mirror of
https://github.com/alkimake/paperclip.git
synced 2026-06-17 11:20:37 +09:00
7 commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Dotta
|
82e257c7ba
|
Cancel stale queued heartbeats when issue graph changes (PAP-2314) (#4534)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
df425fde96
|
Present ordered sub-issues as a workflow checklist (#4523)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators use issue detail pages and child issue lists to understand multi-step execution plans. > - Ordered sub-issues currently read like a flat table, so dependency chains and current next steps are harder to scan. > - The branch work adds a workflow-oriented presentation for child issues without changing the single-assignee task model. > - This pull request makes ordered sub-issues read more like a progress checklist while preserving normal issue list controls. > - The benefit is that operators can see completed steps, active work, blocked follow-ups, and dependency order at a glance. ## What Changed - Added workflow sorting utilities and tests for dependency-aware child issue ordering. - Added sub-issue progress summary, checklist numbering, current-step affordances, blocker context, and done-state de-emphasis in the issue list UI. - Wired issue detail sub-issue panels to use the workflow sort/progress checklist presentation. - Updated issue service behavior/tests for child issue ordering inputs used by the UI. - Added a Storybook visual review fixture and screenshot helper for the sub-issue workflow checklist surface. ## Verification - `pnpm run preflight:workspace-links && pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-detail-subissues.test.ts ui/src/lib/workflow-sort.test.ts` - Result: 6 test files passed, 55 tests passed, 34 embedded Postgres issue-service tests skipped because `@embedded-postgres/darwin-x64` is unavailable on this host. - Visual review: generated Storybook screenshots from the existing local Storybook server on port 6006 with `node scripts/screenshot-subissues.mjs /tmp/pap-2189-subissues-screens http://localhost:6006`. - Screenshot artifacts: - Desktop dark:  - Desktop light:  - Mobile dark:  - Mobile light:  - Local Storybook note: starting a second Storybook process selected port 6008 because 6006 was occupied, then Vite failed with an esbuild host/binary version mismatch (`0.25.12` host vs `0.27.3` binary). The already-running Storybook server on 6006 served the fixture successfully for screenshots. ## Risks - Medium UI risk: the issue list now has additional sub-issue-specific visual states, so dense lists should be checked for spacing and scanability. - Low ordering risk: workflow sorting is covered by focused unit tests, but unusual dependency topologies may still need reviewer attention. - No migration risk: this PR does not add database migrations or touch `pnpm-lock.yaml`. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-enabled shell/git/GitHub workflow. Context window is runtime-provided and not exposed in this environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
5a0c1979cf
|
[codex] Add runtime lifecycle recovery and live issue visibility (#4419) | ||
|
Dotta
|
77a72e28c2
|
[codex] Polish issue composer and long document display (#4420)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Issue comments and documents are the main working surface where operators and agents collaborate > - File drops, markdown editing, and long issue descriptions need to feel predictable because they sit directly in the task execution loop > - The composer had edge cases around drag targets, attachment feedback, image drops, and long markdown content crowding the page > - This pull request polishes the issue composer, hardens markdown editor regressions, and adds a fold curtain for long issue descriptions/documents > - The benefit is a calmer issue detail surface that handles uploads and long work products without hiding state or breaking layout ## What Changed - Scoped issue-composer drag/drop behavior so the composer owns file drops without turning the whole thread into a competing drop target. - Added clearer attachment upload feedback for non-image files and image-drop stability coverage. - Hardened markdown editor and markdown body handling around HTML-like tag regressions. - Added `FoldCurtain` and wired it into issue descriptions and issue documents so long markdown previews can expand/collapse. - Added Storybook coverage for the fold curtain state. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx --config ui/vitest.config.ts` passed: 3 files, 75 tests. - `git diff --check public-gh/master..pap-2228-editor-composer-polish -- . ':(exclude)ui/storybook-static'` passed. - Confirmed this PR does not include `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Risks - Low-to-medium risk: this changes user-facing composer/drop behavior and long markdown display. - The fold curtain uses DOM measurement and `ResizeObserver`; reviewers should check browser behavior for very long descriptions and documents. - 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: screenshots were not newly captured during branch splitting; the UI states are covered by component tests and a Storybook story. --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Dotta
|
a957394420
|
[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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
09d0678840
|
