The instance #11499 named but did not include. `App.cases-routing.test.tsx`
carried the identical fixed-turn loop that PR replaced in its sibling
`App.activity-routing.test.tsx` - three macrotasks instead of five, otherwise
the same helper - so it fails the same way when the suite runs many workers in
parallel and the container has not filled yet. It was one of the failures
observed while verifying #11499.
Same one-line replacement: `vi.waitFor` retries against a time budget, so a
loaded worker gets more turns rather than a failure. The two helpers are
identical again.
Verified on the mechanism rather than on a green run, because the old loop
passes in isolation too - that is what made this a flake and not a failure. A
throwaway probe drove both helpers against a container whose text lands after
ten macrotasks: the three-turn loop throws, `vi.waitFor` resolves. That is the
condition a loaded CI worker creates. The probe was deleted rather than
committed; it tests a test helper and had one question to answer.
This closes one named instance, not the class. The full ui suite passed three
consecutive times with no failure in any file, but the other instances seen
during #11499's verification - TaskChatComposer, RequestCollapsedSidebar -
simply did not recur, so they are rarer rather than fixed. Refs #11484.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The UI test suite protects the board route table
> - The Cases routing regression test needs only the route table and
sentinel pages
> - The test initialized the full cloud access query flow for each route
> - That unrelated setup made the two assertions spend several seconds
polling
> - This pull request isolates the routing dependency and removes the
long timeout
> - The benefit is faster and more focused route regression coverage
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
**What happened?**
The Cases routing regression test initialized cloud health, session, and
board access queries. Its two route assertions spent about 6.69 seconds
in test execution.
**Expected behavior**
The route regression test must bypass unrelated cloud access checks and
resolve the two route assertions synchronously.
**Steps to reproduce**
1. Run `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` on
the base commit.
2. Inspect the Vitest test duration.
3. Observe that the test waits through unrelated query transitions.
**Paperclip version or commit**
`7301fae942c3d5826974335cb40d6f1e0d95d1e0`
**Deployment mode**
Built from source. The defect affects the UI unit test suite.
Related pull request: #9198 introduced the Cases route regression
coverage.
## What Changed
- Mock `CloudAccessGate` at the routing boundary.
- Import the app after hoisted CSS setup and module mocks.
- Remove the query client and three unrelated API mocks.
- Replace long polling with a bounded three-turn route wait.
- Remove the custom 20-second test timeouts.
## Verification
- `pnpm --dir ui exec vitest run src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx`
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck`
- `pnpm check:token-gates`
The focused run passed both tests. Test execution changed from about
6.69 seconds on the base commit to 40 milliseconds on this branch.
## Risks
Low risk. The production route table is unchanged. The test still
renders the real `App` route table and the same sentinel pages.
> 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 with model ID `gpt-5`. The context-window size is not
exposed to this run. The run used reasoning, repository tools, code
execution, and GitHub tools.
## 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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The board currently uses issues for execution, but longer-lived
content work needs a separate object that can survive beyond a single
task thread.
> - The Cases subsystem adds an experimental, company-scoped record for
content artifacts and their supporting metadata.
> - The backend needs durable storage, API routes, revision history,
issue linkage, and company-boundary enforcement before the UI can depend
on Cases.
> - The UI needs an opt-in navigation surface, list/detail views,
reference chips, and issue-page context so operators can inspect Cases
without making them the default workflow.
> - The agent-facing skills need a contract for creating and updating
Cases so automated content workflows can dogfood the feature.
> - This pull request ships that experimental end-to-end path behind the
`enableCases` flag.
> - The benefit is a first-class place to collect content work,
references, attachments, revisions, and related execution threads
without polluting the core issue model.
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
No public GitHub issue exists for this experimental feature.
Feature request fields:
### Problem
Content-oriented work such as release notes, announcements, docs, and
campaigns can span many execution issues, which makes the final artifact
hard to find and reason about after the execution thread moves on.
### Proposed solution
Add an experimental Cases object that is company-scoped, linked to
issues, queryable through the API, inspectable in the board UI, and
writable by agent workflows through documented conventions.
### Alternatives considered
Continue encoding content artifacts directly in issues or documents
only. That keeps the data model smaller, but it does not give operators
a stable artifact-centric view or a clean way to link related execution
history.
