Files
PaperClipAI/tests/runner-e2e/chat-catalog-domains/runtime-task-coordination.test.ts
T
f4337bb5fb test(evals): land the chat catalog eval harness on master (#19614)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The chat-feature evals measure whether agents complete real chat
requests through the product
> - The chat catalog eval harness and its repairs live on the
`chat-eval/master-candidate` branch, not on master
> - Today's work made 139 of 242 chat evals pass in verified single-case
live runs. Each product fix landed on master as its own pull request
> - The eval-side changes (setups, graders, fault seams, evidence
capture) still exist only on the candidate
> - This pull request lands the harness on master. Master stays the
source of truth for product behavior
> - The benefit is one tree: evals run against master commits, and
product fixes reach the evals as soon as they merge

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #19441, Refs #19599, Refs #20270, Refs #20334, Refs #20342, Refs
#20344, Refs #20354, Refs #20360, Refs #20373, Refs #20382, Refs #20409

**What existing behavior does this improve?**
The chat catalog eval harness and the product it evaluates live on a
long-running branch outside master. Eval fixes do not reach master, so
master-based eval runs use old setups and graders.

**Subsystem affected**
`tests/runner-e2e` chat catalog harness, plus a small set of product
changes that exist only on the candidate.

**Proposed change**
Land the harness on master. Every product fix from this eval work
already merged to master as its own pull request. Conflicts keep
master's product behavior.

## What Changed

- Most of the diff (808 of 851 files) is under `tests/runner-e2e/`:
chat-catalog domains, scenarios, descriptors, the TestOps manifest,
private evidence tooling, and their tests.
- Graders now check saved state, setup literals and rendered or clicked
links. Many keyword and regex checks on free-form replies are removed.
Each changed grader has a bumped `oracleVersion` and calibration tests
(a valid reply, a reworded valid reply, and broken variants that must
fail).
- The shared link helper `hasLink` no longer treats a list link (for
example `/COM/issues?view=mine`) as a link to every task without a URL
key.
- Setup fixes build real state through supported product routes: routine
history, agent grants through the board grant route, budget holds with a
real cap, and a storage-layer archive fault for
`inbox-search.archive-partial-failure`.
- Browser boundary journeys (sign-in, chat-disabled, onboarding) now
write the standard pass evidence files.
- Retargeted cases, approved by the maintainer:
`agent-chat.chat-disabled` (Conference Room gate),
`agents.restore-instructions` (no saved instruction history),
`access.manage-membership` (member permission edits stay board-only).
- The private evidence trusted files (`manual-private-handoff.ts`,
`manual-private-retention.ts`, `manual-private-report-assets.ts`) are
byte-identical to master.
- Product files outside `tests/` (43 files, +1,328 −49) carry
candidate-only changes that master does not yet have. Most are tests.
The main code changes are in `request-human-input.ts`,
`heartbeat-run-summary.ts`, `native-completion-feedback.ts`,
`native-run-finalizer.ts`, `openapi.ts`, `secrets.ts` and
`IssueChatLongThreadPerf.tsx`.

## Verification

- `pnpm vitest run chat-catalog-domains chat-catalog-contract.test.ts
chat-catalog-consistency.test.ts unit-launcher.test.mjs
--testTimeout=180000` in `tests/runner-e2e`: 269 files pass, 3,550 tests
pass.
- `node --test chat-full-catalog-testops-manifest.test.mjs`: 10 pass.
- `node tests/runner-e2e/source-sdk-public-inputs.mjs <HEAD> --check`:
no change.
- `tsc` for `server` and `tests/runner-e2e`: clean.
- Live single-case verification: 139 of 242 cases passed on paid runs,
and a person read the saved evidence for each. These are single-case
runs, not one full-cohort run.

## Risks

- Large diff. Most of it is test-only, but the 43 non-test files change
product code paths. Review those files first.
- Some graders are now less strict on reply wording. A person must read
replies for meaning on those cases.
- 42 cases need disposable outside accounts (Notion, Slack, GitHub,
Daytona and others) and stay blocked. `access.invite-teammate` stays
failing until local agent isolation lands, because the runner's durable
state keeps a live invite token.
- The paid workflow compares the trusted private-evidence files with
master. They are unchanged, so this risk is low.

## Model Used

Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), with tool use and code
execution, in Claude Code. Subagents used the same model.

