mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-09 16:02:36 +01:00
DottaandPaperclip
fdda02a26e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents and their work. > - A task can ask a person to approve a saved plan. > - The server refuses approval after a newer plan replaces that plan. > - The document and request queries can finish at different times. > - The composer can then keep controls for a plan that is already out of date. > - This change removes those controls when a newer saved revision is known and refreshes the request state. > - People can review the current plan without an obsolete approval above the composer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An old plan approval can stay above the task composer after the plan changes. Selecting Approve returns a superseded error. The failed action does not refresh the request list. **Expected behavior** Remove the old approval and its pending count as soon as the UI knows that the plan has changed. Keep a newer approval visible if its document query still has an older revision. Preserve accepted decisions and unrelated requests. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a confirmation for a saved plan revision. 2. Save a newer plan revision while the old request remains in the browser cache. 3. Read the composer before the request query finishes. 4. Try an old approval after the server has expired it. **Paperclip version or commit** Source checkout based on `5d25117ffa`. **Deployment mode** Source checkout. The regressions use the production React components and query cache in jsdom. Related work: Refs #14907 (replaced request receipts) and Refs #15025 (server replacement for requests from board users). This change fixes the interval between document and request reads, plus the refresh after a failed resolution. It does not change those server or history rules. ## What Changed - Remove pending approvals for older saved plan revisions from the task display and composer. - Compare revision numbers, or document and request times for targets that have only a revision ID. Keep newer requests when the document cache is behind. - Refresh request queries after document activity and settled approval errors. - Use the same plan freshness check for recovery retry. An old hidden approval no longer blocks Retry agent. - Test the recovery controls and the guards for missing plans, accepted decisions, questions, other tasks, other companies, and older document reads. - Add regressions for both workspace presentations, task and conversation modes, revision formats, unrelated requests, and accepted history. - Document the display behavior in the development guide. ## Verification - TDD: five assertions failed before the main fix. Old controls stayed in the composer, document activity did not refresh requests, and superseded accept or reject responses did not read the new state. - The previous session recorded 815 passing focused UI tests after the recovery retry fix at `d95cf3235ed83dc1f6c7f51372dff408814eb15c`. UI typecheck, the production UI build, and token gates also passed. - The main fix at `5147fd29a03413596d5b2445ae3b480352cbff1a` passed all CI gates. This includes typecheck, build, general tests, and eight E2E shards. [CI run](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42266101662). - The prior affected local run passed 7,656 UI tests, with one skipped, and 38 shared tests. Its CLI phase had two file-mode failures under the agent's `0077` umask and a child-server timeout during first-use builds. All three CLI files passed after a new check with `umask 022` and warm build dependencies: 25 tests passed. No CLI source changed. The initial full command did not pass or store a reusable pass. - On this continuation, the local test command could not start because the restored workspace has no installed Vitest dependency. No test verdict came from this attempt. - Final [CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/42302544154) passes all applicable required gates for `d95cf3235ed83dc1f6c7f51372dff408814eb15c`, including typecheck, build, general tests, and eight E2E shards. Greptile and Paperclip reviews both report 5/5 at that exact revision, with no unresolved findings. The separate advisory review workflow remains queued. - No live browser acceptance or deployment is claimed. ## Risks - The UI must distinguish an older approval from an older document cache. Tests cover both query orders and preserve newer approvals. - This is a display and cache refresh change. Stored decisions, server authorization, approval gates, and database schemas are unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The exact deployment model ID and context window size are not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with available 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 described the issue in-PR following the bug template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My remote branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass for the final revision (scope and initial environment failures are stated above) - [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>