[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
// @vitest-environment jsdom
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import { QueryClient, QueryClientProvider } from "@tanstack/react-query";
|
|
|
|
|
import type { Agent, Issue, IssueTreeControlPreview, IssueTreeHold } from "@paperclipai/shared";
|
|
|
|
|
import { act, type ButtonHTMLAttributes, type ReactNode } from "react";
|
|
|
|
|
import { createRoot, type Root } from "react-dom/client";
|
|
|
|
|
import { afterEach, beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
|
|
|
|
|
import { IssueDetail } from "./IssueDetail";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockIssuesApi = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
get: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
list: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
listComments: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
listAttachments: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
listFeedbackVotes: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
markRead: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
update: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
previewTreeControl: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
getTreeControlState: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
listTreeHolds: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
createTreeHold: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
releaseTreeHold: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
archiveFromInbox: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
addComment: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
cancelComment: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
upsertFeedbackVote: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
uploadAttachment: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
deleteAttachment: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
upsertDocument: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockActivityApi = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
forIssue: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
runsForIssue: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockHeartbeatsApi = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
liveRunsForIssue: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
activeRunForIssue: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
cancel: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockAgentsApi = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
list: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockAccessApi = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
getCurrentBoardAccess: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
listUserDirectory: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockAuthApi = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
getSession: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockProjectsApi = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
list: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockInstanceSettingsApi = vi.hoisted(() => ({
|
|
|
|
|
getGeneral: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const mockNavigate = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
|
|
|
|
|
const mockOpenPanel = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
|
|
|
|
|
const mockClosePanel = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
|
|
|
|
|
const mockSetBreadcrumbs = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
|
|
|
|
|
const mockSetMobileToolbar = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
|
|
|
|
|
const mockPushToast = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
|
|
|
|
|
const mockIssuesListRender = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
|
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for
configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting
loops.
> - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups,
backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives.
> - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings,
issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke
tooling.
> - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and
workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still
preserving the full original work.
> - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this
integration PR last.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing
board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure
changes.
## What Changed
- Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings,
project workspace detail, and issue detail controls.
- Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage.
- Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf
work pause/resume controls.
- Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy.
- Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a
smoke test script.
- Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed.
- `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill`
- Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`.
- UI screenshots not included because verification is focused
component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces.
## Risks
- This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally
overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and
workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`.
- Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last.
If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward
conflict refresh in shared UI files.
- The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and
relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-30 15:28:11 -05:00
|
|
|
const mockIssueChatThreadRender = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../api/issues", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
issuesApi: mockIssuesApi,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../api/activity", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
activityApi: mockActivityApi,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../api/heartbeats", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
heartbeatsApi: mockHeartbeatsApi,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../api/approvals", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
approvalsApi: {
|
|
|
|
|
approve: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
reject: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../api/agents", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
agentsApi: mockAgentsApi,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../api/access", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
accessApi: mockAccessApi,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../api/auth", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
authApi: mockAuthApi,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../api/projects", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
projectsApi: mockProjectsApi,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../api/instanceSettings", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
instanceSettingsApi: mockInstanceSettingsApi,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/lib/router", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
Link: ({ children, to }: { children?: ReactNode; to: string }) => <a href={to}>{children}</a>,
|
|
|
|
|
useLocation: () => ({ pathname: "/issues/PAP-1", search: "", hash: "", state: null }),
|
|
|
|
|
useNavigate: () => mockNavigate,
|
|
|
|
|
useNavigationType: () => "PUSH",
|
|
|
|
|
useParams: () => ({ issueId: "PAP-1" }),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../context/CompanyContext", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
useCompany: () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
companies: [{ id: "company-1", name: "Paperclip", issuePrefix: "PAP", status: "active" }],
|
|
|
|
|
selectedCompanyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
selectedCompany: { id: "company-1", name: "Paperclip", issuePrefix: "PAP", status: "active" },
|
|
|
|
|
selectionSource: "manual",
|
|
|
|
|
loading: false,
|
|
|
|
|
error: null,
|
|
|
|
|
setSelectedCompanyId: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
reloadCompanies: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
createCompany: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../context/DialogContext", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
useDialog: () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
openNewIssue: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
[codex] Split PR #4692 UI/QoL updates (#4701)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a company-scoped control
plane.
> - The affected surface is the board UI for issue threads, issue lists,
routines, dialogs, navigation, and issue review indicators.
> - Closed PR #4692 bundled backend, schema, docs, workflow, and UI/QoL
work into one oversized change set.
> - Greptile could not keep reviewing that broad PR because it exceeded
the 100-file review limit and mixed unrelated concerns.
> - This pull request extracts the UI/QoL slice into a fresh branch
under the review limit while leaving workflow and lockfile churn out.
> - The benefit is a focused review path for the board UI performance
and workflow improvements without reopening the oversized PR.
## What Changed
- Added long issue-thread virtualization, scroll-container binding,
anchor preservation, latest-comment jump targeting, and related
regression/perf fixtures.
- Improved issue list scalability with scroll-based loading, server
offset parameters, and pagination-focused UI tests.
- Reduced new issue dialog typing churn and split dialog action
subscriptions so broad layout/nav surfaces avoid unnecessary renders.
- Added routine variables help and routine description mention options
for users, agents, and projects.
- Added productivity review badge/link UI and fixed the badge to use
Paperclip's company-prefixed router link.
- Kept the split PR below Greptile's review limit and excluded
`.github/workflows/pr.yml` and `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --no-frozen-lockfile` in the clean worktree to install
`@tanstack/react-virtual` locally without committing lockfile churn.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run --config
vitest.config.ts src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx
src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx src/pages/Routines.test.tsx
src/pages/Issues.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 83 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed.
- `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed.
- Split-scope checks: 53 changed files; no `.github/workflows/pr.yml`;
no `pnpm-lock.yaml`.
- Screenshots were not captured in this heartbeat; the changes are
primarily virtualization, routing, pagination, and editor behavior
covered by focused regression tests.
## Risks
- Moderate UI risk because issue-thread virtualization changes scroll
behavior on long conversations; regression tests cover anchor jumps,
latest-comment targeting, row metadata, and short-thread fallback.
- Moderate integration risk because the issue-list offset parameter and
productivity review field depend on matching API behavior.
- Dependency risk: the UI package adds `@tanstack/react-virtual` while
repository policy keeps `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of PRs, so CI must resolve
dependency changes through the repo's normal lockfile policy.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled local repository and
GitHub workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the
harness.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-28 17:18:58 -05:00
|
|
|
useDialogActions: () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
openNewIssue: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../context/PanelContext", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
usePanel: () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
openPanel: mockOpenPanel,
|
|
|
|
|
closePanel: mockClosePanel,
|
|
|
|
|
panelVisible: true,
|
|
|
|
|
setPanelVisible: vi.fn(),
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../context/SidebarContext", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
useSidebar: () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
isMobile: false,
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../context/BreadcrumbContext", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
useBreadcrumbs: () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
setBreadcrumbs: mockSetBreadcrumbs,
|
|
|
|
|
setMobileToolbar: mockSetMobileToolbar,
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../context/ToastContext", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
useToastActions: () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
pushToast: mockPushToast,
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../hooks/useProjectOrder", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
useProjectOrder: ({ projects }: { projects: unknown[] }) => ({
|
|
|
|
|
orderedProjects: projects,
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/plugins/slots", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
PluginSlotMount: () => null,
|
|
|
|
|
PluginSlotOutlet: () => null,
|
|
|
|
|
usePluginSlots: () => ({ slots: [], isLoading: false, errorMessage: null }),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/plugins/launchers", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
PluginLauncherOutlet: () => null,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/InlineEditor", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
InlineEditor: ({ value, placeholder }: { value?: string; placeholder?: string }) => (
|
|
|
|
|
<div>{value || placeholder}</div>
|
|
|
|
|
),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/IssueChatThread", () => ({
|
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for
configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting
loops.
> - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups,
backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives.
> - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings,
issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke
tooling.
> - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and
workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still
preserving the full original work.
> - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this
integration PR last.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing
board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure
changes.
## What Changed
- Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings,
project workspace detail, and issue detail controls.
- Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage.
- Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf
work pause/resume controls.
- Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy.
- Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a
smoke test script.
- Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed.
- `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill`
- Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`.
- UI screenshots not included because verification is focused
component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces.
## Risks
- This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally
overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and
workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`.
- Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last.
If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward
conflict refresh in shared UI files.
- The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and
relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-30 15:28:11 -05:00
|
|
|
IssueChatThread: (props: {
|
Add planning mode for issue work (#5353)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board
users and agents coordinate execution.
> - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead
of immediate implementation work.
> - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution
comments from planning-oriented issue work.
> - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI
affordances for standard vs planning mode.
> - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed,
discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing
the normal issue workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB,
shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and
adapter heartbeat payloads.
- Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for
`issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations.
- Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction
behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested
follow-up issues.
- Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail
composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles.
- Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual
verification spec for planning-mode surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable
planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts`
## Screenshots
Desktop planning detail:

