[codex] Improve issue detail and issue-list UX (#3678)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - A core part of that is the operator experience around reading issue
state, agent chat, and sub-task structure
> - The current branch had a long run of issue-detail and issue-list UX
fixes that all improve how humans follow and steer active work
> - Those changes mostly live in the UI/chat surface and should be
reviewed together instead of mixed with workspace/runtime work
> - This pull request packages the issue-detail, chat, markdown, and
sub-issue list improvements into one standalone change
> - The benefit is a cleaner, less jumpy, more reliable issue workflow
on desktop and mobile without coupling it to unrelated server/runtime
refactors
## What Changed
- Stabilized issue chat runtime wiring, optimistic comment handling,
queued-comment cancellation, and composer anchoring during live updates
- Fixed several issue-detail rendering and navigation regressions
including placeholder bleed, local polling scope, mobile inbox-to-issue
transitions, and visible refresh resets
- Improved markdown and rich-content handling with advisory image
normalization, editor fallback behavior, touch mention recovery, and
`issue:` quicklook links
- Refined sub-issue behavior with parent-derived defaults, current-user
inheritance fixes, empty-state cleanup, and a reusable issue-list
presentation for sub-issues
- Added targeted UI tests for the new issue-detail, chat scroll/message,
placeholder-data, markdown, and issue-list behaviors
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx
ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-scroll.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts
ui/src/lib/query-placeholder-data.test.tsx
ui/src/hooks/usePaperclipIssueRuntime.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Medium: this branch touches the highest-traffic issue-detail UI paths,
so regressions would show up as chat/thread or sub-issue UX glitches
- The changes are UI-heavy and would benefit from reviewer screenshots
or a quick manual browser pass before merge
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## 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 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>
2026-04-14 12:50:48 -05:00
|
|
|
import { describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
|
|
|
|
|
import type { ExecutionWorkspace, Issue } from "@paperclipai/shared";
|
|
|
|
|
import { buildSubIssueDefaults, buildSubIssueDefaultsForViewer } from "./subIssueDefaults";
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function makeExecutionWorkspace(overrides: Partial<ExecutionWorkspace> = {}): ExecutionWorkspace {
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
|
id: "workspace-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
projectId: "project-1",
|
|
|
|
|
projectWorkspaceId: "project-workspace-1",
|
|
|
|
|
sourceIssueId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
status: "active",
|
|
|
|
|
mode: "isolated_workspace",
|
|
|
|
|
strategyType: "git_worktree",
|
|
|
|
|
name: "Parent workspace",
|
|
|
|
|
cwd: "/tmp/workspace-1",
|
|
|
|
|
repoUrl: null,
|
|
|
|
|
baseRef: null,
|
|
|
|
|
branchName: "feature/pap-1",
|
|
|
|
|
providerType: "git_worktree",
|
|
|
|
|
providerRef: null,
|
|
|
|
|
derivedFromExecutionWorkspaceId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
openedAt: new Date("2026-04-07T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
closedAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
cleanupEligibleAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
cleanupReason: null,
|
|
|
|
|
config: null,
|
|
|
|
|
metadata: null,
|
|
|
|
|
lastUsedAt: new Date("2026-04-07T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-07T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-07T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
...overrides,
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
function makeIssue(overrides: Partial<Issue> = {}): Issue {
|
|
|
|
|
return {
|
|
|
|
|
id: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
identifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
|
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
|
|
|
projectId: "project-1",
|
|
|
|
|
projectWorkspaceId: "project-workspace-1",
|
|
|
|
|
goalId: "goal-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
title: "Parent issue",
|
|
|
|
|
description: null,
|
|
|
|
|
status: "todo",
|
|
|
|
|
priority: "medium",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
checkoutRunId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionRunId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionAgentNameKey: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionLockedAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdByAgentId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdByUserId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
issueNumber: 1,
|
|
|
|
|
requestDepth: 0,
|
|
|
|
|
billingCode: null,
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAdapterOverrides: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspaceId: null,
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspacePreference: "shared_workspace",
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspaceSettings: null,
|
|
|
|
|
currentExecutionWorkspace: null,
|
|
|
|
|
startedAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
completedAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
cancelledAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
hiddenAt: null,
|
|
|
|
|
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-07T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-07T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
|
|
|
...overrides,
|
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
|
|
|
workMode: overrides.workMode ?? "standard",
|
[codex] Improve issue detail and issue-list UX (#3678)
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies
> - A core part of that is the operator experience around reading issue
state, agent chat, and sub-task structure
> - The current branch had a long run of issue-detail and issue-list UX
fixes that all improve how humans follow and steer active work
> - Those changes mostly live in the UI/chat surface and should be
reviewed together instead of mixed with workspace/runtime work
> - This pull request packages the issue-detail, chat, markdown, and
sub-issue list improvements into one standalone change
> - The benefit is a cleaner, less jumpy, more reliable issue workflow
on desktop and mobile without coupling it to unrelated server/runtime
refactors
## What Changed
- Stabilized issue chat runtime wiring, optimistic comment handling,
queued-comment cancellation, and composer anchoring during live updates
- Fixed several issue-detail rendering and navigation regressions
including placeholder bleed, local polling scope, mobile inbox-to-issue
transitions, and visible refresh resets
- Improved markdown and rich-content handling with advisory image
normalization, editor fallback behavior, touch mention recovery, and
`issue:` quicklook links
- Refined sub-issue behavior with parent-derived defaults, current-user
inheritance fixes, empty-state cleanup, and a reusable issue-list
presentation for sub-issues
- Added targeted UI tests for the new issue-detail, chat scroll/message,
placeholder-data, markdown, and issue-list behaviors
## Verification
- `pnpm vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx
ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx
ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx
ui/src/context/LiveUpdatesProvider.test.tsx
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-chat-scroll.test.ts
ui/src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts
ui/src/lib/query-placeholder-data.test.tsx
ui/src/hooks/usePaperclipIssueRuntime.test.tsx`
## Risks
- Medium: this branch touches the highest-traffic issue-detail UI paths,
so regressions would show up as chat/thread or sub-issue UX glitches
- The changes are UI-heavy and would benefit from reviewer screenshots
or a quick manual browser pass before merge
## Model Used
- OpenAI Codex coding agent (GPT-5-class runtime in Codex CLI; exact
deployed model ID is not exposed in this environment), reasoning
enabled, tool use and local code execution enabled
## 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 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>
2026-04-14 12:50:48 -05:00
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
describe("buildSubIssueDefaults", () => {
|
|
|
|
|
it("inherits the parent agent assignee and workspace context", () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const defaults = buildSubIssueDefaults(
|
|
|
|
|
makeIssue({
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspaceId: "workspace-1",
|
|
|
|
|
currentExecutionWorkspace: makeExecutionWorkspace(),
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(defaults).toEqual({
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentIdentifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentTitle: "Parent issue",
|
|
|
|
|
projectId: "project-1",
|
|
|
|
|
projectWorkspaceId: "project-workspace-1",
|
|
|
|
|
goalId: "goal-1",
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspaceId: "workspace-1",
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspaceMode: "reuse_existing",
|
|
|
|
|
parentExecutionWorkspaceLabel: "Parent workspace",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeAgentId: "agent-1",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("inherits a user assignee when the parent is assigned to a user", () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const defaults = buildSubIssueDefaults(
|
|
|
|
|
makeIssue({
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: "user-1",
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(defaults).toEqual({
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentIdentifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentTitle: "Parent issue",
|
|
|
|
|
projectId: "project-1",
|
|
|
|
|
projectWorkspaceId: "project-workspace-1",
|
|
|
|
|
goalId: "goal-1",
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspaceMode: "shared_workspace",
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: "user-1",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it("leaves the sub-issue unassigned when the parent assignee is the current user", () => {
|
|
|
|
|
const defaults = buildSubIssueDefaultsForViewer(
|
|
|
|
|
makeIssue({
|
|
|
|
|
assigneeUserId: "user-1",
|
|
|
|
|
}),
|
|
|
|
|
"user-1",
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expect(defaults).toEqual({
|
|
|
|
|
parentId: "issue-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentIdentifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
|
|
|
parentTitle: "Parent issue",
|
|
|
|
|
projectId: "project-1",
|
|
|
|
|
projectWorkspaceId: "project-workspace-1",
|
|
|
|
|
goalId: "goal-1",
|
|
|
|
|
executionWorkspaceMode: "shared_workspace",
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
});
|