mirror of
https://github.com/alkimake/paperclip.git
synced 2026-06-14 01:50:39 +09:00
6 commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Dotta
|
0808b388ee
|
[codex] Add source-scoped recovery actions (#5599)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous AI companies, where work must end with a clear disposition rather than ambiguous agent liveness. > - Recovery currently detects stalled or missing-next-step issues, but source issue recovery can become split across child recovery issues, blockers, and comments. > - That makes it harder for operators and agents to see who owns recovery and what exact action is needed on the original issue. > - Source-scoped recovery actions give the original issue a first-class active recovery state with owner, evidence, wake policy, and resolution outcome. > - This pull request adds the recovery-action data model, backend reconciliation and resolution APIs, and board UI indicators/actions. > - The benefit is clearer stalled-work recovery without losing source issue context or relying on comments as the liveness path. ## What Changed - Added the `issue_recovery_actions` schema, shared types/constants/validators, and an idempotent `0084_issue_recovery_actions` migration ordered after current `master` migrations. - Updated stranded/missing-disposition recovery to create source-scoped recovery actions, wake the recovery owner on the source issue, and avoid locking the source issue for recovery-action wakes. - Added API support for reading active recovery actions on issue detail/list surfaces and resolving them with restored, blocked, cancelled, or false-positive outcomes. - Require blocked recovery resolutions to have an unresolved first-class blocker, and removed the UI shortcut that could mark recovery blocked without a blocker selection path. - Surfaced recovery indicators/actions in the issue UI, blocker notices, active run panels, issue rows, and Storybook coverage. - Updated docs and focused tests for recovery semantics, ownership, races, stale comments, and UI behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueBlockedNotice.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 5 files, 72 tests passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` — passed, including migration numbering check. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up verification after blocker-resolution guard: `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-recovery-actions.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRecoveryActionCard.test.tsx ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` — 3 files, 27 tests passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed. - Follow-up `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed. - UI states are available in `ui/storybook/stories/source-issue-recovery.stories.tsx`; screenshot capture helper is `scripts/screenshot-recovery-card.cjs`. ## Risks - Medium: recovery behavior changes from child recovery issue ownership toward source-scoped actions, so operators may see stalled-work state in new places. - Migration risk is mitigated by using the next migration slot after `master` and making the table/constraints/index creation idempotent for anyone who previously applied the old branch-local `0082_dizzy_master_mold` migration. - Existing child recovery issue paths are still guarded for already-created recovery issues, but new source-scoped flows should be watched in CI and Greptile review. > 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 use enabled for shell, Git, GitHub, and local test execution. Context window 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
6b7f6ce4b8
|
[codex] Split PR #4692 UI/QoL updates (#4701)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents through a company-scoped control plane. > - The affected surface is the board UI for issue threads, issue lists, routines, dialogs, navigation, and issue review indicators. > - Closed PR #4692 bundled backend, schema, docs, workflow, and UI/QoL work into one oversized change set. > - Greptile could not keep reviewing that broad PR because it exceeded the 100-file review limit and mixed unrelated concerns. > - This pull request extracts the UI/QoL slice into a fresh branch under the review limit while leaving workflow and lockfile churn out. > - The benefit is a focused review path for the board UI performance and workflow improvements without reopening the oversized PR. ## What Changed - Added long issue-thread virtualization, scroll-container binding, anchor preservation, latest-comment jump targeting, and related regression/perf fixtures. - Improved issue list scalability with scroll-based loading, server offset parameters, and pagination-focused UI tests. - Reduced new issue dialog typing churn and split dialog action subscriptions so broad layout/nav surfaces avoid unnecessary renders. - Added routine variables help and routine description mention options for users, agents, and projects. - Added productivity review badge/link UI and fixed the badge to use Paperclip's company-prefixed router link. - Kept the split PR below Greptile's review limit and excluded `.github/workflows/pr.yml` and `pnpm-lock.yaml`. ## Verification - `pnpm install --no-frozen-lockfile` in the clean worktree to install `@tanstack/react-virtual` locally without committing lockfile churn. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx src/pages/Routines.test.tsx src/pages/Issues.test.tsx` passed: 5 files, 83 tests. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` passed. - `git diff --check origin/master..HEAD` passed. - Split-scope checks: 53 changed files; no `.github/workflows/pr.yml`; no `pnpm-lock.yaml`. - Screenshots were not captured in this heartbeat; the changes are primarily virtualization, routing, pagination, and editor behavior covered by focused regression tests. ## Risks - Moderate UI risk because issue-thread virtualization changes scroll behavior on long conversations; regression tests cover anchor jumps, latest-comment targeting, row metadata, and short-thread fallback. - Moderate integration risk because the issue-list offset parameter and productivity review field depend on matching API behavior. - Dependency risk: the UI package adds `@tanstack/react-virtual` while repository policy keeps `pnpm-lock.yaml` out of PRs, so CI must resolve dependency changes through the repo's normal lockfile policy. > 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 local repository and GitHub workflow. Exact runtime context window was not exposed by the harness. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] 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
|
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
|
7ad225a198
|
[codex] Improve issue thread review flow (#4381)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Issue detail is where operators coordinate review, approvals, and follow-up work with active runs > - That thread UI needs to surface blockers, descendants, review handoffs, and reply ergonomics clearly enough for humans to guide agent work > - Several small gaps in the issue-thread flow were making review and navigation clunkier than necessary > - This pull request improves the reply composer, descendant/blocker presentation, interaction folding, and review-request handoff plumbing together as one cohesive issue-thread workflow slice > - The benefit is a cleaner operator review loop without changing the broader task model ## What Changed - restored and refined the floating reply composer behavior in the issue thread - folded expired confirmation interactions and improved post-submit thread scrolling behavior - surfaced descendant issue context and inline blocker/paused-assignee notices on the issue detail view - tightened large-board first paint behavior in `IssuesList` - added loose review-request handoffs through the issue execution-policy/update path and covered them with tests ## Verification - `pnpm vitest run ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/ui ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/lib/issue-tree.test.ts ui/src/api/issues.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/adapter-utils packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts -t "coerces executor handoff patches into workflow-controlled review wakes|wakes the return assignee with execution_changes_requested"` - `pnpm exec vitest run --project @paperclipai/server server/src/__tests__/issue-execution-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` ## Visual Evidence - UI layout changes are covered by the focused issue-thread component and issue-detail tests listed above. Browser screenshots were not attachable from this automated greploop environment, so reviewers should use the running preview for final visual confirmation. ## Risks - Moderate UI-flow risk: these changes touch the issue detail experience in multiple spots, so regressions would most likely show up as thread-layout quirks or incorrect review-handoff 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-based coding agent with tool use and code execution in the Codex CLI 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 or documented the visual verification path - [ ] 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
|
a26e1288b6
|
[codex] Polish issue board workflows (#4224)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies > - Human operators supervise that work through issue lists, issue detail, comments, inbox groups, markdown references, and profile/activity surfaces > - The branch had many small UI fixes that improve the operator loop but do not need to ship with backend runtime migrations > - These changes belong together as board workflow polish because they affect scanning, navigation, issue context, comment state, and markdown clarity > - This pull request groups the UI-only slice so it can merge independently from runtime/backend changes > - The benefit is a clearer board experience with better issue context, steadier optimistic updates, and more predictable keyboard navigation ## What Changed - Improves issue properties, sub-issue actions, blocker chips, and issue list/detail refresh behavior. - Adds blocker context above the issue composer and stabilizes queued/interrupted comment UI state. - Improves markdown issue/GitHub link rendering and opens external markdown links in a new tab. - Adds inbox group keyboard navigation and fold/unfold support. - Polishes activity/avatar/profile/settings/workspace presentation details. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssueProperties.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueChatThread.test.tsx ui/src/components/MarkdownBody.test.tsx ui/src/lib/inbox.test.ts ui/src/lib/optimistic-issue-comments.test.ts` ## Risks - Low to medium risk: changes are UI-focused but cover high-traffic issue and inbox surfaces. - This branch intentionally does not include the backend runtime changes from the companion PR; where UI calls newer API filters, unsupported servers should continue to fail visibly through existing API error handling. - Visual screenshots were not captured in this heartbeat; targeted component/helper tests cover the changed 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-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
|
efc1e336b0 | Improve issue detail load stability |