mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-11 14:10:50 +02:00
DottaandPaperclip
dea7c4e274
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Operators need visibility into who initiated work, which agents ran, and how tasks were delegated across a company. > - The existing control plane stores the raw data across issues, heartbeat runs, comments, approvals, interactions, and activity logs. > - There was no single company-scoped API response that reconstructed those records into timeline actors, spans, events, and edges for a Gantt-style view. > - This pull request adds that aggregation endpoint behind the same company and issue read authorization model used elsewhere. > - The benefit is that UI work can consume one bounded endpoint instead of reimplementing timeline joins client-side. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this feature. ## Problem or motivation Paperclip stores enough execution and delegation data to show work over time, but consumers need a single endpoint that aggregates it consistently. ## Proposed solution Add `GET /api/companies/:companyId/timeline` with date and entity filters, bounded windows, pagination, actor normalization, run spans, human events, and delegation/assignment edges. ## Alternatives considered Querying each source separately from the UI would duplicate ACL and attribution logic and make client rendering depend on storage details. ## Roadmap alignment This supports operator visibility and auditability, and does not duplicate a listed roadmap item. ## What Changed - Added a `workTimelineService` that aggregates issue candidates from runs, activity, comments, approvals, interactions, and recently touched issues. - Added `GET /api/companies/:companyId/timeline` with `from`, `to`, `userId`, `goalId`, `projectId`, `issueId`, `limit`, and `offset` query parameters. - Enforced company-scope access plus per-issue `issue:read` filtering before emitting spans, events, or edges. - Added 31-day window capping, in-progress span handling for null `finishedAt`, retry/continuation metadata, user-lens subtree filtering, and activity-log run attribution fallback. - Added embedded-Postgres tests for aggregation joins, route behavior, ACL filtering, window capping, and user-lens closure. ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/work-timeline-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec tsc -p server/tsconfig.json --noEmit` Additional smoke attempted: - `pnpm dev:once` did not start the local app because the existing embedded instance has pending migration drift: Postgres rejected a foreign key on `pipeline_case_blockers.company_id` because that column does not exist. I did not manually alter the embedded database. ## Risks - Medium risk: this introduces a new aggregate endpoint over several tables, so query volume should be watched on very large companies. - The endpoint caps windows and paginates issue candidates to keep the first version bounded. - ACL behavior is fail-closed per issue: unreadable issues are filtered before response rows are emitted. - No migrations or schema changes are included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex coding agent, with tool use for repository inspection, editing, local Vitest execution, TypeScript checking, git, and GitHub CLI operations. ## 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 - [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] 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>