Devin FoleyandPaperclip
63fbb714e6
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip runs work for AI agents. > - Hosts must prove that accepted work has finished before idle sleep. > - HTTP request tracking keeps unfinished writes active after a client leaves. > - Static file middleware has no returned completion promise. > - An aborted UI download can leave its request active forever. > - This PR completes only a matched file response and keeps other work tracked. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15522. Found while qualifying #16679. A search found no duplicate static-download idle fix. **What happened?** Closing a client during a static UI download leaves one tracked request active. The response has closed, but the file middleware never calls the wrapped response end method. The instance cannot report idle after that request. **Expected behavior** A closed, matched static file response must not leave a permanent work hold. Unfinished application writes must remain tracked. A missing file must keep the normal fallback and error paths. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Serve a large local file through the static UI middleware with idle admission enabled. 2. Start the download over HTTP. 3. Disconnect the client after its first data chunk. 4. Observe that the tracked request remains active with the original middleware. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on the behavior in `d30648dee89720358271c276b9fc28cf83f18be7`. This branch starts at `cfa9dce295970a85b3d8ee14cab0eccf50bc72e2`. ## What Changed - Mark the completion of a known read-only response without dropping pending middleware promises. - Wrap static UI file serving. A successful file match is required before a closed response can complete its tracking. A late match rechecks an already closed response. Missing files keep the normal fallback. - Use the wrapper for hashed assets, other static UI files, and public development files. Preserve caller headers and cache options. - Test both HTTP abort timings, nested routers, conservative mounted-application holds, parent writes, mutating GET fallbacks, and callback-only work. - Update the idle contract and its verification map. Correct the paused-message recipe from hosted qualification: an explicit Pause cancels older queued work, so test new accepted input after the pause and await the normal resume lifecycle. ## Verification - The original two real stream-abort regressions fail with the original Express static behavior. - Three review regressions fail on `e260f4694afab8447b0cb203f439cb3ccad254e8`: a client closing before file lookup, an unfinished parent in a mounted application, and an unfinished parent in a root without installed handler tracking. Fixed sources were restored byte for byte after the comparison. - Two focused suites: 16 passed. They cover nested routers, both abort timings, hidden parent writes, late missing-file fallbacks, contents, HEAD, conditional responses, and caller headers. - Module and map checks pass. Map checks are structural only. - `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`: passed on `f242ee739344484995d3addf81635512370778c8`. - Full CI matrix: 54 successful checks and 2 intentional Storybook skips. - Apex: 5/5 on the exact current head, with zero unresolved threads. - Full local maintained test groups are still running before final handoff. - The initial local broad run was stopped before changing source for the P1 review findings. Two file-mode fixture failures in that run came from the scratch runner's inherited `0077` mask; the same suite passes with the normal child test mask `0022`, without source or host configuration changes. The replacement run uses `0022` for test children and command-scoped `init.defaultBranch=master` for existing Git fixture assumptions. - This PR has not been deployed to a hosted environment. ## Risks Only a matched file served by the admitted application with installed handler tracking can complete this way. Routers share that scope. Mounted Express applications and roots without handler tracking keep the existing conservative response hold; this change does not claim their hidden writes are tracked. An unfinished tracked parent promise still blocks sleep after a file client disconnects. Redirects, missing files, application callbacks, and other GET requests retain their guards. No authentication, company scope, provider cleanup, or scheduling gate is removed. No schema or API response changes. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, source editing, and shell tools. The session does not expose a more specific serving model ID or its 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>
Paperclip feature map
Start here when reproducing a user-facing bug, verifying a change, or deciding which surfaces a fix must cover. Each recipe describes what a person can do, where they can do it, the expected result, and the evidence needed to verify it. Product behavior is still governed by the implementation spec.
The sibling agent access map records APIs, agent entry points and permission boundaries for the same capability IDs. Follow the shared map contract when maintaining either map.
Browse features
Open the published Storybook guide for the assembled feature and capability index. The Markdown recipes in this directory are the authored source. Each has a same-named agent-access companion.
Run node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs to generate local navigation in
maps/generated/feature-map.md, maps/generated/agent-access-map.md, and the
Storybook guide. A new recipe is discovered automatically; do not register it in
this README or maintain counts here.