Desktop planning row:

Desktop staged standard toggle:

Mobile planning detail:

Mobile planning row:

## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The
migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied
an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final
numbered migration safely.
- Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter
heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by
defaulting missing values to `standard`.
- UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused
component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning
display and toggle behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with
shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this
runtime.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-05-06 07:01:28 -05:00
|
|
|
onWorkModeChange?: (workMode: string) => void;
|
|
|
|
|
issueWorkMode?: string;
|
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for
configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting
loops.
> - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups,
backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives.
> - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings,
issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke
tooling.
> - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and
workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still
preserving the full original work.
> - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this
integration PR last.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing
board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure
changes.
## What Changed
- Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings,
project workspace detail, and issue detail controls.
- Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage.
- Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf
work pause/resume controls.
- Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy.
- Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a
smoke test script.
- Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed.
- `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill`
- Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`.
- UI screenshots not included because verification is focused
component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces.
## Risks
- This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally
overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and
workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`.
- Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last.
If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward
conflict refresh in shared UI files.
- The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and
relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-30 15:28:11 -05:00
|
|
|
onStopRun?: (runId: string) => Promise<void>;
|
|
|
|
|
stopRunLabel?: string;
|
|
|
|
|
stoppingRunLabel?: string;
|
|
|
|
|
}) => {
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssueChatThreadRender(props);
|
|
|
|
|
return (
|
|
|
|
|
<div data-testid="issue-chat-thread">
|
|
|
|
|
Chat thread
|
|
|
|
|
{props.onStopRun ? (
|
|
|
|
|
<button type="button" onClick={() => void props.onStopRun?.("run-active-1")}>
|
|
|
|
|
{props.stopRunLabel ?? "Stop run"}
|
|
|
|
|
</button>
|
|
|
|
|
) : null}
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/IssueDocumentsSection", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
IssueDocumentsSection: () => <div>Documents</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/IssuesList", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
IssuesList: (props: { issueBadgeById?: Map<string, string> }) => {
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesListRender(props);
|
|
|
|
|
return (
|
|
|
|
|
<div>
|
|
|
|
|
Sub-issues
|
|
|
|
|
{Array.from(props.issueBadgeById?.entries() ?? []).map(([issueId, label]) => (
|
|
|
|
|
<span key={issueId}>{issueId}:{label}</span>
|
|
|
|
|
))}
|
|
|
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/IssueProperties", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
IssueProperties: () => <div>Properties</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/IssueRunLedger", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
IssueRunLedger: () => <div>Runs</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/IssueWorkspaceCard", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
IssueWorkspaceCard: () => <div>Workspace</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/ImageGalleryModal", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
ImageGalleryModal: () => null,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/ScrollToBottom", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
ScrollToBottom: () => null,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/StatusIcon", () => ({
|
2026-04-24 15:50:32 -05:00
|
|
|
StatusIcon: ({ status, blockerAttention }: { status: string; blockerAttention?: Issue["blockerAttention"] }) => (
|
|
|
|
|
<span data-status-icon-state={blockerAttention?.state}>{status}</span>
|
|
|
|
|
),
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/PriorityIcon", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
PriorityIcon: ({ priority }: { priority: string }) => <span>{priority}</span>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/ApprovalCard", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
ApprovalCard: () => <div>Approval</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("../components/Identity", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
Identity: () => <span>Identity</span>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/components/ui/button", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
Button: ({
|
|
|
|
|
children,
|
|
|
|
|
disabled,
|
|
|
|
|
onClick,
|
|
|
|
|
type = "button",
|
|
|
|
|
variant: _variant,
|
|
|
|
|
size: _size,
|
|
|
|
|
asChild: _asChild,
|
|
|
|
|
...props
|
|
|
|
|
}: ButtonHTMLAttributes<HTMLButtonElement> & { variant?: string; size?: string; asChild?: boolean }) => (
|
|
|
|
|
<button {...props} type={type} disabled={disabled} onClick={onClick}>
|
|
|
|
|
{children}
|
|
|
|
|
</button>
|
|
|
|
|
),
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/components/ui/separator", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
Separator: () => <hr />,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/components/ui/popover", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
Popover: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <>{children}</>,
|
|
|
|
|
PopoverTrigger: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <>{children}</>,
|
|
|
|
|
PopoverContent: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <div>{children}</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/components/ui/dialog", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
Dialog: ({ children, open }: { children?: ReactNode; open?: boolean }) => (open ? <div>{children}</div> : null),
|
|
|
|
|
DialogContent: ({ children, className }: { children?: ReactNode; className?: string }) => (
|
|
|
|
|
<div data-slot="dialog-content" className={className}>{children}</div>
|
|
|
|
|
),
|
|
|
|
|
DialogDescription: ({ children, className }: { children?: ReactNode; className?: string }) => <p className={className}>{children}</p>,
|
|
|
|
|
DialogFooter: ({ children, className }: { children?: ReactNode; className?: string }) => <div className={className}>{children}</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
DialogHeader: ({ children, className }: { children?: ReactNode; className?: string }) => <div className={className}>{children}</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
DialogTitle: ({ children, className }: { children?: ReactNode; className?: string }) => <h2 className={className}>{children}</h2>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/components/ui/sheet", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
Sheet: ({ children, open }: { children?: ReactNode; open?: boolean }) => (open ? <div>{children}</div> : null),
|
|
|
|
|
SheetContent: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <div>{children}</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
SheetHeader: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <div>{children}</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
SheetTitle: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <h2>{children}</h2>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/components/ui/scroll-area", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
ScrollArea: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <div>{children}</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/components/ui/skeleton", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
Skeleton: () => <div data-testid="skeleton" />,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/components/ui/tabs", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
Tabs: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <div>{children}</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
TabsContent: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <div>{children}</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
TabsList: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <div>{children}</div>,
|
|
|
|
|
TabsTrigger: ({ children }: { children?: ReactNode }) => <button type="button">{children}</button>,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/components/ui/textarea", () => ({
|
|
|
|
|
Textarea: (props: React.TextareaHTMLAttributes<HTMLTextAreaElement>) => <textarea {...props} />,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any
|
|
|
|
|
(globalThis as any).IS_REACT_ACT_ENVIRONMENT = true;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function createDeferred<T>() {
|
|
|
|
|
let resolve!: (value: T) => void;
|
|
|
|
|
const promise = new Promise<T>((innerResolve) => {
|
|
|
|
|
resolve = innerResolve;
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
return { promise, resolve };
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function createIssue(overrides: Partial<Issue> = {}): Issue {
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
|
id: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
projectId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
projectWorkspaceId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
goalId: "goal-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Issue detail smoke",
|
|
|
|
|
description: "Loads after the initial pending query.",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "todo",
|
|
|
|
|
priority: "medium",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
checkoutRunId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionRunId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionAgentNameKey: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionLockedAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspaceId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspacePreference: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspaceSettings: null,
|
|
|
|
|
currentExecutionWorkspace: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdByAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdByUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
|
|
|
issueNumber: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
originKind: "manual",
|
|
|
|
|
originId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
originRunId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
originFingerprint: "default",
|
|
|
|
|
requestDepth: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
billingCode: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAdapterOverrides: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionPolicy: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionState: null,
|
|
|
|
|
startedAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
completedAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
cancelledAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
hiddenAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
labels: [],
|
|
|
|
|
labelIds: [],
|
|
|
|
|
ancestors: [],
|
|
|
|
|
documentSummaries: [],
|
|
|
|
|
...overrides,
|
|
|
|
|
} as Issue;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function createAgent(overrides: Partial<Agent> = {}): Agent {
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
|
id: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
name: "CodexCoder",
|
|
|
|
|
urlKey: "codexcoder",
|
|
|
|
|
role: "engineer",
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Software Engineer",
|
|
|
|
|
icon: "code",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "active",
|
|
|
|
|
reportsTo: null,
|
|
|
|
|
capabilities: null,
|
|
|
|
|
adapterType: "codex_local",
|
|
|
|
|
adapterConfig: {},
|
|
|
|
|
runtimeConfig: {},
|
|
|
|
|
budgetMonthlyCents: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
spentMonthlyCents: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
pauseReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
pausedAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
permissions: { canCreateAgents: false },
|
|
|
|
|
lastHeartbeatAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
metadata: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
...overrides,
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function createPauseHold(overrides: Partial<IssueTreeHold> = {}): IssueTreeHold {
|
|
|
|
|
const now = new Date("2026-04-21T00:00:00.000Z");
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
|
id: "hold-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
rootIssueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "active",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual", note: "full_pause" },
|
|
|
|
|
createdByActorType: "user",
|
|
|
|
|
createdByAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdByUserId: "user-1",
|
|
|
|
|
createdByRunId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasedAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasedByActorType: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasedByAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasedByUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasedByRunId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releaseReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releaseMetadata: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdAt: now,
|
|
|
|
|
updatedAt: now,
|
|
|
|
|
members: [
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "hold-member-root",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
holdId: "hold-1",
|
|
|
|
|
issueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentIssueId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
issueIdentifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
|
|
|
issueTitle: "Issue detail smoke",
|
|
|
|
|
issueStatus: "todo",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRunId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRunStatus: null,
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: false,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdAt: now,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "hold-member-child",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
holdId: "hold-1",
|
|
|
|
|
issueId: "child-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentIssueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
issueIdentifier: "PAP-2",
|
|
|
|
|
issueTitle: "Held child",
|
|
|
|
|
issueStatus: "todo",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRunId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRunStatus: null,
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: false,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdAt: now,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
...overrides,
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function createResumePreview(): IssueTreeControlPreview {
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
rootIssueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "resume",
|
|
|
|
|
generatedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual" },
|
|
|
|
|
totals: {
|
|
|
|
|
totalIssues: 2,
|
|
|
|
|
affectedIssues: 2,
|
|
|
|
|
skippedIssues: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRuns: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
queuedRuns: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
affectedAgents: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
countsByStatus: { todo: 2 },
|
|
|
|
|
issues: [
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Issue detail smoke",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "todo",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRun: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeHoldIds: ["hold-1"],
|
|
|
|
|
action: "resume",
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: false,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "child-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-2",
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Held child",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "todo",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRun: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeHoldIds: ["hold-1"],
|
|
|
|
|
action: "resume",
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: false,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
skippedIssues: [],
|
|
|
|
|
activeRuns: [],
|
|
|
|
|
affectedAgents: [{ agentId: "agent-1", issueCount: 2, activeRunCount: 0 }],
|
|
|
|
|
warnings: [],
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function createPausePreview(): IssueTreeControlPreview {
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
rootIssueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
generatedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual" },
|
|
|
|
|
totals: {
|
|
|
|
|
totalIssues: 3,
|
|
|
|
|
affectedIssues: 2,
|
|
|
|
|
skippedIssues: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRuns: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
queuedRuns: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
affectedAgents: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
countsByStatus: { todo: 2 },
|
|
|
|
|
issues: [
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Issue detail smoke",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "todo",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRun: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeHoldIds: [],
|
|
|
|
|
action: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: false,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "child-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-2",
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Paused child",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "in_review",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRun: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeHoldIds: [],
|
|
|
|
|
action: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: false,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "child-2",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-3",
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Completed child",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "done",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRun: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeHoldIds: [],
|
|
|
|
|
action: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: true,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: "terminal_status",
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
skippedIssues: [
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "child-2",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-3",
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Completed child",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "done",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRun: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeHoldIds: [],
|
|
|
|
|
action: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: true,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: "terminal_status",
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
activeRuns: [],
|
|
|
|
|
affectedAgents: [],
|
|
|
|
|
warnings: [],
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function createRestorePreview(): IssueTreeControlPreview {
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
rootIssueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "restore",
|
|
|
|
|
generatedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual" },
|
|
|
|
|
totals: {
|
|
|
|
|
totalIssues: 2,
|
|
|
|
|
affectedIssues: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
skippedIssues: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRuns: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
queuedRuns: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
affectedAgents: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
countsByStatus: { todo: 1, cancelled: 1 },
|
|
|
|
|
issues: [
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Issue detail smoke",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "todo",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRun: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeHoldIds: [],
|
|
|
|
|
action: "restore",
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: true,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: "not_cancelled",
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "child-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-2",
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Cancelled child",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "cancelled",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRun: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeHoldIds: ["cancel-hold-1"],
|
|
|
|
|
action: "restore",
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: false,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
skippedIssues: [
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Issue detail smoke",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "todo",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
depth: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRun: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeHoldIds: [],
|
|
|
|
|
action: "restore",
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: true,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: "not_cancelled",
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
],
|
|
|
|
|
activeRuns: [],
|
|
|
|
|
affectedAgents: [{ agentId: "agent-1", issueCount: 1, activeRunCount: 0 }],
|
|
|
|
|
warnings: [],
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function createCancelPreview(issueCount = 8): IssueTreeControlPreview {
|
|
|
|
|
const issues = Array.from({ length: issueCount }, (_, index) => ({
|
|
|
|
|
id: index === 0 ? "issue-1" : `child-${index}`,
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: index === 0 ? "PAP-1" : `PAP-${index + 1}`,
|
|
|
|
|
title: index === 0 ? "Issue detail smoke" : `Cancellable child ${index}`,
|
|
|
|
|
status: "todo" as const,
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: index === 0 ? null : "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
depth: index === 0 ? 0 : 1,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRun: null,
|
|
|
|
|
activeHoldIds: [],
|
|
|
|
|
action: "cancel" as const,
|
|
|
|
|
skipped: false,
|
|
|
|
|
skipReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
rootIssueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "cancel",
|
|
|
|
|
generatedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual" },
|
|
|
|
|
totals: {
|
|
|
|
|
totalIssues: issueCount,
|
|
|
|
|
affectedIssues: issueCount,
|
|
|
|
|
skippedIssues: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRuns: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
queuedRuns: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
affectedAgents: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
countsByStatus: { todo: issueCount },
|
|
|
|
|
issues,
|
|
|
|
|
skippedIssues: [],
|
|
|
|
|
activeRuns: [],
|
|
|
|
|
affectedAgents: [],
|
|
|
|
|
warnings: [],
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
async function flushReact() {
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
await Promise.resolve();
|
|
|
|
|
await new Promise((resolve) => window.setTimeout(resolve, 0));
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
async function waitForAssertion(assertion: () => void, attempts = 20) {
|
|
|
|
|
let lastError: unknown;
|
|
|
|
|
for (let attempt = 0; attempt < attempts; attempt += 1) {
|
|
|
|
|
try {
|
|
|
|
|
assertion();
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
} catch (error) {
|
|
|
|
|
lastError = error;
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
throw lastError;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
describe("IssueDetail", () => {
|
|
|
|
|
let container: HTMLDivElement;
|
|
|
|
|
let root: Root;
|
|
|
|
|
let queryClient: QueryClient;
|
|
|
|
|
let consoleErrorSpy: ReturnType<typeof vi.spyOn>;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
beforeEach(() => {
|
|
|
|
|
container = document.createElement("div");
|
|
|
|
|
document.body.appendChild(container);
|
|
|
|
|
root = createRoot(container);
|
|
|
|
|
queryClient = new QueryClient({
|
|
|
|
|
defaultOptions: {
|
|
|
|
|
queries: { retry: false },
|
|
|
|
|
mutations: { retry: false },
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
consoleErrorSpy = vi.spyOn(console, "error").mockImplementation(() => {});
|
|
|
|
|
vi.spyOn(window, "scrollTo").mockImplementation(() => {});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.list.mockResolvedValue([]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.listComments.mockResolvedValue([]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.listAttachments.mockResolvedValue([]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.listFeedbackVotes.mockResolvedValue([]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.markRead.mockResolvedValue({ id: "issue-1", lastReadAt: new Date().toISOString() });
