paperclip/server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts

655 lines
20 KiB
TypeScript
Raw Normal View History

[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were 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 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>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
import express from "express";
import request from "supertest";
import { beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
const ASSIGNEE_AGENT_ID = "11111111-1111-4111-8111-111111111111";
const CREATED_AGENT_ID = "22222222-2222-4222-8222-222222222222";
const mockIssueService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
getById: vi.fn(),
}));
const mockInteractionService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
listForIssue: vi.fn(),
create: vi.fn(),
acceptInteraction: vi.fn(),
acceptSuggestedTasks: vi.fn(),
rejectInteraction: vi.fn(),
rejectSuggestedTasks: vi.fn(),
answerQuestions: vi.fn(),
Add workflow interaction cancellation and issue cost summaries (#4862) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates work through issue-thread interactions, run history, and cost telemetry. > - Operators need workflow prompts to be cancellable and costs to be visible at the issue level. > - The earlier rollup mixed this workflow/cost work with database backups, reliability recovery, thread scaling, and settings polish. > - This pull request isolates the interaction and cost surfaces into a reviewable slice. > - The backend now supports cancelling pending question interactions and summarizing issue-tree costs. > - The UI component layer can render cancelled questions and interleave activity with run ledger rows. ## What Changed - Added `cancelled` as an issue-thread interaction status and result shape for question interactions. - Added the board-only `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/cancel` route and service implementation. - Added issue-tree cost summary support in the cost service and `/issues/:id/cost-summary` API route. - Extended shared cost exports and UI API/query keys for issue cost summaries. - Updated `IssueThreadInteractionCard` and `IssueRunLedger` components for cancelled questions, issue cost surfaces, and activity/run interleaving. - Added focused server and component regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run 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 ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - Result: 4 test files passed, 45 tests passed. - UI screenshots not included because this PR updates reusable components and API surfaces without wiring a new page-level layout. ## Risks - Adds a new interaction terminal status; clients that switch exhaustively on interaction status may need to handle `cancelled`. - Issue-tree cost summaries use recursive issue traversal and should be watched on unusually large issue trees. - Page-level issue detail wiring is intentionally left to the board QoL/issue-detail branch to keep this PR narrow. > 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 13:57:25 -05:00
cancelQuestions: vi.fn(),
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were 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 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>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
}));
const mockHeartbeatService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
wakeup: vi.fn(async () => undefined),
}));
const mockLogActivity = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn(async () => undefined));
vi.mock("@paperclipai/shared/telemetry", () => ({
trackAgentTaskCompleted: vi.fn(),
trackErrorHandlerCrash: vi.fn(),
}));
vi.mock("../telemetry.js", () => ({
getTelemetryClient: vi.fn(() => ({ track: vi.fn() })),
}));
function registerModuleMocks() {
vi.doMock("../services/index.js", () => ({
[codex] Split backend control-plane QoL slice (#4700) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for autonomous AI companies, so backend task ownership, recovery, review visibility, and company-scoped limits need to stay enforceable without UI-only coupling. > - Closed PR #4692 bundled those backend changes with UI workflow, docs, skills, workflow, and lockfile churn. > - PAP-2694 asks for a clean backend/control-plane slice from that closed branch. > - This branch starts from current `master` and mines only the `cli`, `packages/db`, `packages/shared`, and `server` contracts/tests needed for the backend behavior. > - It explicitly excludes UI workflow/performance work, `.github/workflows/pr.yml`, `pnpm-lock.yaml`, docs, skills, package-script, adapter UI build-config, and perf fixture script changes; the only UI files are fixture/test updates required by the tightened shared `Company` contract. > - The benefit is a smaller reviewable PR that preserves the control-plane fixes while staying under Greptile s 100-file review limit. ## What Changed - Added company-scoped attachment-size limits through DB schema/migrations, shared company portability contracts, CLI import/export coverage, and server attachment upload enforcement. - Added productivity review service/API behavior for no-comment streak, long-active, and high-churn review issues, including request-depth clamping and issue summary exposure. - Hardened issue ownership and recovery/control-plane paths: peer-agent mutation denial, issue tree pause/resume behavior, stranded recovery origins, and related activity/test coverage. - Preserved related backend contract updates for routine timestamp variables and managed agent instruction bundles because they live in shared/server contracts from the source branch. - Addressed Greptile feedback by making `Company.attachmentMaxBytes` non-optional, simplifying review request-depth clamping, fixing the migration final newline, and enforcing the process-level attachment cap as the final ceiling for uploads. - Added minimal company fixtures needed for repo-wide typecheck/build and kept the PR to 66 changed files with forbidden/non-slice paths excluded. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` - `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD | wc -l` -> 66 files - `git diff --name-only origin/master..HEAD -- .github/workflows/pr.yml pnpm-lock.yaml package.json doc skills .agents scripts packages/adapters` -> no output - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts packages/shared/src/routine-variables.test.ts packages/shared/src/adapter-types.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company.test.ts server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-agent-mutation-ownership-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` -> 12 files, 147 tests passed - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-delete.test.ts cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts server/src/__tests__/productivity-review-service.test.ts` -> 3 files, 18 tests passed - `pnpm exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-attachment-routes.test.ts` -> 1 file, 6 tests passed - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter paperclipai typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` ## Risks - Includes migrations `0073_shiny_salo.sql` and `0074_striped_genesis.sql`; merge ordering matters if another PR adds migrations first. - This is intentionally backend-only apart from fixture/test updates forced by shared type correctness; UI affordances from PR #4692 are not present here and should land in separate UI slices. - The worktree install emitted plugin SDK bin-link warnings for unbuilt plugin packages, but the targeted tests and package typechecks completed successfully. > 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 terminal/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 - [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>
2026-04-28 16:46:45 -05:00
companyService: () => ({
getById: vi.fn(async () => ({ id: "company-1", attachmentMaxBytes: 10 * 1024 * 1024 })),
}),
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were 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 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>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
accessService: () => ({
canUser: vi.fn(async () => true),
hasPermission: vi.fn(async () => true),
}),
agentService: () => ({
getById: vi.fn(async () => null),
resolveByReference: vi.fn(async (_companyId: string, raw: string) => ({
ambiguous: false,
agent: { id: raw },
})),
}),
clampIssueListLimit: (value: number) => value,
ISSUE_LIST_DEFAULT_LIMIT: 500,
ISSUE_LIST_MAX_LIMIT: 1000,
documentService: () => ({}),
executionWorkspaceService: () => ({}),
feedbackService: () => ({
listIssueVotesForUser: vi.fn(async () => []),
saveIssueVote: vi.fn(async () => ({ vote: null, consentEnabledNow: false, sharingEnabled: false })),
}),
goalService: () => ({}),
heartbeatService: () => mockHeartbeatService,
instanceSettingsService: () => ({
get: vi.fn(async () => ({
id: "instance-settings-1",
general: {
censorUsernameInLogs: false,
feedbackDataSharingPreference: "prompt",
},
})),
listCompanyIds: vi.fn(async () => ["company-1"]),
}),
issueApprovalService: () => ({}),
issueReferenceService: () => ({
deleteDocumentSource: async () => undefined,
diffIssueReferenceSummary: () => ({
addedReferencedIssues: [],
removedReferencedIssues: [],
currentReferencedIssues: [],
}),
emptySummary: () => ({ outbound: [], inbound: [] }),
listIssueReferenceSummary: async () => ({ outbound: [], inbound: [] }),
syncComment: async () => undefined,
syncDocument: async () => undefined,
syncIssue: async () => undefined,
}),
issueService: () => mockIssueService,
issueThreadInteractionService: () => mockInteractionService,
logActivity: mockLogActivity,
projectService: () => ({}),
routineService: () => ({
syncRunStatusForIssue: vi.fn(async () => undefined),
}),