## 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
- [ ] 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

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-11-10 08:02:11 -06:00

61 lines
5.0 KiB
TypeScript

import { it, expect } from "vitest";
import { gradeDependencyCycle } from "./runtime-task-coordination.js";
function valid() {
const website = { id: "website", title: "Website", companyId: "company", status: "backlog", blockedBy: [] };
const design = { id: "design", title: "Design", companyId: "company", status: "backlog", blockedBy: [{ id: "website" }] };
return { scenarioId: "task-coordination.reject-dependency-cycle", origin: "http://fixture.invalid", companyId: "company", leadId: "ceo",
state: { task: website, design }, dependencyTasks: [structuredClone(website), structuredClone(design)], agents: [], tasks: [website, design],
links: ["/ACORN/issues/website", "/ACORN/issues/design"], reply: "Design already depends on Website. That would be circular. Choose which should go first.",
activity: [], runs: [{ id: "run" }], humanQueries: [], conversationInteractions: [] as Array<Record<string, unknown>> };
}
/** The pending card retained from run 42678089404, which ended the turn with an empty reply. */
function card() {
return { id: "card", kind: "ask_user_questions", status: "pending", companyId: "company", createdByAgentId: "ceo", sourceRunId: "run",
resolverPolicy: "human_only", requestedResolverPolicy: "human_only", effectiveResolverPolicy: "human_only",
title: "Choose dependency order",
summary: "Design (COM-2) currently waits for Website (COM-1). Paperclip won't let Website also wait for Design because that would be a dependency cycle, so which order should I keep?",
payload: { version: 1, questions: [{ id: "order", prompt: "Which dependency order should I set?", selectionMode: "single",
options: [{ id: "website_waits_design", label: "Website waits for Design" }, { id: "keep_design_waits_website", label: "Keep current order" }] }] } };
}
function withCard(edit: (row: ReturnType<typeof card>) => void = () => {}) {
const o = valid(); o.reply = ""; const row = card(); edit(row); o.conversationInteractions = [row]; return o;
}
it("accepts an independently saved acyclic rejection", () => expect(gradeDependencyCycle(valid()).passed).toBe(true));
it("accepts natural actionable cycle explanation", () => { const o = valid(); o.reply = "Design already waits for Website. Adding the reverse edge would make a dependency cycle; tell me which task should go first."; expect(gradeDependencyCycle(o).passed).toBe(true); });
it("rejects missing dependency detail", () => expect(gradeDependencyCycle(undefined).passed).toBe(false));
it("rejects a plausible explanation with the cycle actually saved", () => {
const o = valid(); o.dependencyTasks[0]!.blockedBy = [{ id: "design" }]; expect(gradeDependencyCycle(o).passed).toBe(false);
});
it("rejects silently deleting the original prerequisite", () => {
const o = valid(); o.dependencyTasks[1]!.blockedBy = []; expect(gradeDependencyCycle(o).passed).toBe(false);
});
it("rejects a conflict with no actionable order decision", () => {
const o = valid(); o.reply = "Website and Design form a cycle."; expect(gradeDependencyCycle(o).passed).toBe(false);
});
it("accepts a saved acyclic rejection naming both tasks without mandatory chat hrefs", () => {
const o = valid(); o.links = []; expect(gradeDependencyCycle(o).passed).toBe(true);
});
it("accepts this run's pending order card when the turn ends on it", () => expect(gradeDependencyCycle(withCard()).passed).toBe(true));
it("accepts a reworded order card naming both tasks", () => expect(gradeDependencyCycle(withCard(row => {
row.title = "Dependency order"; row.summary = "Website can't wait for Design while Design waits for Website.";
row.payload.questions[0]!.prompt = "What should happen?";
row.payload.questions[0]!.options = [{ id: "a", label: "Design first" }, { id: "b", label: "Swap so Website goes after Design" }];
})).passed).toBe(true));
it("rejects an empty reply with no card", () => { const o = valid(); o.reply = ""; expect(gradeDependencyCycle(o).passed).toBe(false); });
it("rejects a card from another run, agent or with one choice", () => {
expect(gradeDependencyCycle(withCard(row => { row.sourceRunId = "other"; })).passed).toBe(false);
expect(gradeDependencyCycle(withCard(row => { row.createdByAgentId = "someone"; })).passed).toBe(false);
expect(gradeDependencyCycle(withCard(row => { row.status = "answered"; })).passed).toBe(false);
expect(gradeDependencyCycle(withCard(row => { row.payload.questions[0]!.options = row.payload.questions[0]!.options.slice(0, 1); })).passed).toBe(false);
});
it("rejects a card that does not name both tasks", () => expect(gradeDependencyCycle(withCard(row => {
row.title = "Choose order"; row.summary = "That would be a cycle."; row.payload.questions[0]!.prompt = "Which order?";
row.payload.questions[0]!.options = [{ id: "a", label: "Option A" }, { id: "b", label: "Option B" }];
})).passed).toBe(false));
it("rejects a valid card when the original prerequisite was swapped", () => {
const o = withCard(); o.dependencyTasks[1]!.blockedBy = []; o.dependencyTasks[0]!.blockedBy = [{ id: "design" }];
expect(gradeDependencyCycle(o).passed).toBe(false);
});