DottaandPaperclip
c8efdbfba4
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - The feature map records the user-facing capabilities. > - Storybook uses the same feature index. > - Step 2 found 49 UI capabilities with no authored examples. > - This pull request adds shipped-component examples with isolated fixtures. > - The catalog records each example's states and remaining production checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #16167. The verification inventory is merged; this follow-up now targets master. ## What Changed - Add 37 suites and 257 scenarios for all 49 UI capabilities from the step-2 inventory. Keep existing stories and IDs. - Use shipped pages and components. Simulate API replies, sockets, props, and callbacks at their boundaries. - Activate story API fixtures before the application providers read data. Block unregistered API mutations and restore owned storage/fetch state. - Add browser checks for rendering, declared play assertions, fixture reset, and selected mobile/theme states. Update the catalog and verification inventory. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm build`: passed. - UI Vitest suite: 730 files and 8,208 tests passed. Fixture boundary tests: 4 passed. - Map/catalog checks, 27 generator/map tests, and token gates: passed. - `pnpm build-storybook`: passed. All 2,248 previous built entry IDs remain present. - Pre-reconciliation static browser suite: 260 checks passed (257 scenarios, token fixture reset, and two mobile/theme cases). All non-play stories assert an explicit subject state; 129 play functions passed. - `pnpm test:run` could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL exhausted host shared-memory allocation. The run also reported native-runner test timeouts. Only this task's verified runner was stopped; other jobs and host settings were preserved. - Reconciled onto merged master `252d9b5077`. The six draft stories and new same-browser reset regression passed (7 checks); 16 draft-persistence tests and UI typecheck passed. Static merge verification: 32 affected-subject/draft checks passed, including same-browser reset. Rebuilt Storybook retains all 2,248 original IDs in its 2,517-entry index. Four additional play-result checks passed: visible onboarding reset, pending probe, filtered-empty runs, and optimistic queued-response removal. UI typecheck and 27 catalog/map tests also passed. Final static browser suite on `3fab35df8d912935fa86ce0de7d32d07e2b5f4c3`: all 261 checks passed (257 scenarios plus fixture-reset and mobile checks). Latest head `3fab35df8d912935fa86ce0de7d32d07e2b5f4c3`: all 55 CI/status checks passed; the two optional Storybook workflow jobs were skipped. Greptile 5/5 with no unresolved threads. - No pinned Linux visual-baseline comparison or real provider journey is claimed. ## Risks Fixtures can drift from production contracts. The catalog records inspected sources and their fingerprints. Capability links provide initial isolated UI coverage; they do not certify every recipe variant, real permissions, persistence, or provider behavior. The new examples expose existing UI limits. Plugin discovery failure stays on Loading. Document and environment-list reads lack dedicated failure feedback; Cases and Inbox fall back to empty views after errors. Goal alignment has display views but no assignment control. These findings remain visible in the inventory. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex. The exact runtime deployment ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used code generation, shell execution, and browser verification. ## 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>
Storybook Visual Baselines
The visual suite compares built Storybook stories against PNG snapshots stored
outside git. The checked-in manifest at baseline-manifest.json pins the
immutable archive URL, SHA-256, byte size, snapshot count, and capture
environment.
Commands
pnpm storybook-visual:baseline download
pnpm storybook-visual:baseline verify
pnpm test:storybook-visual
pnpm test:storybook-visual:update
download fetches the archive, verifies its SHA-256 and byte size, unpacks it to
tests/storybook-visual/.snapshots/, and checks the PNG count. The same snapshot
directory can be overridden with STORYBOOK_VISUAL_SNAPSHOT_DIR.
Known Limitation: Linux Baselines
Storybook visual baselines are platform-locked. The checked-in manifest records
the capture environment as ubuntu-24.04, and Playwright compares screenshots
with maxDiffPixels: 0. Pixel-exact results are only meaningful when local runs
use the same Linux/Ubuntu capture platform as the baseline.
macOS, Windows, and other non-matching local environments can produce
false-positive diffs from font rasterization and subpixel rendering differences.
Use the Storybook Visual GitHub Actions workflow on ubuntu-latest as the
source of truth for cross-platform review, or run the suite locally in a matching
Linux environment before accepting or updating baselines.
CI and Review Artifacts
Storybook visual tests are opt-in while the suite stabilizes. Add the
storybook-visual label to a pull request, or run the Storybook Visual
workflow manually, to download the pinned baseline, build Storybook, and run the
Playwright visual suite on GitHub Actions.
The workflow uploads tests/storybook-visual/playwright-report/ and
tests/storybook-visual/test-results/ as a storybook-visual-report-* artifact
on every run. When screenshots differ, Playwright writes the actual, expected,
and diff PNGs into test-results, so reviewers can inspect the failure without
rerunning the suite locally.
Normal PR visual runs use repository read-only permissions and never upload or
modify baseline objects. To review intentional visual changes before updating
baseline-manifest.json, run the workflow manually with update_snapshots
enabled. That produces a storybook-visual-baseline-review-* artifact containing
the packed candidate snapshot archive for review. Publishing that bundle to the
baseline bucket still requires the explicit maintainer upload command below.
Updating Baselines
- Run
pnpm test:storybook-visual:updateafter reviewing intentional visual diffs. - Run
pnpm storybook-visual:baseline packto createtests/storybook-visual/baseline-review/snapshots.tgz. - Upload the archive from a trusted maintainer environment with
STORYBOOK_VISUAL_S3_URI=s3://bucket/baselines/storybook-visual/<sha>/snapshots.tgz pnpm storybook-visual:baseline upload. - Copy the printed
snapshotCountandarchivefields intobaseline-manifest.json.
Generated snapshots, review bundles, Playwright reports, and downloaded caches are ignored by git.