## Thinking Path
> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work
> - The Secrets UI lets operators navigate slash-delimited secret names
as folders
> - PR #9913 shipped create-in-folder behavior for company and per-user
secrets
> - The production behavior is already on master, but several
create-in-folder interaction paths lack retained regression coverage
there
> - Without that coverage, prefix composition, derived keys, prefix
removal, and staged empty folders could regress unnoticed
> - This pull request adds focused render tests without changing
production behavior
> - The benefit is safer maintenance of the folder-based secrets
workflow with a small, reviewable patch
## Linked Issues or Issue Description
- Refs #9913
## What Changed
- Added render coverage for creating a company secret from a folder and
deriving its key from the full slash-delimited name.
- Added coverage for per-user secret prefixes and exposing the full name
when the prefix chip is removed.
- Added coverage for inline folder-name validation and URL-backed
staging of an empty folder.
## Verification
- `env -u PAPERCLIP_IN_WORKTREE -u PAPERCLIP_WORKTREE_NAME -u
PAPERCLIP_CONFIG -u PAPERCLIP_HOME -u PAPERCLIP_INSTANCE_ID -u
PAPERCLIP_CONTEXT pnpm exec vitest run
ui/src/pages/Secrets.render.test.tsx` — 29 tests passed.
- `pnpm check:token-gates` — reports five existing `#9627` literals in
unrelated files; this PR changes no token-gated component code and
introduces no new violation.
## Risks
- Low risk: test-only change with no production, API, schema, migration,
dependency, or runtime behavior changes.
- The tests exercise existing DOM interactions and may need updates if
the Secrets creation UI copy or controls intentionally change.
> 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 CLI managed coding agent with repository inspection, code
execution, Git/GitHub, and Paperclip API tools. The managed harness does
not expose the exact underlying model ID or context-window size.
## 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)
- [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`)
and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
— the assigned execution branch name is fixed by the task
- [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 — no
documentation change is needed for test-only coverage
- [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>
26890650b2