[codex] Harden heartbeat scheduling and runtime controls (#4223)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through issue checkout, heartbeat runs, routines, and auditable control-plane state > - The runtime path has to recover from lost local processes, transient adapter failures, blocked dependencies, and routine coalescing without stranding work > - The existing branch carried several reliability fixes across heartbeat scheduling, issue runtime controls, routine dispatch, and operator-facing run state > - These changes belong together because they share backend contracts, migrations, and runtime status semantics > - This pull request groups the control-plane/runtime slice so it can merge independently from board UI polish and adapter sandbox work > - The benefit is safer heartbeat recovery, clearer runtime controls, and more predictable recurring execution behavior ## What Changed - Adds bounded heartbeat retry scheduling, scheduled retry state, and Codex transient failure recovery handling. - Tightens heartbeat process recovery, blocker wake behavior, issue comment wake handling, routine dispatch coalescing, and activity/dashboard bounds. - Adds runtime-control MCP tools and Paperclip skill docs for issue workspace runtime management. - Adds migrations `0061_lively_thor_girl.sql` and `0062_routine_run_dispatch_fingerprint.sql`. - Surfaces retry state in run ledger/agent UI and keeps related shared types synchronized. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-retry-scheduling.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/routines-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run src/tools.test.ts` from `packages/mcp-server` ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat recovery and routine dispatch, which are central execution paths. - Migration order matters if split branches land out of order: merge this PR before branches that assume the new runtime/routine fields. - Runtime retry behavior should be watched in CI and in local operator smoke tests because it changes how transient failures are resumed. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent runtime, shell/git tool use enabled. Exact hosted model build and context window are not exposed in this Paperclip heartbeat environment. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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 |
||
|
Dotta
|
2de893f624
|
[codex] add comprehensive UI Storybook coverage (#4132)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The board UI is the main operator surface, so its component and workflow coverage needs to stay reviewable as the product grows. > - This branch adds Storybook as a dedicated UI reference surface for core Paperclip screens and interaction patterns. > - That work spans Storybook infrastructure, app-level provider wiring, and a large fixture set that can render real control-plane states without a live backend. > - The branch also expands coverage across agents, budgets, issues, chat, dialogs, navigation, projects, and data visualization so future UI changes have a concrete visual baseline. > - This pull request packages that Storybook work on top of the latest `master`, excludes the lockfile from the final diff per repo policy, and fixes one fixture contract drift caught during verification. > - The benefit is a single reviewable PR that adds broad UI documentation and regression-surfacing coverage without losing the existing branch work. ## What Changed - Added Storybook 10 wiring for the UI package, including root scripts, UI package scripts, Storybook config, preview wrappers, Tailwind entrypoints, and setup docs. - Added a large fixture-backed data source for Storybook so complex board states can render without a live server. - Added story suites covering foundations, status language, control-plane surfaces, overview, UX labs, agent management, budget and finance, forms and editors, issue management, navigation and layout, chat and comments, data visualization, dialogs and modals, and projects/goals/workspaces. - Adjusted several UI components for Storybook parity so dialogs, menus, keyboard shortcuts, budget markers, markdown editing, and related surfaces render correctly in isolation. - Rebasing work for PR assembly: replayed the branch onto current `master`, removed `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the final PR diff, and aligned the dashboard fixture with the current `DashboardSummary.runActivity` API contract. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook` - Manual diff audit after rebase: verified the PR no longer includes `pnpm-lock.yaml` and now cleanly targets current `master`. - Before/after UI note: before this branch there was no dedicated Storybook surface for these Paperclip views; after this branch the local Storybook build includes the new overview and domain story suites in `ui/storybook-static`. ## Risks - Large static fixture files can drift from shared types as dashboard and UI contracts evolve; this PR already needed one fixture correction for `runActivity`. - Storybook bundle output includes some large chunks, so future growth may need chunking work if build performance becomes an issue. - Several component tweaks were made for isolated rendering parity, so reviewers should spot-check key board surfaces against the live app behavior. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Paperclip harness; exact serving model ID is not exposed in-runtime to the agent. - Tool-assisted workflow with terminal execution, git operations, local typecheck/build verification, and GitHub CLI PR creation. - Context window/reasoning mode not surfaced by the harness. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |