paperclip/ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx

236 lines
6.7 KiB
TypeScript
Raw Normal View History

[codex] Add issue monitor liveness controls (#4988) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work must stay observable, governable, and recoverable. > - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue state transitions, and visible recovery behavior. > - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when the assignee still owns a future check. > - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad hoc comments. > - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior. > - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when to use monitors versus `blocked`. > - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits without weakening single-assignee task ownership. ## What Changed - Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state. - Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds, activity logging, and external-ref redaction. - Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child monitor scheduling. - Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces. - Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy: "board"`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts` - First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency. - After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites successfully. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot captured from `http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces` with Playwright. ## Screenshots ![Issue monitor Storybook surfaces](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-2945-when-a-task-is-waiting-for-an-_external-service_-what-state-should-it-be-in-and-what-recovery-method-could-it-h/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2945/monitor-surfaces.png) ## Risks - Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or recovery issue creation. - Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue monitor columns and index. - External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads. > 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 with repository tool use and terminal execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots or Storybook review surfaces - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-05-03 08:58:53 -05:00
// @vitest-environment jsdom
import { act } from "react";
import { createRoot } from "react-dom/client";
import type { Issue } from "@paperclipai/shared";
import { afterEach, beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
import { IssueMonitorActivityCard } from "./IssueMonitorActivityCard";
// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any
(globalThis as any).IS_REACT_ACT_ENVIRONMENT = true;
function createIssue(overrides: Partial<Issue> = {}): Issue {
return {
id: "issue-1",
companyId: "company-1",
projectId: null,
projectWorkspaceId: null,
goalId: null,
parentId: null,
title: "Watch deploy",
description: null,
status: "in_progress",
priority: "medium",
assigneeAgentId: "agent-1",
assigneeUserId: null,
checkoutRunId: null,
executionRunId: null,
executionAgentNameKey: null,
executionLockedAt: null,
createdByAgentId: null,
createdByUserId: "local-board",
issueNumber: 1,
identifier: "PAP-1",
requestDepth: 0,
billingCode: null,
assigneeAdapterOverrides: null,
executionPolicy: {
mode: "normal",
commentRequired: true,
stages: [],
monitor: {
nextCheckAt: "2026-04-11T12:30:00.000Z",
notes: "Check deployment health",
scheduledBy: "board",
},
},
executionState: {
status: "idle",
currentStageId: null,
currentStageIndex: null,
currentStageType: null,
currentParticipant: null,
returnAssignee: null,
reviewRequest: null,
completedStageIds: [],
lastDecisionId: null,
lastDecisionOutcome: null,
monitor: {
status: "scheduled",
nextCheckAt: "2026-04-11T12:30:00.000Z",
lastTriggeredAt: null,
attemptCount: 0,
notes: "Check deployment health",
scheduledBy: "board",
clearedAt: null,
clearReason: null,
},
},
monitorNextCheckAt: new Date("2026-04-11T12:30:00.000Z"),
monitorLastTriggeredAt: null,
monitorAttemptCount: 0,
monitorNotes: "Check deployment health",
monitorScheduledBy: "board",
executionWorkspaceId: null,
executionWorkspacePreference: null,
executionWorkspaceSettings: null,
startedAt: null,
completedAt: null,
cancelledAt: null,
hiddenAt: null,
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-11T10:00:00.000Z"),
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-11T10:00:00.000Z"),
...overrides,
Add planning mode for issue work (#5353) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail: ![Desktop planning detail](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/desktop-planning-detail.png) Desktop planning row: ![Desktop planning row](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/desktop-planning-row.png) Desktop staged standard toggle: ![Desktop staged standard toggle](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/desktop-standard-toggle.png) Mobile planning detail: ![Mobile planning detail](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/mobile-planning-detail.png) Mobile planning row: ![Mobile planning row](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-3368-plan-a-planning-mode-for-issues/doc/assets/pap-3368/mobile-planning-row.png) ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-05-06 07:01:28 -05:00
workMode: overrides.workMode ?? "standard",