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.getTreeControlState.mockResolvedValue({ activePauseHold: null });
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.listTreeHolds.mockResolvedValue([]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockActivityApi.forIssue.mockResolvedValue([]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockActivityApi.runsForIssue.mockResolvedValue([]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockHeartbeatsApi.liveRunsForIssue.mockResolvedValue([]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockHeartbeatsApi.activeRunForIssue.mockResolvedValue(null);
|
|
|
|
|
mockAgentsApi.list.mockResolvedValue([]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockAccessApi.getCurrentBoardAccess.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
companyIds: ["company-1"],
|
|
|
|
|
isInstanceAdmin: true,
|
|
|
|
|
source: "session",
|
|
|
|
|
keyId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
user: null,
|
|
|
|
|
userId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
mockAccessApi.listUserDirectory.mockResolvedValue({ users: [] });
|
|
|
|
|
mockAuthApi.getSession.mockResolvedValue({ session: null, user: null });
|
|
|
|
|
mockProjectsApi.list.mockResolvedValue([]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockInstanceSettingsApi.getGeneral.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
keyboardShortcuts: false,
|
|
|
|
|
feedbackDataSharingPreference: "prompt",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesListRender.mockClear();
|
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for
configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting
loops.
> - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups,
backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives.
> - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings,
issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke
tooling.
> - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and
workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still
preserving the full original work.
> - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this
integration PR last.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing
board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure
changes.
## What Changed
- Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings,
project workspace detail, and issue detail controls.
- Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage.
- Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf
work pause/resume controls.
- Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy.
- Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a
smoke test script.
- Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed.
- `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill`
- Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`.
- UI screenshots not included because verification is focused
component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces.
## Risks
- This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally
overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and
workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`.
- Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last.
If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward
conflict refresh in shared UI files.
- The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and
relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-30 15:28:11 -05:00
|
|
|
mockIssueChatThreadRender.mockClear();
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
afterEach(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.unmount();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
queryClient.clear();
|
|
|
|
|
container.remove();
|
|
|
|
|
document.body.innerHTML = "";
|
|
|
|
|
vi.restoreAllMocks();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("loads from the pending state into issue detail without changing hook order", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const issueRequest = createDeferred<Issue>();
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.get.mockReturnValueOnce(issueRequest.promise);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.render(
|
|
|
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
|
|
|
<IssueDetail />
|
|
|
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
issueRequest.resolve(createIssue());
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Issue detail smoke");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Chat thread");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(consoleErrorSpy).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-04-24 15:50:32 -05:00
|
|
|
it("passes blocker attention to the issue detail header status icon", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.get.mockResolvedValue(createIssue({
|
|
|
|
|
status: "blocked",
|
|
|
|
|
blockerAttention: {
|
|
|
|
|
state: "covered",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: "active_child",
|
|
|
|
|
unresolvedBlockerCount: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
coveredBlockerCount: 1,
|
2026-04-26 21:17:38 -05:00
|
|
|
stalledBlockerCount: 0,
|
2026-04-24 15:50:32 -05:00
|
|
|
attentionBlockerCount: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
sampleBlockerIdentifier: "PAP-2",
|
2026-04-26 21:17:38 -05:00
|
|
|
sampleStalledBlockerIdentifier: null,
|
2026-04-24 15:50:32 -05:00
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.render(
|
|
|
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
|
|
|
<IssueDetail />
|
|
|
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.querySelector('[data-status-icon-state="covered"]')?.textContent).toBe("blocked");
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
it("refreshes subtree pause state after resuming a hold", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const childIssue = createIssue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "child-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-2",
|
|
|
|
|
issueNumber: 2,
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Held child",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
const activeHold = createPauseHold();
|
|
|
|
|
const releasedHold = createPauseHold({
|
|
|
|
|
status: "released",
|
|
|
|
|
releasedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:01:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
releasedByActorType: "user",
|
|
|
|
|
releasedByUserId: "user-1",
|
|
|
|
|
releaseReason: "Ready to continue",
|
|
|
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:01:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
let activePauseHoldState: null | {
|
|
|
|
|
holdId: string;
|
|
|
|
|
rootIssueId: string;
|
|
|
|
|
issueId: string;
|
|
|
|
|
isRoot: boolean;
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "pause";
|
|
|
|
|
reason: string | null;
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual" | "after_active_runs_finish"; note?: string | null } | null;
|
|
|
|
|
} = {
|
|
|
|
|
holdId: "hold-1",
|
|
|
|
|
rootIssueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
issueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
isRoot: true,
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual", note: "full_pause" },
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.get.mockResolvedValue(createIssue());
|
[codex] Improve issue thread review flow (#4381)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and
follow-up work with active runs
> - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review
handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent
work
> - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and
navigation clunkier than necessary
> - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker
presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing
together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice
> - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the
broader task model
## What Changed
- restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue
thread
- folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit
thread scrolling behavior
- surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee
notices on the issue detail view
- tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList`
- added loose review-request handoffs through the issue
execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces
executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the
return assignee with execution_changes_requested"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
## Visual Evidence
- UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component
and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not
attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should
use the running preview for final visual confirmation.
## Risks
- Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience
in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as
thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff behavior
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI 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 version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots or documented the visual verification path
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-24 08:02:45 -05:00
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.list.mockImplementation((_companyId, filters?: { descendantOf?: string }) =>
|
|
|
|
|
Promise.resolve(filters?.descendantOf === "issue-1" ? [childIssue] : []),
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.getTreeControlState.mockImplementation(() =>
|
|
|
|
|
Promise.resolve({ activePauseHold: activePauseHoldState }),
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.listTreeHolds.mockResolvedValue([activeHold]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.previewTreeControl.mockResolvedValue(createResumePreview());
|
|
|
|
|
mockAgentsApi.list.mockResolvedValue([createAgent()]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.releaseTreeHold.mockImplementation(() => {
|
|
|
|
|
activePauseHoldState = null;
|
|
|
|
|
return Promise.resolve(releasedHold);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
mockAuthApi.getSession.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
session: { userId: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
user: { id: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.render(
|
|
|
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
|
|
|
<IssueDetail />
|
|
|
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await waitForAssertion(() => {
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Subtree pause is active.");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesListRender.mock.calls.at(-1)?.[0].issueBadgeById.get("child-1")).toBe("Paused");
|
Present ordered sub-issues as a workflow checklist (#4523)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - Operators use issue detail pages and child issue lists to understand
multi-step execution plans.
> - Ordered sub-issues currently read like a flat table, so dependency
chains and current next steps are harder to scan.
> - The branch work adds a workflow-oriented presentation for child
issues without changing the single-assignee task model.
> - This pull request makes ordered sub-issues read more like a progress
checklist while preserving normal issue list controls.
> - The benefit is that operators can see completed steps, active work,
blocked follow-ups, and dependency order at a glance.
## What Changed
- Added workflow sorting utilities and tests for dependency-aware child
issue ordering.
- Added sub-issue progress summary, checklist numbering, current-step
affordances, blocker context, and done-state de-emphasis in the issue
list UI.
- Wired issue detail sub-issue panels to use the workflow sort/progress
checklist presentation.
- Updated issue service behavior/tests for child issue ordering inputs
used by the UI.
- Added a Storybook visual review fixture and screenshot helper for the
sub-issue workflow checklist surface.
## Verification
- `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts
ui/src/lib/workflow-sort.test.ts`
- Result: 6 test files passed, 55 tests passed, 34 embedded Postgres
issue-service tests skipped because `@embedded-postgres/darwin-x64` is
unavailable on this host.
- Visual review: generated Storybook screenshots from the existing local
Storybook server on port 6006 with `node
scripts/screenshot-subissues.mjs /tmp/pap-2189-subissues-screens
http://localhost:6006`.
- Screenshot artifacts:
- Desktop dark: 
- Desktop light: 
- Mobile dark: 
- Mobile light: 
- Local Storybook note: starting a second Storybook process selected
port 6008 because 6006 was occupied, then Vite failed with an esbuild
host/binary version mismatch (`0.25.12` host vs `0.27.3` binary). The