Before driving a journey
- Use this checkout's isolated test drive for manual product checks. It creates a temporary instance and prints its URL and data directory. Do not guess that a server on port 3100 belongs to you.
- Record the commit, URL, company, login role, relevant experimental settings, adapter, runtime mode, and live versus simulated dependencies. Use disposable tasks and provider resources. A fresh test drive creates a company and CEO, but no task or first run.
- Use the current navigation and company prefix. Paths in recipes omit that prefix. Record whether the streamlined or production shell is selected; Agent Chat, chat connectors, and the combined Inbox/Tasks view have separate gates. A hidden surface is an unmet prerequisite, not a successful test.
- Run the smallest relevant test first. Vitest commands below run from the repository root after installing dependencies. Playwright recipes use their named configuration and its isolated environment, not an unrelated running instance. Reserve expensive runner/provider tests for the behavior at issue.
- Exercise the actual user action, inspect its result, reload, and verify the persisted state or continuation. Use read-only API checks to corroborate UI evidence; creating state through the API does not prove the creation UI.
For agent-driven acceptance work, start with the Paperclip verification skill for an isolated launch, ownership/readiness checks, browser driving, evidence, and cleanup. It uses this directory as its feature map. The existing dev-workspace run/verify skill and evaluation skill describe runtime ownership and evidence handling. Reuse them; this map introduces no environment launcher, credentials, scheduled job, or second test framework.
Evidence contract
Report each entry point as passed, failed, blocked (with its missing prerequisite), or not run. Include the feature filename and entry-point ID, commit/environment, user action, expected and observed result, command/exit code, and evidence links. Screenshots or traces should show both the action and the discriminating result. Include task/run/request IDs when relevant, without secrets.
A fix is verified across its affected surfaces only when each has evidence or an explicit reason it does not apply. Shared code alone does not prove parity. Keep product regressions visible; do not change the recipe to bless a failure. For Paperclip-assigned work, attach evidence through the artifact workflow.
Inventory and remaining depth
The generated maps/generated/coverage.json lists the current non-test TSX page
modules and the recipes that directly reference each one. An unreferenced module
is a documentation candidate, not proof that its feature is absent or untested.
Remaining workflow limits live in each recipe. Inventory and example associations
describe documentation scope, not runtime health.
Maintaining the reference
The map documents user journeys. It does not execute them automatically; generated inventories record documentation scope rather than live test health.
When maintaining a recipe, compare its entry points and expected results with
the current source. Check that linked tests still exercise the stated behavior
and that local references still exist. Keep the same-named agent access companion
and stable sub-feature IDs aligned when behavior or access changes. Source-only
access inventory remains distinct from live verification. Run
node scripts/check-maps.mjs after map edits for structural/reference checks;
follow the shared contract for the source and behavioral checks it cannot perform.
Each recipe starts with a small frontmatter navigation record, then an H1:
---
navigation: {"section":"Tasks and conversations","sectionOrder":20,"order":10}
---
The H1 supplies the feature title, and the first paragraph supplies its summary. Orders are local to the section; leave gaps for additions. Equal orders use the stable filename as a tie-breaker. Keep a section's name/order consistent across its recipes. A new feature or capability needs only its recipe and companion.
Optional ### Storybook verification guidance lives inside the recipe's Gotchas
section. Each level-four heading contains a backtick-quoted capability key and
has Scope (ui, cli, or browser),
Storybook, Production, and Sources fields. These are verification instructions
and intentional scope limits, not run results or a required story for every API.
The generated gap report combines this guidance with current story associations.
After frontmatter, each recipe starts with an H1 and a user-visible description, then exactly:
- Sub-features — stable backticked IDs and observable behavior/states.
- How to get to it (user POV) — one H3 backticked entry-point ID per surface.
- Driving it with — starts with
Preconditions:; repeat each entry-point H3, withAutomated:andManual:paragraphs. Name test scope and gaps honestly. - Gotchas — misleading look-alikes, feature gates, and invalid evidence.
New or updated entries follow
Poteto's feature-map examples.
Existing entries with a Driving it heading can adopt the named harness when
their recipes are updated. The original format was inspired by
Omnigent's feature map.
Paperclip's recipes and checks follow its own task model and test infrastructure.