[codex] Add issue monitor liveness controls (#4988) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work must stay observable, governable, and recoverable. > - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue state transitions, and visible recovery behavior. > - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when the assignee still owns a future check. > - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad hoc comments. > - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior. > - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when to use monitors versus `blocked`. > - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits without weakening single-assignee task ownership. ## What Changed - Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state. - Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds, activity logging, and external-ref redaction. - Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child monitor scheduling. - Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces. - Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy: "board"`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts` - First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency. - After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites successfully. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot captured from `http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces` with Playwright. ## Screenshots ![Issue monitor Storybook surfaces](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-2945-when-a-task-is-waiting-for-an-_external-service_-what-state-should-it-be-in-and-what-recovery-method-could-it-h/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2945/monitor-surfaces.png) ## Risks - Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or recovery issue creation. - Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue monitor columns and index. - External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads. > 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 with repository tool use and terminal execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots or Storybook review surfaces - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-05-03 08:58:53 -05:00
};
}
describe("IssueMonitorActivityCard", () => {
let container: HTMLDivElement;
beforeEach(() => {
vi.useFakeTimers();
vi.setSystemTime(new Date("2026-04-11T12:00:00.000Z"));
container = document.createElement("div");
document.body.appendChild(container);
});
afterEach(() => {
vi.useRealTimers();
container.remove();
});
it("renders the scheduled monitor details and check-now action", () => {
const onCheckNow = vi.fn();
const root = createRoot(container);
act(() => {
root.render(<IssueMonitorActivityCard issue={createIssue()} onCheckNow={onCheckNow} />);
});
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Monitor scheduled");
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Next check");
expect(container.textContent).toContain("in 30m");
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Check deployment health");
const button = Array.from(container.querySelectorAll("button")).find((candidate) =>
candidate.textContent?.includes("Check now"),
);
expect(button).toBeTruthy();
act(() => {
button?.dispatchEvent(new MouseEvent("click", { bubbles: true }));
});
expect(onCheckNow).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);
act(() => root.unmount());
});
it("does not render external references from monitor metadata", () => {
const root = createRoot(container);
act(() => {
root.render(
<IssueMonitorActivityCard
issue={createIssue({
executionPolicy: {
mode: "normal",
commentRequired: true,
stages: [],
monitor: {
nextCheckAt: "2026-04-11T12:30:00.000Z",
notes: "Check deployment health",
scheduledBy: "board",
serviceName: "Deploy provider",
externalRef: "https://provider.example/deploy/123?token=secret",
},
},
})}
/>,
);
});
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Deploy provider");
expect(container.textContent).not.toContain("provider.example");
expect(container.textContent).not.toContain("token=secret");
Polish operator UI task controls (#5427) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Operators spend most of their day scanning skills, routines, inbox groups, and activity cards > - Several small UI rough edges made those surfaces harder to scan or easier to crash on real API payloads > - These fixes are grouped together because they are low-risk operator quality-of-life improvements rather than separate control-plane contracts > - This pull request polishes skills metadata, routine run-now access, grouped issue creation defaults, monitor activity rendering, and activity row identity layout > - The benefit is a smoother board workflow with fewer small interruptions while keeping the change set compact ## What Changed - Improves company skill source display and the used-by agent list. - Truncates long skill source paths and adds a copy affordance. - Adds a row-level run-now button to the routines table. - Adds grouped issue creation defaults for inbox issue groups and aligns grouped add buttons to the right. - Fixes `IssueMonitorActivityCard` when `monitorNextCheckAt` arrives as an ISO string. - Polishes activity row actor avatar/name layout by using the shared avatar primitive. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/pages/Routines.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx` — 91 passed. - The routines test emitted the pre-existing Radix warning about missing `DialogTitle`/description in dialog content; tests still passed. - Pairwise merge checks against the other two PR branches reported no textual conflicts. ## Risks - Low: changes are UI-focused and covered by targeted component/lib tests. - Low-to-medium: activity row layout changes could affect dense feed scanability; the implementation uses the shared avatar component and keeps truncation behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent, GPT-5 model family (`gpt-5`), tool-enabled Paperclip heartbeat environment. Context window and internal reasoning mode are not exposed by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-05-07 12:24:02 -05:00