workProductService: () => ({}),
}));
}
function createIssue(overrides: Record<string, unknown> = {}) {
return {
id: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
companyId: "company-1",
status: "in_progress",
priority: "medium",
projectId: null,
goalId: null,
parentId: null,
assigneeAgentId: ASSIGNEE_AGENT_ID,
assigneeUserId: null,
createdByUserId: "local-board",
identifier: "PAP-1714",
title: "Persist interactions",
executionPolicy: null,
executionState: null,
hiddenAt: null,
...overrides,
};
}
async function createApp(actor: Record<string, unknown> = {
type: "board",
userId: "local-board",
companyIds: ["company-1"],
source: "local_implicit",
isInstanceAdmin: false,
}) {
const [{ issueRoutes }, { errorHandler }] = await Promise.all([
import("../routes/issues.js"),
import("../middleware/index.js"),
]);
const app = express();
app.use(express.json());
app.use((req, _res, next) => {
(req as any).actor = actor;
next();
});
app.use("/api", issueRoutes({} as any, {} as any));
app.use(errorHandler);
return app;
}
[codex] Stabilize tests and local maintenance assets (#4423) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - A fast-moving control plane needs stable local tests and repeatable local maintenance tools so contributors can safely split and review work > - Several route suites needed stronger isolation, Codex manual model selection needed a faster-mode option, and local browser cleanup missed Playwright's headless shell binary > - Storybook static output also needed to be preserved as a generated review artifact from the working branch > - This pull request groups the test/local-dev maintenance pieces so they can be reviewed separately from product runtime changes > - The benefit is more predictable contributor verification and cleaner local maintenance without mixing these changes into feature PRs ## What Changed - Added stable Vitest runner support and serialized route/authz test isolation. - Fixed workspace runtime authz route mocks and stabilized Claude/company-import related assertions. - Allowed Codex fast mode for manually selected models. - Broadened the agent browser cleanup script to detect `chrome-headless-shell` as well as Chrome for Testing. - Preserved generated Storybook static output from the source branch. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` from `server/` passed: 2 files, 19 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run src/server/codex-args.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` from `packages/adapters/codex-local/` passed: 1 file, 3 tests. - `bash -n scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh && scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh --dry` passed; dry-run detected `chrome-headless-shell` processes without killing them. - `test -f ui/storybook-static/index.html && test -f ui/storybook-static/assets/forms-editors.stories-Dry7qwx2.js` passed. - `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-test-local-maintenance -- . ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts --config cli/vitest.config.ts` did not complete in the isolated split worktree because `paperclipai run` exited during build prep with `TS2688: Cannot find type definition file for 'react'`; this appears to be caused by the worktree dependency symlink setup, not the code under test. - Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Risks - Medium risk: the stable Vitest runner changes how route/authz tests are scheduled. - Generated `ui/storybook-static` files are large and contain minified third-party output; `git diff --check` reports whitespace inside those generated assets, so reviewers may choose to drop or regenerate that artifact before merge. - No database migrations. > 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 based on GPT-5, with shell, git, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI tool use in the local Paperclip workspace. ## 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 Note: screenshot checklist item is not applicable to source UI behavior; the included Storybook static output is generated artifact preservation from the source branch. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-24 15:11:42 -05:00
describe.sequential("issue thread interaction routes", () => {
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were 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 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>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
beforeEach(() => {
vi.resetModules();
vi.doUnmock("../routes/issues.js");
vi.doUnmock("../routes/authz.js");
vi.doUnmock("../middleware/index.js");
vi.doUnmock("../services/index.js");
registerModuleMocks();
