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>
131 lines
3.6 KiB
TypeScript
131 lines
3.6 KiB
TypeScript
// @vitest-environment jsdom
|
|
|
|
import { act } from "react";
|
|
import { createRoot } from "react-dom/client";
|
|
import type { Issue } from "@paperclipai/shared";
|
|
import { QueryClient, QueryClientProvider, useQuery, useQueryClient } from "@tanstack/react-query";
|
|
import { afterEach, describe, expect, it, vi } from "vitest";
|
|
import { issuesApi } from "@/api/issues";
|
|
import { queryKeys } from "@/lib/queryKeys";
|
|
import { getIssueDetailQueryOptions } from "./issueDetailCache";
|
|
|
|
vi.mock("@/api/issues", () => ({
|
|
issuesApi: {
|
|
get: vi.fn(),
|
|
},
|
|
}));
|
|
|
|
// eslint-disable-next-line @typescript-eslint/no-explicit-any
|
|
(globalThis as any).IS_REACT_ACT_ENVIRONMENT = true;
|
|
|
|
function makeIssue(overrides: Partial<Issue> = {}): Issue {
|
|
const now = new Date("2026-04-13T20:00:00.000Z");
|
|
return {
|
|
id: "issue-1",
|
|
companyId: "company-1",
|
|
projectId: null,
|
|
projectWorkspaceId: null,
|
|
goalId: null,
|
|
parentId: null,
|
|
title: "Issue title",
|
|
description: null,
|
|
status: "todo",
|
|
priority: "medium",
|
|
assigneeAgentId: null,
|
|
assigneeUserId: null,
|
|
checkoutRunId: null,
|
|
executionRunId: null,
|
|
executionAgentNameKey: null,
|
|
executionLockedAt: null,
|
|
createdByAgentId: null,
|
|
createdByUserId: null,
|
|
issueNumber: 1442,
|
|
identifier: "PAP-1442",
|
|
requestDepth: 0,
|
|
billingCode: null,
|
|
assigneeAdapterOverrides: null,
|
|
executionWorkspaceId: null,
|
|
executionWorkspacePreference: null,
|
|
executionWorkspaceSettings: null,
|
|
startedAt: null,
|
|
completedAt: null,
|
|
cancelledAt: null,
|
|
hiddenAt: null,
|
|
createdAt: now,
|
|
updatedAt: now,
|
|
...overrides,
|
|
workMode: overrides.workMode ?? "standard",
|
|
};
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
function IssueDetailQueryHarness({
|
|
issueRef,
|
|
placeholderIssue,
|
|
}: {
|
|
issueRef: string;
|
|
placeholderIssue?: Pick<Issue, "id" | "identifier"> | null;
|
|
}) {
|
|
const queryClient = useQueryClient();
|
|
const query = useQuery({
|
|
...getIssueDetailQueryOptions(queryClient, issueRef, { placeholderIssue }),
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
return <div>{query.data?.description ?? "EMPTY"}</div>;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
async function flush() {
|
|
// Multiple act cycles to allow React Query to process the async queryFn
|
|
for (let i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
await new Promise((r) => setTimeout(r, 0));
|
|
});
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
describe("getIssueDetailQueryOptions", () => {
|
|
afterEach(() => {
|
|
vi.clearAllMocks();
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
it("treats cached issue data as placeholder and still fetches full detail", async () => {
|
|
const container = document.createElement("div");
|
|
document.body.appendChild(container);
|
|
const root = createRoot(container);
|
|
const queryClient = new QueryClient({
|
|
defaultOptions: {
|
|
queries: {
|
|
retry: false,
|
|
},
|
|
},
|
|
});
|
|
const partialIssue = makeIssue({ description: null });
|
|
const fullIssue = makeIssue({ description: "GitHub Security Advisory body" });
|
|
|
|
queryClient.setQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail("issue-1"), partialIssue);
|
|
queryClient.setQueryData(queryKeys.issues.detail("PAP-1442"), partialIssue);
|
|
vi.mocked(issuesApi.get).mockResolvedValue(fullIssue);
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
root.render(
|
|
<QueryClientProvider client={queryClient}>
|
|
<IssueDetailQueryHarness
|
|
issueRef="PAP-1442"
|
|
placeholderIssue={{ id: partialIssue.id, identifier: partialIssue.identifier }}
|
|
/>
|
|
</QueryClientProvider>,
|
|
);
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
await flush();
|
|
|
|
expect(issuesApi.get).toHaveBeenCalledWith("PAP-1442");
|
|
expect(container.textContent).toContain("GitHub Security Advisory body");
|
|
|
|
await act(async () => {
|
|
root.unmount();
|
|
});
|
|
queryClient.clear();
|
|
container.remove();
|
|
});
|
|
});
|