already-running Storybook server on 6006 served the fixture successfully
for screenshots.
## Risks
- Medium UI risk: the issue list now has additional sub-issue-specific
visual states, so dense lists should be checked for spacing and
scanability.
- Low ordering risk: workflow sorting is covered by focused unit tests,
but unusual dependency topologies may still need reviewer attention.
- No migration risk: this PR does not add database migrations or touch
`pnpm-lock.yaml`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub
workflow. Context window is runtime-provided and 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 version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-26 07:36:49 -05:00
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesListRender.mock.calls.at(-1)?.[0].showProgressSummary).toBe(true);
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const resumeButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Resume subtree");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(resumeButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
resumeButton!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const applyResumeButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.filter((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Resume subtree")
|
|
|
|
|
.at(-1);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(applyResumeButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("CodexCoder");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
applyResumeButton!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesApi.releaseTreeHold).toHaveBeenCalledWith("PAP-1", "hold-1", {
|
|
|
|
|
reason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
metadata: { wakeAgents: true },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesApi.getTreeControlState.mock.calls.length).toBeGreaterThanOrEqual(2);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockPushToast).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.objectContaining({
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Subtree resumed",
|
|
|
|
|
body: "Ready to continue",
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
await waitForAssertion(() => {
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).not.toContain("Subtree pause is active.");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesListRender.mock.calls.at(-1)?.[0].issueBadgeById.has("child-1")).toBe(false);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("uses simplified full-subtree pause controls", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const childIssue = createIssue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "child-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-2",
|
|
|
|
|
issueNumber: 2,
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Paused child",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
const pausePreview = createPausePreview();
|
|
|
|
|
const pauseHold = createPauseHold({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "pause-hold-1",
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual", note: "full_pause" },
|
|
|
|
|
members: [],
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.get.mockResolvedValue(createIssue());
|
[codex] Improve issue thread review flow (#4381)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and
follow-up work with active runs
> - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review
handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent
work
> - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and
navigation clunkier than necessary
> - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker
presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing
together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice
> - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the
broader task model
## What Changed
- restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue
thread
- folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit
thread scrolling behavior
- surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee
notices on the issue detail view
- tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList`
- added loose review-request handoffs through the issue
execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces
executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the
return assignee with execution_changes_requested"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
## Visual Evidence
- UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component
and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not
attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should
use the running preview for final visual confirmation.
## Risks
- Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience
in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as
thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff behavior
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI 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 version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots or documented the visual verification path
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-24 08:02:45 -05:00
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.list.mockImplementation((_companyId, filters?: { descendantOf?: string }) =>
|
|
|
|
|
Promise.resolve(filters?.descendantOf === "issue-1" ? [childIssue] : []),
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.previewTreeControl.mockResolvedValue(pausePreview);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.createTreeHold.mockResolvedValue({ hold: pauseHold, preview: pausePreview });
|
|
|
|
|
mockAuthApi.getSession.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
session: { userId: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
user: { id: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.render(
|
|
|
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
|
|
|
<IssueDetail />
|
|
|
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const moreButton = container.querySelector('button[aria-label="More issue actions"]') as HTMLButtonElement | null;
|
|
|
|
|
expect(moreButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
moreButton!.dispatchEvent(new KeyboardEvent("keydown", { key: "Enter", bubbles: true }));
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const pauseMenuButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Pause subtree...");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(pauseMenuButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
pauseMenuButton!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesApi.previewTreeControl).toHaveBeenCalledWith("PAP-1", {
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).not.toContain("Pause mode");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).not.toContain("Release policy");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).not.toContain("Status breakdown");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).not.toContain("Active runs cancelled");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Paused child");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Completed child");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Complete");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const pauseApplyButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Pause and stop work");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(pauseApplyButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
pauseApplyButton!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesApi.createTreeHold).toHaveBeenCalledWith("PAP-1", {
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual", note: "full_pause" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for
configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting
loops.
> - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups,
backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives.
> - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings,
issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke
tooling.
> - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and
workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still
preserving the full original work.
> - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this
integration PR last.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing
board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure
changes.
## What Changed
- Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings,
project workspace detail, and issue detail controls.
- Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage.
- Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf
work pause/resume controls.
- Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy.
- Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a
smoke test script.
- Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed.
- `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill`
- Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`.
- UI screenshots not included because verification is focused
component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces.
## Risks
- This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally
overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and
workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`.
- Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last.
If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward
conflict refresh in shared UI files.
- The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and
relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-30 15:28:11 -05:00
|
|
|
it("exposes leaf pause controls and routes issue active-run stop through Pause work", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const pausePreview = createPausePreview();
|
|
|
|
|
pausePreview.totals = {
|
|
|
|
|
...pausePreview.totals,
|
|
|
|
|
totalIssues: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
affectedIssues: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
skippedIssues: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
activeRuns: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
pausePreview.issues = [pausePreview.issues[0]!];
|
|
|
|
|
pausePreview.skippedIssues = [];
|
|
|
|
|
const pauseHold = createPauseHold({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "leaf-pause-hold-1",
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: "Paused from active run controls.",
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual", note: "leaf_pause" },
|
|
|
|
|
members: [],
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.get.mockResolvedValue(createIssue({
|
|
|
|
|
status: "in_progress",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
executionRunId: "run-active-1",
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.previewTreeControl.mockResolvedValue(pausePreview);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.createTreeHold.mockResolvedValue({ hold: pauseHold, preview: pausePreview });
|
|
|
|
|
mockAgentsApi.list.mockResolvedValue([createAgent()]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockAuthApi.getSession.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
session: { userId: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
user: { id: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.render(
|
|
|
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
|
|
|
<IssueDetail />
|
|
|
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssueChatThreadRender.mock.calls.at(-1)?.[0]).toMatchObject({
|
|
|
|
|
stopRunLabel: "Pause work",
|
|
|
|
|
stoppingRunLabel: "Pausing...",
|
Add planning mode for issue work (#5353)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board
users and agents coordinate execution.
> - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead
of immediate implementation work.
> - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution
comments from planning-oriented issue work.
> - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI
affordances for standard vs planning mode.
> - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed,
discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing
the normal issue workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB,
shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and
adapter heartbeat payloads.
- Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for
`issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations.
- Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction
behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested
follow-up issues.
- Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail
composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles.
- Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual
verification spec for planning-mode surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable
planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts`
## Screenshots
Desktop planning detail:

Desktop planning row:

Desktop staged standard toggle:

Mobile planning detail:

Mobile planning row:

## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The
migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied
an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final
numbered migration safely.
- Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter
heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by
defaulting missing values to `standard`.
- UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused
component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning
display and toggle behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with
shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this
runtime.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-05-06 07:01:28 -05:00
|
|
|
issueWorkMode: "standard",
|
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for
configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting
loops.
> - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups,
backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives.
> - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings,
issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke
tooling.
> - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and
workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still
preserving the full original work.
> - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this
integration PR last.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing
board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure
changes.
## What Changed
- Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings,
project workspace detail, and issue detail controls.
- Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage.
- Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf
work pause/resume controls.
- Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy.
- Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a
smoke test script.
- Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed.
- `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill`
- Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`.
- UI screenshots not included because verification is focused
component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces.
## Risks
- This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally
overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and
workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`.
- Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last.
If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward
conflict refresh in shared UI files.
- The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and
relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-30 15:28:11 -05:00
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const chatPauseButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Pause work");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(chatPauseButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
chatPauseButton!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesApi.createTreeHold).toHaveBeenCalledWith("PAP-1", {
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: "Paused from active run controls.",
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual", note: "leaf_pause" },
|
|
|
|
|
metadata: { source: "issue_active_run_control", runId: "run-active-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const moreButton = container.querySelector('button[aria-label="More issue actions"]') as HTMLButtonElement | null;
|
|
|
|
|
expect(moreButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
moreButton!.dispatchEvent(new KeyboardEvent("keydown", { key: "Enter", bubbles: true }));
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const pauseMenuButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Pause work...");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(pauseMenuButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add planning mode for issue work (#5353)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies.
> - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board
users and agents coordinate execution.
> - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead
of immediate implementation work.
> - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution
comments from planning-oriented issue work.
> - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI
affordances for standard vs planning mode.
> - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed,
discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing
the normal issue workflow.
## What Changed
- Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB,
shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and
adapter heartbeat payloads.
- Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for
`issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations.
- Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction
behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested
follow-up issues.
- Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail
composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles.
- Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual
verification spec for planning-mode surfaces.
- Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable
planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared
packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks
--poolOptions.forks.isolate=true`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config
tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts
tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts`
## Screenshots
Desktop planning detail:

Desktop planning row:

Desktop staged standard toggle:

Mobile planning detail:

Mobile planning row:

## Risks
- Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The
migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied
an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final
numbered migration safely.
- Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter
heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by
defaulting missing values to `standard`.
- UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused
component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning
display and toggle behavior.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with
shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this
runtime.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-05-06 07:01:28 -05:00
|
|
|
it("passes planning work mode to the issue chat thread", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.get.mockResolvedValue(createIssue({ workMode: "planning" }));
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.render(
|
|
|
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
|
|
|
<IssueDetail />
|
|
|
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssueChatThreadRender.mock.calls.at(-1)?.[0]).toMatchObject({
|
|
|
|
|
issueWorkMode: "planning",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Planning");
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("forwards composer work mode changes to the issues API", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const issue = createIssue();
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.get.mockResolvedValue(issue);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.listAttachments.mockResolvedValue([
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
id: "attachment-1",
|
|
|
|
|
issueId: issue.id,
|
|
|
|
|
issueCommentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
originalFilename: "planning-notes.txt",
|
|
|
|
|
contentPath: "/attachments/planning-notes.txt",
|
|
|
|
|
contentType: "text/plain",
|
|
|
|
|
byteSize: 4096,
|
|
|
|
|
uploadedByUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
uploadedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:02:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
]);
|
|
|
|
|
localStorage.setItem("paperclip:issue-comment-draft:issue-1", "Draft follow-up message");
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.update.mockResolvedValue(createIssue({ workMode: "planning" }));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.render(
|
|
|
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
|
|
|
<IssueDetail />
|
|
|
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const lastChatThreadProps = mockIssueChatThreadRender.mock.calls.at(-1)?.[0];
|
|
|
|
|
expect(lastChatThreadProps?.issueWorkMode).toBe("standard");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(typeof lastChatThreadProps?.onWorkModeChange).toBe("function");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
lastChatThreadProps?.onWorkModeChange?.("planning");
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesApi.update).toHaveBeenCalledWith(issue.identifier, { workMode: "planning" });
|
|
|
|
|
expect(localStorage.getItem("paperclip:issue-comment-draft:issue-1")).toBe("Draft follow-up message");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("planning-notes.txt");
|
|
|
|
|
localStorage.removeItem("paperclip:issue-comment-draft:issue-1");
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polish board settings and skills workflow (#4863)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip's board UI and bundled skills are the operator layer for
configuring agents, routines, issue workflows, and local troubleshooting
loops.
> - The prior rollup mixed this operator polish with database backups,
backend reliability, thread scale, and cost/workflow primitives.
> - This pull request isolates the remaining board QoL, settings,
issue-detail integration, adapter config cleanup, and skills smoke
tooling.
> - It includes some integration-level overlap with the thread and
workflow slices so this branch can run from `origin/master` while still
preserving the full original work.
> - Preferred merge order is the narrower primitives first, then this
integration PR last.
> - The benefit is that reviewers can inspect the user-facing
board/settings/skills layer separately from backend infrastructure
changes.
## What Changed
- Added board/settings polish for agents, routines, company settings,
project workspace detail, and issue detail controls.
- Added agent/routine UI regression tests and New Issue dialog coverage.
- Integrated issue-detail activity/cost/interaction surfaces and leaf
work pause/resume controls.
- Cleaned bundled adapter UI config defaults and onboarding copy.
- Added terminal-bench loop and work-stoppage diagnosis skills plus a
smoke test script.
- Updated attachment type handling and Paperclip skill/API guidance.
## Verification
- `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`
- `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Agents.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx
ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx
server/src/__tests__/costs-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts`
- Result: 7 test files passed, 54 tests passed.
- `pnpm run smoke:terminal-bench-loop-skill`
- Result: JSON output included `"ok": true` and `"cleanup": true`.
- UI screenshots not included because verification is focused
component/page coverage for the changed board surfaces.
## Risks
- This is the integration-heavy PR in the split and intentionally
overlaps some component/API primitives with the issue-thread and
workflow PRs so it can run from `origin/master`.
- Preferred merge order: #4859, #4860, #4861, #4862, then this PR last.
If earlier branches merge first, this PR may need a straightforward
conflict refresh in shared UI files.
- The terminal-bench smoke script creates temporary mock issues and
relies on cleanup; the verified run returned `cleanup: true`.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.5, code execution and GitHub CLI tool use, medium
reasoning effort.
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-30 15:28:11 -05:00
|
|
|
it("renders Paused by board distinctly and defaults leaf resume to wake the assignee", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const activeHold = createPauseHold();
|
|
|
|
|
const releasedHold = createPauseHold({
|
|
|
|
|
status: "released",
|
|
|
|
|
releasedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:01:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
releasedByActorType: "user",
|
|
|
|
|
releasedByUserId: "user-1",
|
|
|
|
|
releaseReason: "Ready to continue",
|
|
|
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:01:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.get.mockResolvedValue(createIssue({
|
|
|
|
|
status: "in_review",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.getTreeControlState.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
activePauseHold: {
|
|
|
|
|
holdId: "hold-1",
|
|
|
|
|
rootIssueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
issueId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
isRoot: true,
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "pause",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual", note: "leaf_pause" },
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.listTreeHolds.mockResolvedValue([activeHold]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.previewTreeControl.mockResolvedValue(createResumePreview());
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.releaseTreeHold.mockResolvedValue(releasedHold);
|
|
|
|
|
mockAgentsApi.list.mockResolvedValue([createAgent()]);
|
|
|
|
|
mockAuthApi.getSession.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
session: { userId: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
user: { id: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.render(
|
|
|
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
|
|
|
<IssueDetail />
|
|
|
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await waitForAssertion(() => {
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Paused by board.");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("in_review");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).not.toContain("Subtree pause is active.");
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const resumeButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Resume work");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(resumeButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
resumeButton!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const wakeCheckbox = container.querySelector('input[type="checkbox"]') as HTMLInputElement | null;
|
|
|
|
|
expect(wakeCheckbox?.checked).toBe(true);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const applyResumeButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.filter((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Resume work")
|
|
|
|
|
.at(-1);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(applyResumeButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
applyResumeButton!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesApi.releaseTreeHold).toHaveBeenCalledWith("PAP-1", "hold-1", {
|
|
|
|
|
reason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
metadata: { wakeAgents: true },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
it("exposes restore subtree from the issue actions menu", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const childIssue = createIssue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "child-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-2",
|
|
|
|
|
issueNumber: 2,
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Cancelled child",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "cancelled",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
const cancelHold = createPauseHold({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "cancel-hold-1",
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "cancel",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: "bad plan",
|
|
|
|
|
members: [],
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
const restorePreview = createRestorePreview();
|
|
|
|
|
const restoreHold = createPauseHold({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "restore-hold-1",
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "restore",
|
|
|
|
|
status: "released",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releaseReason: "Restore operation applied",
|
|
|
|
|
releasedAt: new Date("2026-04-21T00:02:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
members: [],
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.get.mockResolvedValue(createIssue());
|
[codex] Improve issue thread review flow (#4381)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and
follow-up work with active runs
> - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review
handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent
work
> - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and
navigation clunkier than necessary
> - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker
presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing
together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice
> - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the
broader task model
## What Changed
- restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue
thread
- folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit
thread scrolling behavior
- surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee
notices on the issue detail view
- tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList`
- added loose review-request handoffs through the issue
execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces
executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the
return assignee with execution_changes_requested"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
## Visual Evidence
- UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component
and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not
attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should
use the running preview for final visual confirmation.
## Risks
- Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience
in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as
thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff behavior
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI 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 version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots or documented the visual verification path
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-24 08:02:45 -05:00
