mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
c8c2ae82a3
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip relies on end-to-end tests to catch regressions in the operator UI > - The applications list status pill is rendered from more than one data fetch, so the visible label can lag behind the row itself > - A default Playwright assertion timeout can expire before the connections fetch finishes under CI load > - That creates a flaky failure without changing the underlying product behavior > - This pull request extends the two status-pill assertions to use the longer timeout already used elsewhere in the spec > - The benefit is the same UI coverage with fewer false negatives ## Linked Issues or Issue Description There is no public GitHub issue linked to this repo-local fix. This PR addresses a flaky Playwright assertion in `tests/e2e/applications-crud.spec.ts`, where the status pill can render after the default assertion timeout because it depends on the connections fetch as well as the applications fetch. ## What Changed - Increased the wait window for the two status-pill visibility assertions in `tests/e2e/applications-crud.spec.ts`. - Kept the assertions anchored to the exact expected labels (`Healthy` and `Not connected`) so the test still verifies the same behavior. ## Verification - The spec is still discovered cleanly by Playwright. - The diff stays limited to `tests/e2e/applications-crud.spec.ts`; there are no product, dependency, or lockfile changes. - The full browser-backed e2e signal remains CI for this change. ## Risks - Low risk. This only changes assertion timing in a test file and does not alter runtime product behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool-using coding agent. ## 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>