mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 10:48:12 +02:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
ca92f727c5
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The CI workflow is responsible for producing and publishing the Docker images that power Paperclip deployments > - The cloud image publish was previously coupled to the stock publish job, so a failure or delay in one path could gate the other > - That coupling makes the release pipeline less resilient than it needs to be > - This pull request gives the cloud publish its own top-level job so both publishes can run in parallel without a `needs:` dependency > - The benefit is better failure isolation and less wasted time when one publish path is slow or broken ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue was found for this change. Problem statement: - The cloud image publish was implemented as trailing work inside the stock publish job. - That setup meant the cloud publish could be delayed or skipped if the stock job failed early. - The desired behavior is for the cloud publish to run independently so a failure in one publish path does not gate the other. Proposed solution: - Split the cloud publish into its own top-level workflow job. - Keep the same cloud-specific build settings and cache behavior. - Preserve the existing top-level concurrency behavior. Alternatives considered: - Keeping both publishes in one job with conditionals or later steps. Rejected because it still couples success and runtime between the two publish paths. ## What Changed - Split the cloud image publish into a separate top-level Docker workflow job. - Removed the dependency coupling so the cloud job does not need the stock job. - Expanded the drift-guard test to assert the two-job structure and the absence of `needs:` on the cloud job. ## Verification - The workflow YAML was parsed successfully and confirmed to contain two jobs: `build-and-push` and `build-and-push-cloud`. - The cloud job was confirmed to have no `needs:` entry. - The drift-guard assertions were reproduced in a dependency-free harness and passed. - PR #10408 completed GitHub Actions with all required checks green, including the e2e shards. - Greptile review completed at 5/5 with no unresolved comments. - No documentation files changed because this is a workflow/test-only change. ## Risks - The workflow now duplicates the prep steps across two runners, so any shared setup change must be kept in sync between both jobs. - The new job increases workflow surface area slightly, which can make future maintenance more verbose. - Overall risk is low because the change is limited to CI orchestration and test coverage. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-5, tool-using code assistant) ## 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>