[codex] Stabilize tests and local maintenance assets (#4423) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - A fast-moving control plane needs stable local tests and repeatable local maintenance tools so contributors can safely split and review work > - Several route suites needed stronger isolation, Codex manual model selection needed a faster-mode option, and local browser cleanup missed Playwright's headless shell binary > - Storybook static output also needed to be preserved as a generated review artifact from the working branch > - This pull request groups the test/local-dev maintenance pieces so they can be reviewed separately from product runtime changes > - The benefit is more predictable contributor verification and cleaner local maintenance without mixing these changes into feature PRs ## What Changed - Added stable Vitest runner support and serialized route/authz test isolation. - Fixed workspace runtime authz route mocks and stabilized Claude/company-import related assertions. - Allowed Codex fast mode for manually selected models. - Broadened the agent browser cleanup script to detect `chrome-headless-shell` as well as Chrome for Testing. - Preserved generated Storybook static output from the source branch. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts src/__tests__/claude-local-execute.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` from `server/` passed: 2 files, 19 tests. - `pnpm exec vitest run src/server/codex-args.test.ts --config vitest.config.ts` from `packages/adapters/codex-local/` passed: 1 file, 3 tests. - `bash -n scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh && scripts/kill-agent-browsers.sh --dry` passed; dry-run detected `chrome-headless-shell` processes without killing them. - `test -f ui/storybook-static/index.html && test -f ui/storybook-static/assets/forms-editors.stories-Dry7qwx2.js` passed. - `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-test-local-maintenance -- . ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/company-import-export-e2e.test.ts --config cli/vitest.config.ts` did not complete in the isolated split worktree because `paperclipai run` exited during build prep with `TS2688: Cannot find type definition file for 'react'`; this appears to be caused by the worktree dependency symlink setup, not the code under test. - Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Risks - Medium risk: the stable Vitest runner changes how route/authz tests are scheduled. - Generated `ui/storybook-static` files are large and contain minified third-party output; `git diff --check` reports whitespace inside those generated assets, so reviewers may choose to drop or regenerate that artifact before merge. - No database migrations. > 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 based on GPT-5, with shell, git, Paperclip API, and GitHub CLI tool use in the local Paperclip workspace. ## 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 Note: screenshot checklist item is not applicable to source UI behavior; the included Storybook static output is generated artifact preservation from the source branch. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-04-24 15:11:42 -05:00
vi.clearAllMocks();
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were 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 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>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
mockIssueService.getById.mockResolvedValue(createIssue());
mockInteractionService.listForIssue.mockResolvedValue([]);
mockInteractionService.create.mockResolvedValue({
id: "interaction-1",
companyId: "company-1",
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
kind: "suggest_tasks",
status: "pending",
continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee",
idempotencyKey: null,
sourceCommentId: null,
sourceRunId: "run-1",
payload: {
version: 1,
tasks: [{ clientKey: "task-1", title: "One" }],
},
result: null,
createdAt: "2026-04-20T12:00:00.000Z",
updatedAt: "2026-04-20T12:00:00.000Z",
});
mockInteractionService.acceptInteraction.mockResolvedValue({
interaction: {
id: "interaction-1",
companyId: "company-1",
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
kind: "suggest_tasks",
status: "accepted",
continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee",
idempotencyKey: null,
sourceCommentId: "comment-1",
sourceRunId: "run-1",
payload: {
version: 1,
tasks: [{ clientKey: "task-1", title: "One" }],
},
result: {
version: 1,
createdTasks: [{ clientKey: "task-1", issueId: "child-1" }],
skippedClientKeys: ["task-2"],
},
createdAt: "2026-04-20T12:00:00.000Z",
updatedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
resolvedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
},
createdIssues: [
{
id: "child-1",
assigneeAgentId: CREATED_AGENT_ID,
status: "todo",
},
],
});
mockInteractionService.rejectInteraction.mockResolvedValue({
id: "interaction-1",
companyId: "company-1",
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
kind: "suggest_tasks",
status: "rejected",
continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee",
idempotencyKey: null,
