paperclip/server/src/__tests__/issue-telemetry-routes.test.ts
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>
2026-05-12 09:37:15 -05:00

171 lines
5.4 KiB
TypeScript

import express from "express";
import request from "supertest";
import { beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
const mockIssueService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
getById: vi.fn(),
getWakeableParentAfterChildCompletion: vi.fn(),
listWakeableBlockedDependents: vi.fn(),
update: vi.fn(),
}));
const mockAgentService = vi.hoisted(() => ({
getById: vi.fn(),
}));
const mockTrackAgentTaskCompleted = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
const mockGetTelemetryClient = vi.hoisted(() => vi.fn());
function registerModuleMocks() {
vi.doMock("@paperclipai/shared/telemetry", () => ({
trackAgentTaskCompleted: mockTrackAgentTaskCompleted,
trackErrorHandlerCrash: vi.fn(),
}));
vi.doMock("../telemetry.js", () => ({
getTelemetryClient: mockGetTelemetryClient,
}));
vi.doMock("../services/index.js", () => ({
companyService: () => ({
getById: vi.fn(async () => ({ id: "company-1", attachmentMaxBytes: 10 * 1024 * 1024 })),
}),
accessService: () => ({
canUser: vi.fn(),
hasPermission: vi.fn(),
}),
agentService: () => mockAgentService,
documentService: () => ({}),
executionWorkspaceService: () => ({}),
feedbackService: () => ({}),
goalService: () => ({}),
heartbeatService: () => ({
wakeup: vi.fn(async () => undefined),
reportRunActivity: vi.fn(async () => undefined),
}),
instanceSettingsService: () => ({}),
issueApprovalService: () => ({}),
issueReferenceService: () => ({
deleteDocumentSource: async () => undefined,
diffIssueReferenceSummary: () => ({
addedReferencedIssues: [],
removedReferencedIssues: [],
currentReferencedIssues: [],
}),
emptySummary: () => ({ outbound: [], inbound: [] }),
listIssueReferenceSummary: async () => ({ outbound: [], inbound: [] }),
syncComment: async () => undefined,
syncDocument: async () => undefined,
syncIssue: async () => undefined,
}),
issueRecoveryActionService: () => ({
getActiveForIssue: vi.fn(async () => null),
listActiveForIssues: vi.fn(async () => new Map()),
}),
issueService: () => mockIssueService,
logActivity: vi.fn(async () => undefined),
projectService: () => ({}),
routineService: () => ({
syncRunStatusForIssue: vi.fn(async () => undefined),
}),
workProductService: () => ({}),
}));
}
function makeIssue(status: "todo" | "done") {
return {
id: "11111111-1111-4111-8111-111111111111",
companyId: "company-1",
status,
assigneeAgentId: "agent-1",
assigneeUserId: null,
createdByUserId: "local-board",
identifier: "PAP-1018",
title: "Telemetry test",
};
}
async function createApp(actor: Record<string, unknown>) {
const [{ errorHandler }, { issueRoutes }] = await Promise.all([
vi.importActual<typeof import("../middleware/index.js")>("../middleware/index.js"),
vi.importActual<typeof import("../routes/issues.js")>("../routes/issues.js"),
]);
const app = express();
app.use(express.json());
app.use((req, _res, next) => {
(req as any).actor = actor;
next();
});
app.use("/api", issueRoutes({} as any, {} as any));
app.use(errorHandler);
return app;
}
describe("issue telemetry routes", () => {
beforeEach(() => {
vi.resetModules();
vi.doUnmock("@paperclipai/shared/telemetry");
vi.doUnmock("../telemetry.js");
vi.doUnmock("../services/index.js");
vi.doUnmock("../routes/issues.js");
vi.doUnmock("../routes/authz.js");
vi.doUnmock("../middleware/index.js");
registerModuleMocks();
vi.clearAllMocks();
mockGetTelemetryClient.mockReturnValue({ track: vi.fn() });
mockIssueService.getById.mockResolvedValue(makeIssue("todo"));
mockIssueService.getWakeableParentAfterChildCompletion.mockResolvedValue(null);
mockIssueService.listWakeableBlockedDependents.mockResolvedValue([]);
mockIssueService.update.mockImplementation(async (_id: string, patch: Record<string, unknown>) => ({
...makeIssue("todo"),
...patch,
}));
});
it("emits task-completed telemetry with the agent role, adapter type, and model", async () => {
mockAgentService.getById.mockResolvedValue({
id: "agent-1",
companyId: "company-1",
role: "engineer",
adapterType: "codex_local",
adapterConfig: { model: "claude-sonnet-4-6" },
});
const app = await createApp({
type: "agent",
agentId: "agent-1",
companyId: "company-1",
runId: null,
});
const res = await request(app)
.patch("/api/issues/11111111-1111-4111-8111-111111111111")
.send({ status: "done" });
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
await vi.waitFor(() => {
expect(mockTrackAgentTaskCompleted).toHaveBeenCalledWith(expect.anything(), {
agentRole: "engineer",
agentId: "agent-1",
adapterType: "codex_local",
model: "claude-sonnet-4-6",
});
});
}, 10_000);
it("does not emit agent task-completed telemetry for board-driven completions", async () => {
const app = await createApp({
type: "board",
userId: "local-board",
companyIds: ["company-1"],
source: "local_implicit",
isInstanceAdmin: false,
});
const res = await request(app)
.patch("/api/issues/11111111-1111-4111-8111-111111111111")
.send({ status: "done" });
expect(res.status).toBe(200);
expect(mockTrackAgentTaskCompleted).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
expect(mockAgentService.getById).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
});
});