mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-07 07:23:08 +02:00
Devin FoleyandPaperclip
df66219780
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work done by AI agents. > - The task thread lets an operator retry a failed run. > - Legacy runs with transcript output did not get a failure marker. > - The thread could therefore offer Try again for an older failure. > - The server correctly reused that failure's existing retry, even when it had already failed. > - This change keeps the latest failure actionable and reports stopped retry responses to the operator. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Try again could return success without starting work. An initial setup failure had an empty transcript. Its later retry produced output and failed. Only the initial failure had a retry marker, so the button kept requesting the initial failure's already-failed successor. **Expected behavior** Try again targets the latest failed attempt. An already-stopped retry response shows an error and refreshes the task's run state. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a legacy adapter task that fails before producing transcript output. 2. Retry it. Let this attempt produce output and a final failure comment before it fails. 3. Click Try again in the task thread. 4. Before this fix, the click targets the original failure and replays the stopped successor. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against `1483bb8bcf`; the regression is also present on the branch base `8813a50105`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated server with a legacy adapter. The bug is in the shared task UI and retry API client. Related: #11650 adds a different recovery-notice action. This change fixes failed-run markers and retry response handling. Searches found no duplicate of this failure case. ## What Changed - Render legacy failure markers even when the run has a transcript or final comment. - Keep later cancelled automatic retries from replacing the failed run's retry action. - Reject already-stopped retry responses in the API client so existing error feedback appears. - Refresh task run queries after both successful and failed retry requests. - Add regression coverage for failed and timed-out attempts, execution gates with output, and retry response states. ## Verification - Before the fix, the new regression tests failed: two selected the original failure, and four accepted a stopped successor as success. - Targeted task-thread, retry API, marker, and issue-page tests: 279 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`: passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build`: passed. - `pnpm check:token-gates`: passed. - Full UI suite: 6,529 tests passed across 626 files. - [CI run 35650385023](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35650385023): all 53 checks passed, including full workspace build, typecheck, unit/integration suites, and browser tests. The redundant local full-workspace test run was stopped after CI passed; it is not counted as a completed local pass. - Greptile: 5/5 on `608ee58c99`, with no review threads or unresolved comments. The branch is mergeable. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` were attempted. Both stop at the Runner's Rust checks because this host has no `cargo`. The full workspace checks passed in CI. ## Risks Low risk. This changes UI presentation and response handling only. The server's exact-retry idempotency, authorization, execution ownership, and recovery gates remain in place. No schema changes or live task mutations. Existing documentation describes this retry action; the fix restores that behavior. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 (Codex), with reasoning, repository tools, and code execution. ## 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 (targeted checks; full-workspace limits described above) - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes (existing behavior restored; no documentation change needed) - [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>
@paperclipai/ui
Published static assets for the Paperclip board UI.
What gets published
The npm package contains the production build under dist/. It does not ship the UI source tree or workspace-only dependencies.
Storybook
Storybook config, stories, and fixtures live under ui/storybook/.
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui storybook
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook
Typical use
Install the package, then serve or copy the built files from node_modules/@paperclipai/ui/dist.