sourceCommentId: "comment-1",
sourceRunId: "run-1",
payload: {
version: 1,
tasks: [{ clientKey: "task-1", title: "One" }],
},
result: {
version: 1,
rejectionReason: "Not actionable enough",
},
createdAt: "2026-04-20T12:00:00.000Z",
updatedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
resolvedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
});
mockInteractionService.answerQuestions.mockResolvedValue({
id: "interaction-2",
companyId: "company-1",
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
kind: "ask_user_questions",
status: "answered",
continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee",
idempotencyKey: null,
sourceCommentId: "comment-2",
sourceRunId: "run-2",
payload: {
version: 1,
questions: [{
id: "scope",
prompt: "Scope?",
selectionMode: "single",
options: [{ id: "phase-1", label: "Phase 1" }],
}],
},
result: {
version: 1,
answers: [{ questionId: "scope", optionIds: ["phase-1"] }],
},
createdAt: "2026-04-20T12:00:00.000Z",
updatedAt: "2026-04-20T12:06:00.000Z",
resolvedAt: "2026-04-20T12:06:00.000Z",
});
Add workflow interaction cancellation and issue cost summaries (#4862) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates work through issue-thread interactions, run history, and cost telemetry. > - Operators need workflow prompts to be cancellable and costs to be visible at the issue level. > - The earlier rollup mixed this workflow/cost work with database backups, reliability recovery, thread scaling, and settings polish. > - This pull request isolates the interaction and cost surfaces into a reviewable slice. > - The backend now supports cancelling pending question interactions and summarizing issue-tree costs. > - The UI component layer can render cancelled questions and interleave activity with run ledger rows. ## What Changed - Added `cancelled` as an issue-thread interaction status and result shape for question interactions. - Added the board-only `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/cancel` route and service implementation. - Added issue-tree cost summary support in the cost service and `/issues/:id/cost-summary` API route. - Extended shared cost exports and UI API/query keys for issue cost summaries. - Updated `IssueThreadInteractionCard` and `IssueRunLedger` components for cancelled questions, issue cost surfaces, and activity/run interleaving. - Added focused server and component regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run 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 ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - Result: 4 test files passed, 45 tests passed. - UI screenshots not included because this PR updates reusable components and API surfaces without wiring a new page-level layout. ## Risks - Adds a new interaction terminal status; clients that switch exhaustively on interaction status may need to handle `cancelled`. - Issue-tree cost summaries use recursive issue traversal and should be watched on unusually large issue trees. - Page-level issue detail wiring is intentionally left to the board QoL/issue-detail branch to keep this PR narrow. > 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 13:57:25 -05:00
mockInteractionService.cancelQuestions.mockResolvedValue({
id: "interaction-2",
companyId: "company-1",
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
kind: "ask_user_questions",
status: "cancelled",
continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee",
idempotencyKey: null,
sourceCommentId: "comment-2",
sourceRunId: "run-2",
payload: {
version: 1,
questions: [{
id: "scope",
prompt: "Scope?",
selectionMode: "single",
options: [{ id: "phase-1", label: "Phase 1" }],
}],
},
result: {
version: 1,
answers: [],
cancelled: true,
cancellationReason: null,
summaryMarkdown: null,
},
createdAt: "2026-04-20T12:00:00.000Z",
updatedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
resolvedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
});
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were 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 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>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
});
it("lists and creates board-authored interactions", async () => {
mockInteractionService.listForIssue.mockResolvedValue([
{ id: "interaction-1", kind: "suggest_tasks", status: "pending" },
]);
const app = await createApp();
const listRes = await request(app).get("/api/issues/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa/interactions");
expect(listRes.status).toBe(200);
expect(listRes.body).toEqual([
{ id: "interaction-1", kind: "suggest_tasks", status: "pending" },
]);
const createRes = await request(app)
.post("/api/issues/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa/interactions")
.send({
kind: "suggest_tasks",
payload: {
version: 1,
tasks: [{ clientKey: "task-1", title: "One" }],
},
});
expect(createRes.status).toBe(201);
