2e74d32871b3fbb1c57cfe5d373b323c8e6ee93a
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Dotta
|
2e74d32871 |
PAP-10430: split Issue-to-Task copy migration (#7651)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The board UI is the operator surface where users create, assign, monitor, and review work items. > - The product language is moving toward "tasks" for user-facing work items while the internal API and database still use "issues". > - PR #7543 bundled this copy migration with broader information-architecture work, which made the branch too large for Greptile review. > - This pull request peels the Issue-to-Task copy migration into a smaller, independently reviewable change. > - The benefit is clearer user-facing terminology, less agent confusion via the Paperclip skill note, and a smaller PR that Greptile can review. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #7645 Refs #7543 Refs PAP-10430 This PR was split out of #7543 so the Issue-to-Task copy migration can be reviewed separately and the remaining IA PR can fall under Greptile's file limit. ## What Changed - Preserves Scott Tong's original `PAP-57` copy-only commit, with author and co-author credit intact, to rename user-facing "Issues" copy to "Tasks" across the UI while keeping routes/API/internal symbols as `issue`. - Updates onboarding and release-smoke browser selectors from `Create & Open Issue` to `Create & Open Task`. - Adds a terminology note to `skills/paperclip/SKILL.md` clarifying that task and issue refer to the same Paperclip work item. - Resolves the only cherry-pick conflict by keeping current search artifacts support and changing visible search copy to "tasks". ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build` passed. - `NODE_ENV=test pnpm exec vitest run ui/src/components/IssuesList.test.tsx ui/src/components/Sidebar.test.tsx ui/src/components/NewIssueDialog.test.tsx ui/src/pages/IssueDetail.test.tsx` passed: 4 files, 66 tests. - `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` passed. - Diff is 80 files, below Greptile's 100-file limit. - Before/after UI copy examples: "Issues" -> "Tasks", "New Issue" -> "New Task", "Create & Open Issue" -> "Create & Open Task". ## Risks - Medium copy-risk: this intentionally changes user-facing terminology broadly while keeping internal issue identifiers and routes unchanged. - Some docs and APIs still say `issue`; the skill note clarifies this so agents do not treat task and issue as separate entities. - Browser-level visual validation is expected from CI because this local container is missing usable browser dependencies. > 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 Scott Tong authored the original `PAP-57` copy migration, assisted by Claude Opus 4.8 and Paperclip agents per the preserved commit metadata. Codex / GPT-5-class coding agent with shell, GitHub CLI, and repository access performed the PR split, conflict resolution, skill note, and verification. ## 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [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] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: scotttong <scott.tong@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
d9f91576a0 |
Add accepted-plan decomposition exact-once guards and UI state (#6831)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies, so planning approvals and child-issue fan-out are part of the core control-plane loop. > - Accepted plans are supposed to be a safe bridge from planning into execution, especially when agents wake from review decisions and reuse isolated workspaces. > - The duplicate-subtask incident showed that an accepted plan revision could be interpreted more than once across overlapping runs, which broke the single-source-of-truth model for issue decomposition. > - Fixing that required tightening the backend contract first: accepted-plan decomposition needs an exact-once fingerprint, durable claim state, and retry-safe child creation. > - Once that backend behavior existed, the board still needed visibility into what happened, so the issue detail view needed a dedicated decomposition section instead of forcing operators to reconstruct child creation from raw activity. > - This pull request adds the exact-once decomposition primitive, hardens wake routing and regressions around the incident, and surfaces decomposition state in the UI so future incidents are both prevented and easier to inspect. ## What Changed - Added accepted-plan decomposition semantics to `doc/execution-semantics.md`, including the exact-once fingerprint, durable claim/result expectations, and retry/resume behavior. - Added persistent accepted-plan decomposition claims in the backend, including schema, shared types/validators, service logic, and issue routes for creating and listing decomposition state. - Hardened heartbeat routing so an accepted-plan continuation stays scoped to the relevant planning issue instead of opportunistically re-decomposing another accepted issue on the same assignee. - Added regression coverage for the original failure modes: concurrent same-parent retries, cross-issue accepted-plan isolation, and partial child recreation under the same fingerprint. - Added the `Plan decomposition` issue-detail section plus supporting API/query-key/activity formatting updates so operators can see revision status, owner, child counts, and the linked child issues directly in the UI. - Included the small follow-up UI fix so the decomposition section still renders when the issue work mode is no longer `planning`. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/db typecheck` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "lists persisted decompositions with child issue summaries"` - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts -t "accepted plan decomposition" server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-accepted-plan-workspace-refresh.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-context-summary.test.ts` - Manual UI path: create a planning issue without an isolated execution workspace, add a `plan` document, accept the `request_confirmation`, let Paperclip create child issues, then reopen the parent issue detail page and confirm the `Plan decomposition` section shows the accepted revision, status, idempotent-claim badge, and child links. - Separate follow-up bug noted during manual UI validation: accepting a plan on an issue whose run never records `workspace_finalize` is tracked in `PAPA-445` and is not part of this PR’s fix scope. ## Risks - This adds a new migration and a large Drizzle snapshot update; reviewers should confirm the schema shape and generated metadata match the intended decomposition table. - The exact-once claim changes sit on the accepted-plan fan-out path, so regressions there could block legitimate child creation or mis-handle retries if the claim state machine is wrong. - The new UI only appears when decomposition records exist; reviewers should use the manual verification path above rather than expecting existing issues on a stale local instance to show the section automatically. - `PAPA-445` remains an open follow-up for the `workspace_finalize` accept gate when a planning handoff never records finalize; that bug can interfere with reproducing the UI flow on isolated workspaces but does not change the correctness of the exact-once decomposition feature itself. > Checked `ROADMAP.md`: this PR is a bug fix / control-plane hardening change for accepted-plan decomposition, not a new uncoordinated roadmap feature. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex via Paperclip `codex_local` (GPT-5-based coding agent; exact backend model ID/context window not exposed in the run context), with repository tool use, shell execution, and code-editing capabilities. <img width="806" height="1069" alt="Screenshot 2026-05-27 at 11 05 48 PM" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/5b00b670-96cd-4470-b0a3-581743bcae28" /> ## 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> |