c0c58d6b017ec914debe5fd9800a0d59183c6056
5 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
236d11d36f |
[codex] Add run liveness continuations (#4083)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Heartbeat runs are the control-plane record of each agent execution window. > - Long-running local agents can exhaust context or stop while still holding useful next-step state. > - Operators need that stop reason, next action, and continuation path to be durable and visible. > - This pull request adds run liveness metadata, continuation summaries, and UI surfaces for issue run ledgers. > - The benefit is that interrupted or long-running work can resume with clearer context instead of losing the agent's last useful handoff. ## What Changed - Added heartbeat-run liveness fields, continuation attempt tracking, and an idempotent `0058` migration. - Added server services and tests for run liveness, continuation summaries, stop metadata, and activity backfill. - Wired local and HTTP adapters to surface continuation/liveness context through shared adapter utilities. - Added shared constants, validators, and heartbeat types for liveness continuation state. - Added issue-detail UI surfaces for continuation handoffs and the run ledger, with component tests. - Updated agent runtime docs, heartbeat protocol docs, prompt guidance, onboarding assets, and skills instructions to explain continuation behavior. - Addressed Greptile feedback by scoping document evidence by run, excluding system continuation-summary documents from liveness evidence, importing shared liveness types, surfacing hidden ledger run counts, documenting bounded retry behavior, and moving run-ledger liveness backfill off the request path. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/server-utils.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-liveness.test.ts server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/documents-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-continuation-summary.test.ts server/src/services/heartbeat-stop-metadata.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueContinuationHandoff.test.tsx ui/src/components/IssueDocumentsSection.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db build` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/run-continuations.test.ts ui/src/components/IssueRunLedger.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "treats a plan document update"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/activity-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts -t "activity service|treats a plan document update"` - Remote PR checks on head `e53b1a1d`: `verify`, `e2e`, `policy`, and Snyk all passed. - Confirmed `public-gh/master` is an ancestor of this branch after fetching `public-gh master`. - Confirmed `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the branch diff. - Confirmed migration `0058_wealthy_starbolt.sql` is ordered after `0057` and uses `IF NOT EXISTS` guards for repeat application. - Greptile inline review threads are resolved. ## Risks - Medium risk: this touches heartbeat execution, liveness recovery, activity rendering, issue routes, shared contracts, docs, and UI. - Migration risk is mitigated by additive columns/indexes and idempotent guards. - Run-ledger liveness backfill is now asynchronous, so the first ledger response can briefly show historical missing liveness until the background backfill completes. - UI screenshot coverage is not included in this packaging pass; validation is currently through focused component tests. > 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-5.4, local tool-use coding agent with terminal, git, GitHub connector, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API access. ## 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 Screenshot note: no before/after screenshots were captured in this PR packaging pass; the UI changes are covered by focused component tests listed above. --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
548721248e |
fix(ui): keep latest issue document revision current (#3342)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Board users and agents collaborate on issue-scoped documents such as plans and revisions need to be trustworthy because they are the audit trail for those artifacts. > - The issue document UI now supports revision history and restore, so the UI has to distinguish the current revision from historical revisions correctly even while multiple queries are refreshing. > - In `PAPA-72`, the newest content could appear under an older revision label because the current document snapshot and the revision-history query could temporarily disagree after an edit. > - That made the UI treat the newest revision like a historical restore target, which is the opposite of the intended behavior. > - This pull request derives one authoritative revision view from both sources, sorts revisions newest-first, and keeps the freshest revision marked current. > - The benefit is that revision history stays stable and trustworthy immediately after edits instead of briefly presenting the newest content as an older revision. ## What Changed - Added a `document-revisions` helper that merges the current document snapshot with fetched revision history into one normalized revision state. - Updated `IssueDocumentsSection` to render from that normalized state instead of trusting either query in isolation. - Added focused tests covering the current-revision selection and ordering behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - Targeted revision tests passed locally. - Manual reviewer check: - Open an issue document with revision history. - Edit and save the document. - Immediately open the revision selector. - Confirm the newest revision remains marked current and older revisions remain the restore targets. ## Risks - Low risk. The change is isolated to issue document revision presentation in the UI. - Main risk is merging the current snapshot with fetched history incorrectly for edge cases, which is why the helper has focused unit coverage. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [ ] 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
|
03dff1a29a | Refine issue workflow surfaces and live updates | ||
|
dotta
|
bd6d07d0b4 |
fix(ui): polish issue detail timelines and attachments
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