expect(mockInteractionService.create).toHaveBeenCalled();
expect(mockLogActivity).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
expect.anything(),
expect.objectContaining({
action: "issue.thread_interaction_created",
details: expect.objectContaining({
interactionId: "interaction-1",
interactionKind: "suggest_tasks",
}),
}),
);
});
it("accepts suggested tasks and wakes created assignees plus the current assignee", async () => {
const app = await createApp();
const res = await request(app)
.post("/api/issues/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa/interactions/interaction-1/accept")
.send({ selectedClientKeys: ["task-1"] });
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
expect(mockInteractionService.acceptInteraction).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
expect.objectContaining({ id: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa" }),
"interaction-1",
{ selectedClientKeys: ["task-1"] },
expect.objectContaining({ userId: "local-board" }),
);
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(2);
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).toHaveBeenNthCalledWith(
1,
CREATED_AGENT_ID,
expect.objectContaining({
source: "assignment",
reason: "issue_assigned",
payload: expect.objectContaining({
issueId: "child-1",
mutation: "interaction_accept",
}),
}),
);
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).toHaveBeenNthCalledWith(
2,
ASSIGNEE_AGENT_ID,
expect.objectContaining({
source: "automation",
reason: "issue_commented",
payload: expect.objectContaining({
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
interactionId: "interaction-1",
interactionStatus: "accepted",
sourceCommentId: "comment-1",
sourceRunId: "run-1",
}),
}),
);
});
it("answers questions and emits a continuation wake", async () => {
const app = await createApp();
const res = await request(app)
.post("/api/issues/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa/interactions/interaction-2/respond")
.send({
answers: [{ questionId: "scope", optionIds: ["phase-1"] }],
});
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
expect(mockInteractionService.answerQuestions).toHaveBeenCalled();
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
ASSIGNEE_AGENT_ID,
expect.objectContaining({
reason: "issue_commented",
payload: expect.objectContaining({
interactionId: "interaction-2",
interactionKind: "ask_user_questions",
interactionStatus: "answered",
sourceCommentId: "comment-2",
sourceRunId: "run-2",
}),
}),
);
expect(mockLogActivity).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
expect.anything(),
expect.objectContaining({
action: "issue.thread_interaction_answered",
}),
);
});
Add workflow interaction cancellation and issue cost summaries (#4862) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates work through issue-thread interactions, run history, and cost telemetry. > - Operators need workflow prompts to be cancellable and costs to be visible at the issue level. > - The earlier rollup mixed this workflow/cost work with database backups, reliability recovery, thread scaling, and settings polish. > - This pull request isolates the interaction and cost surfaces into a reviewable slice. > - The backend now supports cancelling pending question interactions and summarizing issue-tree costs. > - The UI component layer can render cancelled questions and interleave activity with run ledger rows. ## What Changed - Added `cancelled` as an issue-thread interaction status and result shape for question interactions. - Added the board-only `POST /issues/:id/interactions/:interactionId/cancel` route and service implementation. - Added issue-tree cost summary support in the cost service and `/issues/:id/cost-summary` API route. - Extended shared cost exports and UI API/query keys for issue cost summaries. - Updated `IssueThreadInteractionCard` and `IssueRunLedger` components for cancelled questions, issue cost surfaces, and activity/run interleaving. - Added focused server and component regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm exec vitest run 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 ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - Result: 4 test files passed, 45 tests passed. - UI screenshots not included because this PR updates reusable components and API surfaces without wiring a new page-level layout. ## Risks - Adds a new interaction terminal status; clients that switch exhaustively on interaction status may need to handle `cancelled`. - Issue-tree cost summaries use recursive issue traversal and should be watched on unusually large issue trees. - Page-level issue detail wiring is intentionally left to the board QoL/issue-detail branch to keep this PR narrow. > 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 13:57:25 -05:00
it("cancels question interactions and emits a continuation wake", async () => {
const app = await createApp();
const res = await request(app)
.post("/api/issues/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa/interactions/interaction-2/cancel")
.send({});
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
expect(res.body.status).toBe("cancelled");
expect(mockInteractionService.cancelQuestions).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
expect.objectContaining({ id: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa" }),
"interaction-2",
{},
expect.objectContaining({ userId: "local-board" }),
);
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
ASSIGNEE_AGENT_ID,
expect.objectContaining({
reason: "issue_commented",
payload: expect.objectContaining({
interactionId: "interaction-2",
interactionKind: "ask_user_questions",
interactionStatus: "cancelled",
sourceCommentId: "comment-2",
sourceRunId: "run-2",
}),
}),
);
expect(mockLogActivity).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
expect.anything(),
expect.objectContaining({
action: "issue.thread_interaction_cancelled",
}),
);
});
[codex] Add structured issue-thread interactions (#4244) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators supervise that work through issues, comments, approvals, and the board UI. > - Some agent proposals need structured board/user decisions, not hidden markdown conventions or heavyweight governed approvals. > - Issue-thread interactions already provide a natural thread-native surface for proposed tasks and questions. > - This pull request extends that surface with request confirmations, richer interaction cards, and agent/plugin/MCP helpers. > - The benefit is that plan approvals and yes/no decisions become explicit, auditable, and resumable without losing the single-issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added persisted issue-thread interactions for suggested tasks, structured questions, and request confirmations. - Added board UI cards for interaction review, selection, question answers, and accept/reject confirmation flows. - Added MCP and plugin SDK helpers for creating interaction cards from agents/plugins. - Updated agent wake instructions, onboarding assets, Paperclip skill docs, and public docs to prefer structured confirmations for issue-scoped decisions. - Rebased the branch onto `public-gh/master` and renumbered branch migrations to `0063` and `0064`; the idempotency migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` for old branch users. ## Verification - `git diff --check public-gh/master..HEAD` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts packages/mcp-server/src/tools.test.ts packages/shared/src/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts ui/src/lib/issue-chat-messages.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueThreadInteractionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interaction-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/services/issue-thread-interactions.test.ts` -> 9 files / 79 tests passed - `pnpm -r typecheck` -> passed, including `packages/db` migration numbering check ## Risks - Medium: this adds a new issue-thread interaction model across db/shared/server/ui/plugin surfaces. - Migration risk is reduced by placing this branch after current master migrations (`0063`, `0064`) and making the idempotency column add idempotent for users who applied the old branch numbering. - UI interaction behavior is covered by component tests, but this PR does not include browser screenshots. > 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-class coding agent runtime. Exact model ID and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip run; tool use and local shell/code execution were 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 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>
2026-04-21 20:15:11 -05:00
it("accepts request confirmations and wakes the current assignee when configured for accept-only wakeups", async () => {
mockInteractionService.acceptInteraction.mockResolvedValueOnce({
interaction: {
id: "interaction-3",
companyId: "company-1",
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
kind: "request_confirmation",
status: "accepted",
continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee_on_accept",
idempotencyKey: null,
sourceCommentId: null,
sourceRunId: "run-3",
payload: {
version: 1,
prompt: "Apply this plan?",
},
result: {
version: 1,
outcome: "accepted",
},
createdAt: "2026-04-20T12:00:00.000Z",
updatedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
resolvedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
},
createdIssues: [],
});
const app = await createApp();
const res = await request(app)
.post("/api/issues/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa/interactions/interaction-3/accept")
.send({});
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
ASSIGNEE_AGENT_ID,
expect.objectContaining({
reason: "issue_commented",
payload: expect.objectContaining({
interactionId: "interaction-3",
interactionKind: "request_confirmation",
