forked from farhoodlabs/paperclip
docs/exec-semantics-gro2055
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Dotta
|
5071c4c776 |
[codex] Add workspace diff viewer plugin (#6071)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - Operators need to inspect what agents changed inside execution and project workspaces. > - The existing workspace detail views did not provide a first-party rich diff surface for staged, unstaged, head, renamed, binary, oversized, and untracked changes. > - The plugin system is the intended extension point for optional rich UI surfaces. > - This pull request adds a workspace diff plugin plus host services and shared contracts so Changes tabs can render workspace diffs through plugin slots. > - The diff-renderer dependency should stay owned by the plugin package rather than the core UI app. > - The dependency surface must stay aligned with repository PR policy, including intentionally omitting `pnpm-lock.yaml` from the PR. > - The benefit is a more reviewable workspace surface without hard-coding the renderer into every page. ## What Changed - Added `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`, including diff normalization, plugin manifest/worker/UI entrypoints, and focused plugin tests. - Kept `@pierre/diffs` scoped to `@paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff`; removed the core UI lab diff-renderer surface and direct UI package dependency. - Added shared workspace diff types and validators, plus plugin SDK surface for workspace diff host services. - Added server workspace diff service support and route coverage for execution/project workspace diff flows. - Wired Execution Workspace and Project Workspace Changes tabs to load the diff plugin, including loading/error fallback behavior. - Added UI tests and fixtures for the Changes tabs and plugin bridge behavior. - Added the new plugin package manifest to the Docker deps stage so PR policy can validate dependency coverage. - Addressed review hardening around empty untracked patches, workspace path exposure, project workspace read capability checks, and default base refs. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff test` - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/validators/workspace-diff.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-diff-service.test.ts ui/src/pages/ProjectWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx ui/src/pages/ExecutionWorkspaceDetail.test.tsx` - `pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/plugins/bridge.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime-routes-authz.test.ts` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/plugin-workspace-diff typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `node ./scripts/check-docker-deps-stage.mjs` - Browser screenshot captured from the local worktree dev server: https://files.catbox.moe/ofdpsp.png - Confirmed branch is rebased onto `public-gh/master`, `.github/workflows/pr.yml` is not included in the PR diff, `ui/package.json` is not included in the PR diff, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is not included in the PR diff. ## Risks - Medium UI integration risk: the Changes tab depends on the plugin slot and host diff service path. - Medium dependency risk: this adds `@pierre/diffs` in the plugin package, but `pnpm-lock.yaml` is intentionally omitted per packaging instructions because repository automation manages lockfile updates. - Current CI blocker: downstream frozen installs fail until the repository policy path for new plugin package dependencies is chosen. - Diff rendering edge cases are covered for common working-tree and head diff states, but very large repositories may still expose performance limits. - No migrations are included. > 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 class coding model, tool-enabled local execution environment. Exact context window was 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
29401b231b |
fix(ci): gate new release packages on npm bootstrap (#5146)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is a control plane for autonomous agent companies, so its release automation is part of the core operator trust boundary. > - The affected subsystem is npm/GitHub Actions release publishing for the public monorepo packages. > - The concrete failure was that a newly added package reached `master`, the canary workflow attempted its first publish, and npm trusted publishing was not yet bootstrapped for that package. > - That means the problem is not just one broken run; it is a missing pre-merge guard that lets release-ineligible packages land and only fail once `publish_canary` runs. > - This pull request makes release enrollment explicit, validates that enrollment in CI, and adds a PR-time bootstrap check against npm for changed release-enabled package manifests. > - The result is that we keep trusted publishing, avoid teaching CI to `npm adduser`, and move this class of failure from post-merge canary time to pre-merge review time. ## What Changed - Added `scripts/release-package-manifest.json` so release-managed public packages are explicitly enrolled instead of being inferred from every non-private workspace package. - Hardened `scripts/release-package-map.mjs` to validate the manifest before release workflows rewrite versions or assemble publish payloads. - Added `scripts/check-release-package-bootstrap.mjs` and wired it into `.github/workflows/pr.yml` so PRs that change a release-enabled package manifest fail if that package does not already exist on npm. - Added release-package manifest coverage tests to `scripts/release-package-map.test.mjs` and included them in `pnpm run test:release-registry`. - Wired manifest validation into `.github/workflows/release.yml` and documented the first-publish bootstrap policy in `doc/PUBLISHING.md` and `doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`. ## Verification - `pnpm run test:release-registry` - `./scripts/release.sh canary --skip-verify --dry-run` - Confirmed the committed diff contains no obvious PII/secrets via targeted pattern scan before pushing. ## Risks - Low risk overall: this is CI/release-policy code, not product runtime logic. - The new PR bootstrap check depends on npm metadata availability, so a transient npm outage could block a PR that changes a release-enabled package manifest. - The manifest introduces a new source of truth that must stay aligned with public package additions, but that is intentional and now enforced. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via the `codex_local` Paperclip adapter; GPT-5-based coding agent with tool use, terminal execution, git, and GitHub CLI. Exact served model ID/context window are not exposed by the local 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 |
