2 commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Dotta	a1b30c9f35	Add planning mode for issue work (#5353) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies. > - Issues are the core unit of work, and issue comments are how board users and agents coordinate execution. > - Some issue conversations need to produce plans and approvals instead of immediate implementation work. > - The existing issue contract did not distinguish standard execution comments from planning-oriented issue work. > - This pull request adds an issue work-mode contract and board UI affordances for standard vs planning mode. > - The benefit is that planning-mode issues can be created, displayed, discussed, and carried through agent heartbeat context without losing the normal issue workflow. ## What Changed - Added `standard` / `planning` issue work-mode contracts across DB, shared validators/types, server issue flows, plugin protocol, and adapter heartbeat payloads. - Added an idempotent `0081_optimal_dormammu` migration for `issues.work_mode`, ordered after current `public-gh/master` migrations. - Updated heartbeat/context summaries and issue-thread interaction behavior so planning work mode is preserved when creating suggested follow-up issues. - Added UI support for planning-mode issue creation, issue rows, detail composer styling, and composer work-mode toggles. - Added focused server/shared/UI tests plus a Playwright visual verification spec for planning-mode surfaces. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` and added durable planning-mode screenshots under `doc/assets/pap-3368/`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db run check:migrations` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/shared packages/shared/src/validators/issue.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-thread-interactions-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-goal-context-routes.test.ts --pool=forks --poolOptions.forks.isolate=true` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueRow.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `PAPERCLIP_E2E_SKIP_LLM=true npx playwright test --config tests/e2e/playwright.config.ts tests/e2e/planning-mode-visual-verification.spec.ts` ## Screenshots Desktop planning detail:  Desktop planning row:  Desktop staged standard toggle:  Mobile planning detail:  Mobile planning row:  ## Risks - Medium migration risk: this adds a non-null issue column. The migration uses `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` so installations that applied an older branch-local migration number can still apply the final numbered migration safely. - Medium contract risk: issue payloads, plugin payloads, and adapter heartbeat payloads now include work mode; compatibility is handled by defaulting missing values to `standard`. - UI risk is moderate because composer controls changed; focused component tests and visual e2e coverage exercise standard vs planning display and toggle behavior. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent in a local Paperclip worktree, with shell/tool use. Exact context-window size is not exposed in this runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-05-06 07:01:28 -05:00
Dotta	32a9165ddf	[codex] harden authenticated routes and issue editor reliability (#3741) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - The control plane depends on authenticated routes enforcing company boundaries and role permissions correctly > - This branch also touches the issue detail and markdown editing flows operators use while handling advisory and triage work > - Partial issue cache seeds and fragile rich-editor parsing could leave important issue content missing or blank at the moment an operator needed it > - Blocked issues becoming actionable again should wake their assignee automatically instead of silently staying idle > - This pull request rebases the advisory follow-up branch onto current `master`, hardens authenticated route authorization, and carries the issue-detail/editor reliability fixes forward with regression tests > - The benefit is tighter authz on sensitive routes plus more reliable issue/advisory editing and wakeup behavior on top of the latest base ## What Changed - Hardened authenticated route authorization across agent, activity, approval, access, project, plugin, health, execution-workspace, portability, and related server paths, with new cross-tenant and runtime-authz regression coverage. - Switched issue detail queries from `initialData` to placeholder-based hydration so list/quicklook seeds still refetch full issue bodies. - Normalized advisory-style HTML images before mounting the markdown editor and strengthened fallback behavior when the rich editor silently fails or rejects the content. - Woke assigned agents when blocked issues move back to `todo`, with route coverage for reopen and unblock transitions. - Rebasing note: this branch now sits cleanly on top of the latest `master` tip used for the PR base. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/lib/issueDetailQuery.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownEditor.test.tsx server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/agent-cross-tenant-authz-routes.test.ts` - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not part of the PR diff. - Rebased the branch onto current `public-gh/master` before publishing. ## Risks - Broad authz tightening may expose existing flows that were relying on permissive board or agent access and now need explicit grants. - Markdown editor fallback changes could affect focus or rendering in edge-case content that mixes HTML-like advisory markup with normal markdown. - This verification was intentionally scoped to touched regressions and did not run the full repository suite. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-5-based coding agent in the Codex CLI environment with tool use for terminal, git, and GitHub operations. The exact runtime model identifier 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] If this change affects the UI, it is behavior-only and does not need before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes, or no documentation changes were needed for these internal fixes - [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>	2026-04-15 08:41:15 -05:00