paperclip/server/src/__tests__/issue-tree-control-service.test.ts

556 lines
18 KiB
TypeScript
Raw Normal View History

[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
import { randomUUID } from "node:crypto";
import { eq, inArray } from "drizzle-orm";
import { afterAll, afterEach, beforeAll, describe, expect, it } from "vitest";
import {
agents,
agentWakeupRequests,
[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
companies,
createDb,
heartbeatRuns,
issueComments,
[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
issueTreeHoldMembers,
issueTreeHolds,
issues,
} from "@paperclipai/db";
import {
getEmbeddedPostgresTestSupport,
startEmbeddedPostgresTestDatabase,
} from "./helpers/embedded-postgres.js";
import { issueTreeControlService } from "../services/issue-tree-control.js";
import { issueService } from "../services/issues.js";
const embeddedPostgresSupport = await getEmbeddedPostgresTestSupport();
const describeEmbeddedPostgres = embeddedPostgresSupport.supported ? describe : describe.skip;
if (!embeddedPostgresSupport.supported) {
console.warn(
`Skipping embedded Postgres issue tree control service tests on this host: ${embeddedPostgresSupport.reason ?? "unsupported environment"}`,
);
}
describeEmbeddedPostgres("issueTreeControlService", () => {
let db!: ReturnType<typeof createDb>;
let tempDb: Awaited<ReturnType<typeof startEmbeddedPostgresTestDatabase>> | null = null;
beforeAll(async () => {
tempDb = await startEmbeddedPostgresTestDatabase("paperclip-issue-tree-control-");
db = createDb(tempDb.connectionString);
}, 20_000);
afterEach(async () => {
await db.delete(issueTreeHoldMembers);
await db.delete(issueTreeHolds);
await db.delete(issueComments);
[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
await db.delete(issues);
await db.delete(heartbeatRuns);
await db.delete(agentWakeupRequests);
[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
await db.delete(agents);
await db.delete(companies);
});
afterAll(async () => {
await tempDb?.cleanup();
});
it("previews a subtree without changing issue statuses", async () => {
const companyId = randomUUID();
const otherCompanyId = randomUUID();
const agentId = randomUUID();
const runId = randomUUID();
const rootIssueId = randomUUID();
const runningChildId = randomUUID();
const doneChildId = randomUUID();
const cancelledChildId = randomUUID();
await db.insert(companies).values([
{
id: companyId,
name: "Paperclip",
issuePrefix: `T${companyId.replace(/-/g, "").slice(0, 6).toUpperCase()}`,
requireBoardApprovalForNewAgents: false,
},
{
id: otherCompanyId,
name: "OtherCo",
issuePrefix: `T${otherCompanyId.replace(/-/g, "").slice(0, 6).toUpperCase()}`,
requireBoardApprovalForNewAgents: false,
},
]);
await db.insert(agents).values({
id: agentId,
companyId,
name: "CodexCoder",
role: "engineer",
status: "running",
adapterType: "codex_local",
adapterConfig: {},
runtimeConfig: {},
permissions: {},
});
await db.insert(heartbeatRuns).values({
id: runId,
companyId,
agentId,
invocationSource: "assignment",
status: "running",
contextSnapshot: { issueId: runningChildId },
});
await db.insert(issues).values([
{
id: rootIssueId,
companyId,
title: "Root",
status: "todo",
priority: "medium",
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-21T10:00:00.000Z"),
},
{
id: runningChildId,
companyId,
parentId: rootIssueId,
title: "Running child",
status: "in_progress",
priority: "medium",
assigneeAgentId: agentId,
executionRunId: runId,
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-21T10:01:00.000Z"),
},
{
id: doneChildId,
companyId,
parentId: rootIssueId,
title: "Done child",
status: "done",
priority: "medium",
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-21T10:02:00.000Z"),
},
{
id: cancelledChildId,
companyId,
parentId: rootIssueId,
title: "Cancelled child",
status: "cancelled",
priority: "medium",
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-21T10:03:00.000Z"),
},
]);
const svc = issueTreeControlService(db);
const preview = await svc.preview(companyId, rootIssueId, { mode: "pause" });
expect(preview.issues.map((issue) => [issue.id, issue.depth, issue.skipped, issue.skipReason])).toEqual([
[rootIssueId, 0, false, null],
[runningChildId, 1, false, null],
[doneChildId, 1, true, "terminal_status"],
[cancelledChildId, 1, true, "terminal_status"],
]);
expect(preview.totals).toMatchObject({
totalIssues: 4,
affectedIssues: 2,
skippedIssues: 2,
activeRuns: 1,
queuedRuns: 0,
affectedAgents: 1,
});
expect(preview.countsByStatus).toMatchObject({ todo: 1, in_progress: 1, done: 1, cancelled: 1 });
expect(preview.activeRuns).toEqual([
expect.objectContaining({ id: runId, issueId: runningChildId, agentId, status: "running" }),
]);
expect(preview.warnings.map((warning) => warning.code)).toContain("running_runs_present");
const [runningChildAfterPreview] = await db
.select()
.from(issues)
.where(eq(issues.id, runningChildId));
expect(runningChildAfterPreview.status).toBe("in_progress");
await expect(svc.preview(otherCompanyId, rootIssueId, { mode: "pause" })).rejects.toMatchObject({
status: 404,
});
});
it("creates and releases normalized hold snapshots", async () => {
const companyId = randomUUID();
const rootIssueId = randomUUID();
await db.insert(companies).values({
id: companyId,
name: "Paperclip",
issuePrefix: `T${companyId.replace(/-/g, "").slice(0, 6).toUpperCase()}`,
requireBoardApprovalForNewAgents: false,
});
await db.insert(issues).values({
id: rootIssueId,
companyId,
title: "Root",
status: "todo",
priority: "medium",
});
const svc = issueTreeControlService(db);
const created = await svc.createHold(companyId, rootIssueId, {
mode: "pause",
reason: "operator requested pause",
actor: { actorType: "user", actorId: "board-user", userId: "board-user" },
});
expect(created.hold.status).toBe("active");
expect(created.hold.members).toHaveLength(1);
expect(created.hold.members?.[0]).toMatchObject({
issueId: rootIssueId,
issueStatus: "todo",
skipped: false,
});
const released = await svc.releaseHold(companyId, rootIssueId, created.hold.id, {
reason: "operator resumed",
actor: { actorType: "user", actorId: "board-user", userId: "board-user" },
});
expect(released.status).toBe("released");
expect(released.releaseReason).toBe("operator resumed");
expect(released.members).toHaveLength(1);
});
it("cancels non-terminal issue statuses and restores from the cancel snapshot", async () => {
const companyId = randomUUID();
const rootIssueId = randomUUID();
const runningChildId = randomUUID();
const todoChildId = randomUUID();
const doneChildId = randomUUID();
await db.insert(companies).values({
id: companyId,
name: "Paperclip",
issuePrefix: `T${companyId.replace(/-/g, "").slice(0, 6).toUpperCase()}`,
requireBoardApprovalForNewAgents: false,
});
await db.insert(issues).values([
{
id: rootIssueId,
companyId,
title: "Root",
status: "done",
priority: "medium",
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-21T10:00:00.000Z"),
},
{
id: runningChildId,
companyId,
parentId: rootIssueId,
title: "Running child",
status: "in_progress",
priority: "medium",
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-21T10:01:00.000Z"),
},
{
id: todoChildId,
companyId,
parentId: rootIssueId,
title: "Todo child",
status: "todo",
priority: "medium",
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-21T10:02:00.000Z"),
},
{
id: doneChildId,
companyId,
parentId: rootIssueId,
title: "Done child",
status: "done",
priority: "medium",
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-21T10:03:00.000Z"),
},
]);
const svc = issueTreeControlService(db);
const cancel = await svc.createHold(companyId, rootIssueId, {
mode: "cancel",
reason: "bad plan",
actor: { actorType: "user", actorId: "board-user", userId: "board-user" },
});
expect(cancel.preview.issues.map((issue) => [issue.id, issue.skipped, issue.skipReason])).toEqual([
[rootIssueId, true, "terminal_status"],
[runningChildId, false, null],
[todoChildId, false, null],
[doneChildId, true, "terminal_status"],
]);