interactionStatus: "accepted",
}),
}),
);
});
it("wakes the returned agent when accepting an agent-authored confirmation from a board review assignee", async () => {
mockIssueService.getById.mockResolvedValueOnce(createIssue({
status: "in_review",
assigneeAgentId: null,
assigneeUserId: "local-board",
}));
mockInteractionService.acceptInteraction.mockResolvedValueOnce({
interaction: {
id: "interaction-4",
companyId: "company-1",
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
kind: "request_confirmation",
status: "accepted",
continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee_on_accept",
idempotencyKey: null,
sourceCommentId: null,
sourceRunId: "run-4",
payload: {
version: 1,
prompt: "Approve this plan?",
},
result: {
version: 1,
outcome: "accepted",
},
createdAt: "2026-04-20T12:00:00.000Z",
updatedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
resolvedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
},
createdIssues: [],
continuationIssue: {
id: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
assigneeAgentId: CREATED_AGENT_ID,
assigneeUserId: null,
status: "todo",
},
});
const app = await createApp();
const res = await request(app)
.post("/api/issues/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa/interactions/interaction-4/accept")
.send({});
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
CREATED_AGENT_ID,
expect.objectContaining({
source: "automation",
reason: "issue_commented",
payload: expect.objectContaining({
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
interactionId: "interaction-4",
interactionKind: "request_confirmation",
interactionStatus: "accepted",
}),
}),
);
expect(mockLogActivity).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
expect.anything(),
expect.objectContaining({
action: "issue.updated",
details: expect.objectContaining({
source: "request_confirmation_accept",
assigneeAgentId: CREATED_AGENT_ID,
assigneeUserId: null,
_previous: expect.objectContaining({
assigneeUserId: "local-board",
}),
}),
}),
);
});
it("does not emit a continuation wake when request confirmations are rejected", async () => {
mockInteractionService.rejectInteraction.mockResolvedValueOnce({
id: "interaction-3",
companyId: "company-1",
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
kind: "request_confirmation",
status: "rejected",
continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee_on_accept",
idempotencyKey: null,
sourceCommentId: null,
sourceRunId: "run-3",
payload: {
version: 1,
prompt: "Apply this plan?",
},
result: {
version: 1,
outcome: "rejected",
reason: "Needs changes",
},
createdAt: "2026-04-20T12:00:00.000Z",
updatedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
resolvedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
});
const app = await createApp();
const res = await request(app)
.post("/api/issues/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa/interactions/interaction-3/reject")
.send({ reason: "Needs changes" });
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it("does not emit an accept-only continuation wake for rejected suggested tasks", async () => {
mockInteractionService.rejectInteraction.mockResolvedValueOnce({
id: "interaction-5",
companyId: "company-1",
issueId: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa",
kind: "suggest_tasks",
status: "rejected",
continuationPolicy: "wake_assignee_on_accept",
idempotencyKey: null,
sourceCommentId: null,
sourceRunId: "run-5",
payload: {
version: 1,
tasks: [{ clientKey: "task-1", title: "One" }],
},
result: {
version: 1,
rejectionReason: "Not now",
},
createdAt: "2026-04-20T12:00:00.000Z",
updatedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
resolvedAt: "2026-04-20T12:05:00.000Z",
});
const app = await createApp();
const res = await request(app)
.post("/api/issues/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa/interactions/interaction-5/reject")
.send({ reason: "Not now" });
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
expect(mockHeartbeatService.wakeup).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
it("allows agent-authored interaction creation and stamps the active run id", async () => {
const app = await createApp({
type: "agent",
agentId: CREATED_AGENT_ID,
companyId: "company-1",
runId: "run-1",
});
const res = await request(app)
.post("/api/issues/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa/interactions")
.send({
kind: "suggest_tasks",
idempotencyKey: "interaction:task-1",
payload: {
version: 1,
tasks: [{ clientKey: "task-1", title: "One" }],
},
});
expect(res.status).toBe(201);
expect(mockInteractionService.create).toHaveBeenCalledWith(
expect.objectContaining({ id: "aaaaaaaa-aaaa-4aaa-8aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa" }),
expect.objectContaining({
kind: "suggest_tasks",
idempotencyKey: "interaction:task-1",
sourceRunId: "run-1",
}),
{
agentId: CREATED_AGENT_ID,
userId: null,
},
);
});
});