-in image omission mode to the shared Markdown renderer for compact queue text. - Correct the case lookup API summary so the existing search test passes with the full catalog. - Add regressions for successful, rejected, and uncertain saves. Check files added to the next draft. - Add a production-component Storybook case with controlled save responses and a desktop/mobile browser test. - Document the queue display and draft recovery behavior in DESIGN.md. ## Verification - Red: the original components fail five new unit cases. The desktop and mobile browser cases also fail on raw Markdown. Screenshots show the previews still in the composer. - Green: 256 composer, queue, and shared Markdown unit tests pass. - Related coverage: 466 thread, draft, and attachment tests pass. One existing test is skipped. - Three browser cases pass. Desktop and mobile cases check pending save, rejection, retry, successful save, and steering. A 320px case checks separate paragraphs with no margins, three loaded thumbnails, the additional-image count, and auto-send controls. It checks that all controls and images fit within the queue. - UI typecheck and design token gates pass after the review fixes. The initial implementation also passed the UI production build, Storybook catalog checks, and 30 map/catalog tests. The final PR workflow passed typecheck, build, all required test suites, and browser E2E checks. - Browser command: `pnpm exec playwright test queued-message-screenshots.spec.ts --config=tests/storybook-visual/playwright.config.ts --project=stories`. Use `STORYBOOK_TEST_BASE_URL` to target an owned Storybook server. - Review regressions first failed with two unit failures and an inline-paragraph browser failure. They pass after the fixes. - Initial CI failed the case lookup search test. It reproduced locally and now passes all three cases after the API summary correction. - Initial CI also failed process identity inspection during a server shutdown test. All 22 focused shutdown tests pass locally without source changes. The cause remains unconfirmed; the final CI Runner support suite also passed without changes to process cleanup. - The browser cases mount production components with simulated upload/save and steer responses. They do not prove backend persistence or live provider delivery. - `pnpm verify` returns exit 2 because DESIGN.md is a global CI input. The required PR workflow supplies the broad CI coverage. - Native preflight cannot finish because Cargo is absent in this environment. UI dependencies were installed. The missing plugin SDK build was prepared before the successful UI checks. - Final head: `2219de45721360d36341ea1ae46641b6bcb20360`. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42708839687) passed. No checks are pending or failing. Greptile and Paperclip Review each gave 5/5. All five prior review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Narrow rows can grow to show two text lines and thumbnails. The existing queue height limit still applies. - Screenshot previews use the existing image-reference parser and a local attachment path filter. Image omission is opt-in; thread and decision media keep their existing modes. - Pending uploads remain in draft state while their previews are hidden. Rejection and uncertain-response tests check that the same receipts return without losing later attachments. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6. The runtime does not expose a more specific serving model ID or context limit. Used reasoning, tools, code execution, and browser checks. ## 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>