const cancelled = await svc.cancelIssueStatusesForHold(companyId, rootIssueId, cancel.hold.id);
expect(cancelled.updatedIssueIds.sort()).toEqual([runningChildId, todoChildId].sort());
const afterCancel = await db
.select({ id: issues.id, status: issues.status })
.from(issues)
.where(inArray(issues.id, [runningChildId, todoChildId, doneChildId]));
expect(Object.fromEntries(afterCancel.map((issue) => [issue.id, issue.status]))).toMatchObject({
[runningChildId]: "cancelled",
[todoChildId]: "cancelled",
[doneChildId]: "done",
});
await db
.update(issues)
.set({ status: "blocked", cancelledAt: null, updatedAt: new Date() })
.where(eq(issues.id, todoChildId));
const restorePreview = await svc.preview(companyId, rootIssueId, { mode: "restore" });
expect(restorePreview.issues.map((issue) => [issue.id, issue.skipped, issue.skipReason])).toEqual([
[rootIssueId, true, "not_cancelled"],
[runningChildId, false, null],
[todoChildId, true, "changed_after_cancel"],
[doneChildId, true, "not_cancelled"],
]);
expect(restorePreview.warnings.map((warning) => warning.code)).toContain("restore_conflicts_present");
const restore = await svc.createHold(companyId, rootIssueId, {
mode: "restore",
reason: "resume useful work",
actor: { actorType: "user", actorId: "board-user", userId: "board-user" },
});
const restored = await svc.restoreIssueStatusesForHold(companyId, rootIssueId, restore.hold.id, {
reason: "resume useful work",
actor: { actorType: "user", actorId: "board-user", userId: "board-user" },
});
expect(restored.updatedIssueIds).toEqual([runningChildId]);
const afterRestore = await db
.select({ id: issues.id, status: issues.status, checkoutRunId: issues.checkoutRunId, executionRunId: issues.executionRunId })
.from(issues)
.where(inArray(issues.id, [runningChildId, todoChildId, doneChildId]));
expect(Object.fromEntries(afterRestore.map((issue) => [issue.id, issue.status]))).toMatchObject({
[runningChildId]: "todo",
[todoChildId]: "blocked",
[doneChildId]: "done",
});
const holds = await db
.select({ id: issueTreeHolds.id, mode: issueTreeHolds.mode, status: issueTreeHolds.status })
.from(issueTreeHolds)
.where(inArray(issueTreeHolds.id, [cancel.hold.id, restore.hold.id]));
expect(Object.fromEntries(holds.map((hold) => [hold.mode, hold.status]))).toMatchObject({
cancel: "released",
restore: "released",
});
});
it("blocks normal checkout but allows comment interaction checkout under a pause hold", async () => {
const companyId = randomUUID();
const agentId = randomUUID();
const rootIssueId = randomUUID();
const childIssueId = randomUUID();
const rootRunId = randomUUID();
const childRunId = randomUUID();
const forgedRunId = randomUUID();
const rootWakeupRequestId = randomUUID();
const childWakeupRequestId = randomUUID();
const forgedWakeupRequestId = randomUUID();
const rootCommentId = randomUUID();
const childCommentId = randomUUID();
[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
await db.insert(companies).values({
id: companyId,
name: "Paperclip",
issuePrefix: `T${companyId.replace(/-/g, "").slice(0, 6).toUpperCase()}`,
requireBoardApprovalForNewAgents: false,
});
await db.insert(agents).values({
id: agentId,
companyId,
name: "SecurityEngineer",
role: "engineer",
status: "active",
adapterType: "codex_local",
adapterConfig: {},
runtimeConfig: {},
permissions: {},
});
await db.insert(issues).values([
{
id: rootIssueId,
companyId,
title: "Paused root",
status: "todo",
priority: "medium",
assigneeAgentId: agentId,
},
{
id: childIssueId,
companyId,
parentId: rootIssueId,
title: "Paused child",
status: "todo",
priority: "medium",
assigneeAgentId: agentId,
},
]);
await db.insert(issueComments).values([
{
id: rootCommentId,
companyId,
issueId: rootIssueId,
authorUserId: "board-user",
body: "Please answer this root issue question.",
},
{
id: childCommentId,
companyId,
issueId: childIssueId,
authorUserId: "board-user",
body: "Please answer this child issue question.",
},
]);
await db.insert(agentWakeupRequests).values([
{