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.list.mockImplementation((_companyId, filters?: { descendantOf?: string }) =>
|
|
|
|
|
Promise.resolve(filters?.descendantOf === "issue-1" ? [childIssue] : []),
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.listTreeHolds.mockImplementation((_issueId, filters?: { mode?: string }) =>
|
|
|
|
|
Promise.resolve(filters?.mode === "cancel" ? [cancelHold] : []),
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.previewTreeControl.mockResolvedValue(restorePreview);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.createTreeHold.mockResolvedValue({ hold: restoreHold, preview: restorePreview });
|
|
|
|
|
mockAuthApi.getSession.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
session: { userId: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
user: { id: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.render(
|
|
|
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
|
|
|
<IssueDetail />
|
|
|
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const moreButton = container.querySelector('button[aria-label="More issue actions"]') as HTMLButtonElement | null;
|
|
|
|
|
expect(moreButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
moreButton!.dispatchEvent(new KeyboardEvent("keydown", { key: "Enter", bubbles: true }));
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const restoreMenuButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Restore subtree...");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(restoreMenuButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
restoreMenuButton!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesApi.previewTreeControl).toHaveBeenCalledWith("PAP-1", {
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "restore",
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Restore issues cancelled by this subtree operation so work can resume.");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Cancelled child");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const restoreApplyButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Restore 1 issues");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(restoreApplyButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
restoreApplyButton!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesApi.createTreeHold).toHaveBeenCalledWith("PAP-1", {
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "restore",
|
|
|
|
|
reason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual" },
|
|
|
|
|
metadata: { wakeAgents: false },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("bounds the subtree control dialog with an internal scroll body", async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const childIssue = createIssue({
|
|
|
|
|
id: "child-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-2",
|
|
|
|
|
issueNumber: 2,
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Cancellable child",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.get.mockResolvedValue(createIssue());
|
[codex] Improve issue thread review flow (#4381)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and
follow-up work with active runs
> - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review
handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent
work
> - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and
navigation clunkier than necessary
> - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker
presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing
together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice
> - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the
broader task model
## What Changed
- restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue
thread
- folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit
thread scrolling behavior
- surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee
notices on the issue detail view
- tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList`
- added loose review-request handoffs through the issue
execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
- `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui
ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts
ui/src/api/issues.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils
packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces
executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the
return assignee with execution_changes_requested"`
- `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server
server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts
server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts`
## Visual Evidence
- UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component
and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not
attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should
use the running preview for final visual confirmation.
## Risks
- Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience
in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as
thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff behavior
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use and code execution
in the Codex CLI 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 version and capability
details)
- [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate
planned core work
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots or documented the visual verification path
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-24 08:02:45 -05:00
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.list.mockImplementation((_companyId, filters?: { descendantOf?: string }) =>
|
|
|
|
|
Promise.resolve(filters?.descendantOf === "issue-1" ? [childIssue] : []),
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
mockIssuesApi.previewTreeControl.mockResolvedValue(createCancelPreview(24));
|
|
|
|
|
mockAuthApi.getSession.mockResolvedValue({
|
|
|
|
|
session: { userId: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
user: { id: "user-1" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
root.render(
|
|
|
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
|
|
|
<IssueDetail />
|
|
|
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const cancelMenuButton = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Cancel subtree...");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(cancelMenuButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
cancelMenuButton!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(mockIssuesApi.previewTreeControl).toHaveBeenCalledWith("PAP-1", {
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "cancel",
|
|
|
|
|
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual" },
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const dialogContent = container.querySelector('[data-slot="dialog-content"]') as HTMLDivElement | null;
|
|
|
|
|
expect(dialogContent).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
expect(dialogContent!.className).toContain("max-h-[calc(100dvh-2rem)]");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(dialogContent!.className).toContain("overflow-hidden");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(dialogContent!.className).toContain("flex-col");
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const bodyScrollRegion = Array.from(dialogContent!.querySelectorAll("div"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((element) =>
|
|
|
|
|
typeof element.className === "string"
|
|
|
|
|
&& element.className.includes("overflow-y-auto")
|
2026-04-24 15:50:32 -05:00
|
|
|
&& element.textContent?.includes("Reason (optional)"),
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(bodyScrollRegion?.className).toContain("min-h-0");
|
|
|
|
|
expect(bodyScrollRegion?.className).toContain("overscroll-contain");
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-04-24 15:50:32 -05:00
|
|
|
const cancelApplyButton = Array.from(dialogContent!.querySelectorAll("button"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((button) => button.textContent?.trim() === "Cancel 24 issues") as HTMLButtonElement | undefined;
|
|
|
|
|
expect(cancelApplyButton).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
expect(cancelApplyButton!.disabled).toBe(true);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
const confirmationCheckbox = dialogContent!.querySelector('input[type="checkbox"]') as HTMLInputElement | null;
|
|
|
|
|
expect(confirmationCheckbox).toBeTruthy();
|
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
|
|
|
confirmationCheckbox!.click();
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
await flushReact();
|
|
|
|
|
expect(cancelApplyButton!.disabled).toBe(false);
|
|
|
|
|
|
[codex] Add issue subtree pause, cancel, and restore controls (#4332)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies.
> - This branch extends the issue control-plane so board operators can
pause, cancel, and later restore whole issue subtrees while keeping
descendant execution and wake behavior coherent.
> - That required new hold state in the database, shared contracts,
server routes/services, and issue detail UI controls so subtree actions
are durable and auditable instead of ad hoc.
> - While this branch was in flight, `master` advanced with new
environment lifecycle work, including a new `0065_environments`
migration.
> - Before opening the PR, this branch had to be rebased onto
`paperclipai/paperclip:master` without losing the existing
subtree-control work or leaving conflicting migration numbering behind.
> - This pull request rebases the subtree pause/cancel/restore feature
cleanly onto current `master`, renumbers the hold migration to
`0066_issue_tree_holds`, and preserves the full branch diff in a single
PR.
> - The benefit is that reviewers get one clean, mergeable PR for the
subtree-control feature instead of stale branch history with migration
conflicts.
## What Changed
- Added durable issue subtree hold data structures, shared
API/types/validators, server routes/services, and UI flows for subtree
pause, cancel, and restore operations.
- Added server and UI coverage for subtree previewing, hold
creation/release, dependency-aware scheduling under holds, and issue
detail subtree controls.
- Rebased the branch onto current `paperclipai/paperclip:master` and
renumbered the branch migration from `0065_issue_tree_holds` to
`0066_issue_tree_holds` so it no longer conflicts with upstream
`0065_environments`.
- Added a small follow-up commit that makes restore requests return `200
OK` explicitly while keeping pause/cancel hold creation at `201
Created`, and updated the route test to match that contract.
## Verification
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `cd server && pnpm exec vitest run
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service-unit.test.ts
src/__tests__/heartbeat-dependency-scheduling.test.ts`
- `cd ui && pnpm exec vitest run src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx`
## Risks
- This is a broad cross-layer change touching DB/schema, shared
contracts, server orchestration, and UI; regressions are most likely
around subtree status restoration or wake suppression/resume edge cases.
- The migration was renumbered during PR prep to avoid the new upstream
`0065_environments` conflict. Reviewers should confirm the final
`0066_issue_tree_holds` ordering is the only hold-related migration that
lands.
- The issue-tree restore endpoint now responds with `200` instead of
relying on implicit behavior, which is semantically better for a restore
operation but still changes an API detail that clients or tests could
have assumed.
> For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and
discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap
with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap
first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent in the Paperclip Codex runtime (GPT-5-class
tool-using coding model; exact deployment ID/context window is not
exposed inside this session).
## 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 run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after
screenshots
- [ ] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes
- [x] I have considered and documented any risks above
- [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before
requesting merge
---------
Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-23 14:51:46 -05:00
|
|
|
const footer = Array.from(dialogContent!.querySelectorAll("div"))
|
|
|
|
|
.find((element) =>
|
|
|
|
|
typeof element.className === "string"
|
|
|
|
|
&& element.className.includes("border-t")
|
|
|
|
|
&& element.textContent?.includes("Close"),
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
expect(footer?.className).toContain("bg-background");
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
});
|