act(() => root.unmount());
});
it("renders without throwing when monitorNextCheckAt arrives as an ISO string", () => {
const root = createRoot(container);
act(() => {
root.render(
<IssueMonitorActivityCard
issue={createIssue({
monitorNextCheckAt: "2026-04-11T12:30:00.000Z" as unknown as Date,
executionPolicy: {
mode: "normal",
commentRequired: true,
stages: [],
},
executionState: {
status: "idle",
currentStageId: null,
currentStageIndex: null,
currentStageType: null,
currentParticipant: null,
returnAssignee: null,
reviewRequest: null,
completedStageIds: [],
lastDecisionId: null,
lastDecisionOutcome: null,
monitor: null,
},
})}
/>,
);
});
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Monitor scheduled");
expect(container.textContent).toContain("Next check");
expect(container.textContent).toContain("in 30m");
[codex] Add issue monitor liveness controls (#4988) ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies where work must stay observable, governable, and recoverable. > - The task/heartbeat subsystem owns agent execution continuity, issue state transitions, and visible recovery behavior. > - Waiting on an external service is not the same as being blocked when the assignee still owns a future check. > - The gap was that agents had no first-class one-shot monitor state for external-service waits, so recovery could look stalled or require ad hoc comments. > - This pull request adds bounded issue monitors that can wake the owner, clear exhausted waits, and produce explicit recovery behavior. > - It also surfaces monitor status in the board UI and documents when to use monitors versus `blocked`. > - The benefit is clearer liveness semantics for asynchronous waits without weakening single-assignee task ownership. ## What Changed - Added issue monitor fields, shared types, validators, constants, and an idempotent `0075` migration for scheduled monitor state. - Added server-side monitor scheduling, dispatch, recovery bounds, activity logging, and external-ref redaction. - Added board/agent route coverage for monitor permissions and child monitor scheduling. - Added issue detail/property UI for monitor state, a monitor activity card, and Storybook stories for review surfaces. - Documented monitor semantics and recovery policy behavior in `doc/execution-semantics.md`. - Addressed Greptile review feedback by preserving monitor state in skipped-stage builders and making board monitor saves send `scheduledBy: "board"`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile` - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/lib/activity-format.test.ts` - First run passed 5 files and failed to collect 2 server suites because the worktree was missing the optional `acpx/runtime` dependency. - After `pnpm install --frozen-lockfile`, reran the 2 failed suites successfully. - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-monitor-scheduler.test.ts server/src/__tests__/recovery-classifiers.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck && pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueMonitorActivityCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - Storybook screenshot captured from `http://127.0.0.1:6006/iframe.html?viewMode=story&id=product-issue-monitor-surfaces--monitor-surfaces` with Playwright. ## Screenshots ![Issue monitor Storybook surfaces](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/paperclipai/paperclip/PAP-2945-when-a-task-is-waiting-for-an-_external-service_-what-state-should-it-be-in-and-what-recovery-method-could-it-h/docs/pr-screenshots/pap-2945/monitor-surfaces.png) ## Risks - Medium: this changes heartbeat recovery behavior for scheduled external-service waits, so regressions could affect wake timing or recovery issue creation. - Migration risk is reduced by using `IF NOT EXISTS` for the new issue monitor columns and index. - External monitor references are treated as secret-adjacent and are intentionally omitted from visible activity/wake payloads. > 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 with repository tool use and terminal execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots or Storybook review surfaces - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-05-03 08:58:53 -05:00
act(() => root.unmount());
});
it("renders nothing when the issue has no scheduled monitor", () => {
const root = createRoot(container);
act(() => {
root.render(
<IssueMonitorActivityCard
issue={createIssue({
executionPolicy: {
mode: "normal",
commentRequired: true,
stages: [],
},
executionState: {
status: "idle",
currentStageId: null,
currentStageIndex: null,
currentStageType: null,
currentParticipant: null,
returnAssignee: null,
reviewRequest: null,
completedStageIds: [],
lastDecisionId: null,
lastDecisionOutcome: null,
monitor: null,
},
monitorNextCheckAt: null,
monitorNotes: null,
})}
/>,
);
});
expect(container.textContent).toBe("");
act(() => root.unmount());
});
});