id: rootWakeupRequestId,
companyId,
agentId,
source: "automation",
triggerDetail: "system",
reason: "issue_commented",
payload: { issueId: rootIssueId, commentId: rootCommentId },
status: "queued",
requestedByActorType: "user",
requestedByActorId: "board-user",
runId: rootRunId,
},
{
id: forgedWakeupRequestId,
companyId,
agentId,
source: "on_demand",
triggerDetail: "manual",
reason: "issue_commented",
payload: { issueId: childIssueId, commentId: childCommentId },
status: "queued",
requestedByActorType: "agent",
requestedByActorId: agentId,
runId: forgedRunId,
},
{
id: childWakeupRequestId,
companyId,
agentId,
source: "automation",
triggerDetail: "system",
reason: "issue_commented",
payload: { issueId: childIssueId, commentId: childCommentId },
status: "queued",
requestedByActorType: "user",
requestedByActorId: "board-user",
runId: childRunId,
},
]);
[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
await db.insert(heartbeatRuns).values([
{
id: rootRunId,
companyId,
agentId,
invocationSource: "automation",
triggerDetail: "system",
status: "queued",
wakeupRequestId: rootWakeupRequestId,
contextSnapshot: {
issueId: rootIssueId,
wakeReason: "issue_commented",
commentId: rootCommentId,
wakeCommentId: rootCommentId,
source: "issue.comment",
},
},
{
id: forgedRunId,
companyId,
agentId,
invocationSource: "on_demand",
triggerDetail: "manual",
status: "queued",
wakeupRequestId: forgedWakeupRequestId,
contextSnapshot: {
issueId: childIssueId,
wakeReason: "issue_commented",
commentId: childCommentId,
wakeCommentId: childCommentId,
},
[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
},
{
id: childRunId,
companyId,
agentId,
invocationSource: "automation",
triggerDetail: "system",
status: "queued",
wakeupRequestId: childWakeupRequestId,
contextSnapshot: {
issueId: childIssueId,
wakeReason: "issue_commented",
commentId: childCommentId,
wakeCommentId: childCommentId,
source: "issue.comment",
},
[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 treeSvc = issueTreeControlService(db);
await treeSvc.createHold(companyId, rootIssueId, {
mode: "pause",
reason: "operator requested pause",
actor: { actorType: "user", actorId: "board-user", userId: "board-user" },
});
const issueSvc = issueService(db);
await expect(issueSvc.checkout(childIssueId, agentId, ["todo"], randomUUID())).rejects.toMatchObject({
status: 409,
details: expect.objectContaining({
rootIssueId,
mode: "pause",
}),
});
await expect(issueSvc.checkout(childIssueId, agentId, ["todo"], forgedRunId)).rejects.toMatchObject({
status: 409,
details: expect.objectContaining({
rootIssueId,
mode: "pause",
}),
});
[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 checkedOutChild = await issueSvc.checkout(childIssueId, agentId, ["todo"], childRunId);
expect(checkedOutChild.status).toBe("in_progress");
expect(checkedOutChild.checkoutRunId).toBe(childRunId);
const checkedOutRoot = await issueSvc.checkout(rootIssueId, agentId, ["todo"], rootRunId);
expect(checkedOutRoot.status).toBe("in_progress");
expect(checkedOutRoot.checkoutRunId).toBe(rootRunId);
await db.update(issues).set({
status: "todo",
checkoutRunId: null,
executionRunId: null,
executionAgentNameKey: null,
executionLockedAt: null,
updatedAt: new Date(),
}).where(eq(issues.id, rootIssueId));
await db.update(issueTreeHolds).set({
status: "released",
releasedAt: new Date(),
releasedByActorType: "user",
releasedByUserId: "board-user",
releaseReason: "switch to full pause",
updatedAt: new Date(),
}).where(eq(issueTreeHolds.rootIssueId, rootIssueId));
await treeSvc.createHold(companyId, rootIssueId, {
mode: "pause",
reason: "full pause",
releasePolicy: { strategy: "manual", note: "full_pause" },
actor: { actorType: "user", actorId: "board-user", userId: "board-user" },
});
const checkedOutLegacyFullPauseRoot = await issueSvc.checkout(rootIssueId, agentId, ["todo"], rootRunId);
expect(checkedOutLegacyFullPauseRoot.status).toBe("in_progress");
expect(checkedOutLegacyFullPauseRoot.checkoutRunId).toBe(rootRunId);
});
});