mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-04 19:28:46 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
61e8d5c7eb
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Public pull requests need CI without access to private runner capacity. > - Trusted CI CODEOWNERS use the AWS runner fleet after identity and revision checks. > - The PR caller accepts both `profile-ci` and `full-ci` label events. > - The runner gate accepted only `profile-ci`, so `full-ci` sent trusted work to GitHub. > - This change accepts both labels and keeps the existing authorization checks. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #18821. Observed on #18848 in [run 41711436968](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41711436968). **What happened?** A CODEOWNER added `full-ci` to a trusted PR. The metadata gate ran on AWS, then sent the test matrix to GitHub with the notice `only the profile-ci label can request a profiling run`. **Expected behavior** Both supported labels keep authorized CI on AWS. A label must not grant an outside contributor access to AWS. **Steps to reproduce** Add `full-ci` to an open PR whose author and event sender satisfy the CI owner and numeric allowlist checks. Before this change, the runner decision returns `ubuntu-latest` before it checks those identities. ## What Changed - Accept `full-ci` and `profile-ci` label events in the trusted runner gate. - Test both labels with trusted users, unlisted users, and numeric-allowlisted users who are not CI owners. - Document that label selection changes CI scope and preserves runner authorization. ## Verification - The new trusted `full-ci` regression failed before the fix with `ubuntu-latest` and passes after the fix. - `node --test .github/scripts/tests/ci-routing.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/ci-plan.test.mjs .github/scripts/tests/ci-profile.test.mjs scripts/__tests__/e2e-shard.test.mjs`: 147 passed. - `actionlint -shellcheck='' .github/workflows/ci-routing.yml`: passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - This isolated checkout has no installed workspace dependencies. Repository-wide typecheck, tests, and build are delegated to this PR's CI; local verification covers the changed routing and its callers. - A read-only replay against this PR's real GitHub identities and commits returned GitHub with the old `full-ci` guard and AWS with the corrected guard. No PR code was executed by the replay. - Greptile reviewed current head `47f7159f67c8633830d7732cb68c6d43d8243fe5`: 5/5, successful check, no unresolved review threads. Both incremental-CI qualification jobs and commitperclip review passed. - Full CI is not green. Attempt 1 lost workers to verified Spot reclamations in `m5.xlarge/us-east-1c`. After excluding that type from new placements, one failed-job retry retained 19 successful checks and reran 27 interrupted checks on AWS. The policy check passed, including these regressions. AWS then confirmed seven more reclaimed `m8a.xlarge/us-east-1c` workers and two reclaimed `m8i-flex.xlarge/us-east-1b` workers. The affected checks show runner shutdowns; unaffected jobs remain running. [Recovery attempt](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/41714303495/attempts/2). ## Risks This changes the event allowlist before authorization. The author, event sender, rerun actor, repository, CODEOWNERS, numeric allowlist, and immutable revision checks still apply. Unrelated labels remain denied. Separate helper workflows that explicitly choose GitHub runners are outside this change. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, shell, Git, and GitHub API tools. The runtime does not expose a more specific model build ID or 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 - [ ] 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>