mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-04 11:01:16 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
ff80845756
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Slack setup connects a saved agent draft to a workspace. > - Workspace authorization can fail before the agent's Slack app exists. > - The error requested reconnection while its primary action said Continue. > - Older grants could also make retry provision instead of reopening authorization. > - This change names the recovery action and keeps it on the authorization path. > - People can reconnect from the same setup page and resume the saved agent. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #18722. **What happened?** A managed Slack draft showed “Reconnect your Slack workspace to continue setting up this agent.” Its primary action was Continue. The reconnect label depended on a registration that might not exist, and a saved error or failed explicit authorization could be ignored when an older grant remained available. **Expected behavior:** Offer one enabled Reconnect Slack workspace action that opens ordinary Slack authorization and resumes the saved setup. **Steps to reproduce:** Resume a managed Slack draft before app creation with a saved manager reauthorization error, or fail an explicit workspace authorization request. Inspect the recovery action with zero, one or multiple older workspace grants. ## What Changed - Show Reconnect Slack workspace for saved and local authorization failures before app creation and for existing-app recovery. - Honor the saved manager error and retain explicit authorization intent, so retry authorizes rather than provisioning with an older grant. - Hide irrelevant workspace controls during recovery and allow authorization before choosing an old grant. Use one recovery action. - Cover zero, one and two older grants in component regressions. Update the existing browser test to use the explicit action; add production-wizard desktop/mobile recovery previews and provider guidance. The Slack provider UI owns this change. It uses the existing authorization endpoint and shared footer; API contracts and provider permissions are unchanged. Maps are unchanged. ## Verification - Final head: `02234bd1afc61d404841a9fc2b7e457b0dc021bf`. Full CI [41715544834](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41715544834) passed on attempt 2, including all browser, server/chat, Runner, typecheck, build, policy and canary checks. Greptile and Ponytail both give this exact head 5/5; all review threads are resolved. - All 20 managed setup tests and 276 related chat UI tests across 19 files passed. All 9 Slack provider browser cases passed on the final source in 1.3 minutes using Node 24.22.2 and unchanged Playwright configuration. Provider responses are mocked in those cases. - Full repository typecheck and build passed earlier; final UI typecheck/build, token gates and Storybook catalog checks passed after the source refinement. All 30 map/catalog Node checks passed. Catalog/map checks are structural. The full local server Vitest suite was not repeated for this UI-only change; full CI covered it. - Production-wizard browser previews covered saved recovery on desktop and at 320 × 568, older grants, and failed explicit authorization. On the final source, the visible retry with older grants returned to an error-free workspace chooser, where Continue requires a choice. Selecting a workspace and continuing was also exercised through the message step during the preceding refinement. All provider actions in these previews are simulated. - The existing recovery path was independently exercised live in staging through ordinary controls: Continue → Slack Allow → Success → Open Slack → real agent DM reply → Done → full reload. The new action label still needs deployed acceptance. No live grant was revoked or duplicate bot created to force the error. Failures retained through acceptance: - New regressions failed on the earlier sources for missing recovery labels, ignored saved errors with active grants, a duplicate action, disabled multi-workspace recovery, and lost explicit authorization intent. The final tests require enabled recovery, authorization navigation and no provisioning on that action. - The first preview assertion raced workspace-options loading; it now waits for the same enabled condition. A later multi-workspace return assertion incorrectly expected the message step; it now checks the required workspace choice and disabled Continue before selection. The fixture's authorization flag is reset by a normal full reload. An unsupported Testing Library `exact` option was caught by typecheck and replaced with an anchored name regex. Failure screenshots remain preserved. - Earlier CI [41707550300](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41707550300) found the existing browser test still clicking Continue and an npm canary-version collision. The locator was updated without removing authorization-count/redirect assertions; subsequent packaging checks passed. CI [41709833527](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41709833527) had runner shutdown/lost-communication interruptions; those earlier successes were not used to qualify the final head. - Final-head attempt 1 had a native Runner shutdown while unpacking its cache, plus a distinct Cursor Cloud Stop assertion failure in the package lane (4890 passed, 10 skipped). The Cursor Cloud case passed unchanged in isolation, with its source subtree matching the CI merge tree; the CI cause is not established. Both full Runner lanes then passed on retry of the same reviewed commit, with successful checks retained. - One local browser invocation timed out during server startup on Node 26 before assertions. The first Node 24 wrapper invocation failed a nested-npx package selector before assertions. Direct Playwright execution with that wrapper variable cleared and unchanged timeouts passed the final 9-case suite. - Greptile flagged a routine regression paragraph outside feature-map scope; it was removed. Ponytail then found the active-grant mismatch; it was reproduced and fixed at the authorization decision. Both reviewers now report 5/5. ## Risks Saved reauthorization errors and retries of explicit authorization requests now reopen existing Slack consent even when older grants remain. Provider availability or browser consent can still prevent reconnection. This change does not establish why the original workspace grant became unusable; simulated previews are not live Slack proof. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository editing, browser use and command execution. The runtime does not expose a more precise model ID or context-window size. ## 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>