### Roadmap alignment
Checked `ROADMAP.md`; this PR does not duplicate an existing planned
core roadmap item.
## What Changed
- Added the `cases` data model, migration, schema exports, and
experimental `enableCases` instance setting.
- Added company-scoped Cases API routes for list/detail/update, issue
links, revisions, children, activity events, annotations, attachments,
and idempotent agent-oriented upserts.
- Scoped case and issue lookup helpers before access checks so
inaccessible cross-company identifiers resolve as not found rather than
leaking existence.
- Fixed case PATCH timestamp handling so non-status updates cannot
overwrite `completedAt` from a stale pre-transaction row snapshot.
- Moved Cases list type/status/project filters into the server request
before the server-side limit is applied, including multi-select filters
and no-project filtering.
- Added backend route coverage for creation, updates, idempotency, issue
linking, attribution, company-boundary enforcement, OpenAPI
registration, list filtering, timestamp patch behavior, and inaccessible
lookup regressions.
- Added the experimental Cases UI surface: sidebar entry, gated routes,
list filters/grouping, detail overview, activity, revisions, children,
attachments, and issue-page case rail.
- Added case reference rendering and company-prefixed case href
generation so case links resolve directly inside the active company
route.
- Added Paperclip skill documentation for agent workflows that create or
update Cases.
- Wired release-content skills to emit Cases for dogfooding.
- Rebased onto current `master` and renumbered the Cases migrations to
`0143`/`0144` after the latest upstream migration sequence.
## Verification
- Current PR head: `ecc13be0d`.
- Rebased on current `master` (`606aa4f266`) and pushed to the existing
PR branch.
- `git diff --check origin/master...HEAD` — passed before the first
update push; subsequent committed diffs were also checked with `git diff
--check` before commit.
- Guardrails checked: no `pnpm-lock.yaml` changes, no
`.github/workflows` changes, and changed-file count is below the
Greptile 100-file limit.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts
src/__tests__/instance-settings-service.test.ts
src/__tests__/openapi-routes.test.ts` — passed, 3 files / 26 tests
before review-fix commits.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run
src/__tests__/cases-routes.test.ts` — passed after each server-side
Greptile fix, latest 1 file / 15 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck` — passed after the
timestamp and lookup fixes.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Cases.test.tsx src/pages/CaseDetail.test.tsx
src/pages/CompanySkills.test.tsx src/App.cases-routing.test.tsx` —
passed, 4 files / 30 tests before review-fix commits.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run
src/pages/Cases.test.tsx` — passed after the list-filter fix, 1 file /
12 tests.
- `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui typecheck` — passed after the
list-filter fix.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — passed after UI changes.
- Remote PR checks on head `ecc13be0d` are green: Paperclip CI, build,
typecheck, test matrix, e2e, Canary Dry Run, policy, commit review,
Superagent Security Scan, Socket, Snyk, and Greptile passed; Storybook
visual regression is skipped and security-review is neutral.
- Greptile Review: 5/5 confidence, zero unresolved Greptile threads.
## Risks
- Medium feature risk because this introduces a new experimental domain
object across database, server, shared contracts, skills, and UI.
- The feature is gated behind `enableCases`, which limits default
operator exposure while the model is exercised.
- Case links now prefer company-prefixed hrefs; the unprefixed redirect
remains for externally entered URLs.
- Cases list filtering now sends multi-select filters to the server
before limiting; the UI still applies the same local filters as a second
pass for ancestor/context rows.
- Migrations were renumbered on top of current master; the SQL uses
guarded `IF NOT EXISTS` / `ADD COLUMN IF NOT EXISTS` patterns where
relevant for safer replay.
> 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 GPT-5 Codex in the Paperclip local coding environment was used
for this PR curation, rebase verification, review-fix implementation,
push, and PR description update. The runtime exposes tool use and shell
execution; context-window size is not exposed by this Paperclip adapter.
Several implementation commits also include AI co-author trailers
recorded in git history.
## 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 searched the GitHub PR list for similar PRs and confirmed this
is not a duplicate
- [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 not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or
links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip`
URLs)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run tests locally and they pass
- [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable
- [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: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
scotttong
Tonio
Dotta