forked from farhoodlabs/paperclip
a1b30c9f35
## 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>
109 lines
3.2 KiB
TypeScript
109 lines
3.2 KiB
TypeScript
import { QueryClient } from "@tanstack/react-query";
|
|
import type { Issue } from "@paperclipai/shared";
|
|
import { beforeEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
|
|
import { issuesApi } from "@/api/issues";
|
|
import {
|
|
fetchIssueDetail,
|
|
getCachedIssueDetail,
|
|
prefetchIssueDetail,
|
|
seedIssueDetailCache,
|
|
} from "./issueDetailCache";
|
|
import { queryKeys } from "./queryKeys";
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/api/issues", () => ({
|
|
issuesApi: {
|
|
get: vi.fn(),
|
|
},
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
function createIssue(overrides: Partial<Issue> = {}): Issue {
|
|
return {
|
|
id: "issue-1",
|
|
identifier: "PAP-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
projectId: null,
|
|
projectWorkspaceId: null,
|
|
goalId: null,
|
|
parentId: null,
|
|
title: "Fast link target",
|
|
description: null,
|
|
status: "todo",
|
|
priority: "medium",
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
createdByAgentId: null,
|
|
createdByUserId: null,
|
|
issueNumber: 1,
|
|
requestDepth: 0,
|
|
billingCode: null,
|
|
assigneeAdapterOverrides: null,
|
|
executionWorkspaceId: null,
|
|
executionWorkspacePreference: null,
|
|
executionWorkspaceSettings: null,
|
|
checkoutRunId: null,
|
|
executionRunId: null,
|
|
executionAgentNameKey: null,
|
|
executionLockedAt: null,
|
|
startedAt: null,
|
|
completedAt: null,
|
|
cancelledAt: null,
|
|
hiddenAt: null,
|
|
createdAt: new Date("2026-04-11T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
updatedAt: new Date("2026-04-11T00:00:00.000Z"),
|
|
labels: [],
|
|
labelIds: [],
|
|
myLastTouchAt: null,
|
|
lastExternalCommentAt: null,
|
|
isUnreadForMe: false,
|
|
...overrides,
|
|
workMode: overrides.workMode ?? "standard",
|
|
};
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
describe("issueDetailCache", () => {
|
|
let queryClient: QueryClient;
|
|
|
|
beforeEach(() => {
|
|
queryClient = new QueryClient({
|
|
defaultOptions: {
|
|
queries: {
|
|
retry: false,
|
|
},
|
|
},
|
|
});
|
|
vi.clearAllMocks();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("seeds and resolves issue detail by both identifier and id", () => {
|
|
const issue = createIssue();
|
|
|
|
seedIssueDetailCache(queryClient, issue, { issueRef: issue.identifier });
|
|
|
|
expect(getCachedIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier)).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(getCachedIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.id)).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(queryClient.getQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.identifier!))).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(queryClient.getQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.id))).toEqual(issue);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("prefetches with the provided issue snapshot without forcing a fresh fetch", async () => {
|
|
const issue = createIssue();
|
|
|
|
await prefetchIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier!, { issue });
|
|
|
|
expect(getCachedIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier)).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(getCachedIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.id)).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(issuesApi.get).not.toHaveBeenCalled();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("hydrates both cache aliases from a fetched issue detail response", async () => {
|
|
const issue = createIssue();
|
|
vi.mocked(issuesApi.get).mockResolvedValue(issue);
|
|
|
|
const result = await fetchIssueDetail(queryClient, issue.identifier!);
|
|
|
|
expect(result).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(queryClient.getQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.identifier!))).toEqual(issue);
|
|
expect(queryClient.getQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail(issue.id))).toEqual(issue);
|
|
});
|
|
});
|