59eee4829c
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane operators use to coordinate AI-agent companies and review work needing attention. > - The Inbox is the operator-facing surface that aggregates tasks requiring attention across server state and shared client polling. > - Archiving a task optimistically removed it, but ordinary background activity and stale polling responses could make it reappear seconds later. > - The server therefore needs to distinguish genuine user-attention events from routine agent/system activity. > - The client also needs a bounded local archive guard across every Inbox query path while the server mutation and in-flight polls settle. > - This pull request fixes both resurrection paths and adds race-focused regression coverage. > - The benefit is stable archive behavior without hiding a genuine archive failure after reconciliation or reload. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description ### Pre-submission checklist - [x] Searched existing open and closed issues and pull requests; no duplicate implementation was found. - [x] Reproduced on `master` before this branch. - [x] Confirmed this is a Paperclip core bug, not adapter or provider behavior. ### What happened? Archiving an Inbox task hid it optimistically, then background refresh activity could insert it back into the list seconds later. ### Expected behavior A successfully archived task remains hidden during normal polling. A genuine failed archive may become visible again after reconciliation or reload. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Open Inbox with a visible task. 2. Archive the task. 3. Wait for shared polling or routine agent activity to refresh task data. 4. Observe the archived task reappear without a hard page refresh. ### Paperclip version or commit `master` before this branch. ### Deployment mode Built from source using the local development application. ### Installation method Built from source (`pnpm`). ### Agent adapter(s) involved Not adapter-specific; this is a core Inbox bug. ### Database mode Not database-mode-specific. ### Access context Board (human operator). ### Additional context The failure had independent server and client causes: routine activity could resurface archived rows server-side, while stale shared-poll responses could bypass optimistic client removal. ## What Changed - Restrict server-side Inbox resurfacing to explicit user-attention events rather than any issue activity write. - Add a bounded client-side archive guard with confirmation, failure restoration, and cache reconciliation behavior. - Apply the guard to Inbox rendering, badge counts, optimistic cache updates, and shared-poll result application. - Classify the generic compact Inbox query so stale shared-poll data cannot bypass the guard. - Add server visibility-matrix tests and UI race-condition regression tests. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui exec vitest run src/hooks/useSharedPolling.test.ts src/lib/inboxArchiveCache.test.ts src/pages/Inbox.test.tsx` — 25 passed. - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/issues-service.test.ts` — 107 passed. - Branch rebased cleanly onto current `origin/master` before push. ## Risks - Low-to-moderate behavioral risk: resurfacing is intentionally narrower, so the server tests cover human comments, mentions, interactions, and status transitions that must still regain attention. - The client guard is bounded and cleared on mutation failure, limiting the risk of hiding a task whose archive did not persist. - No schema, migration, public API, workflow, dependency-lock, or visual-token changes. > 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 - Anthropic Claude via Claude Code (`claude_local`; prior implementation/review run, exact underlying model ID and context window were not retained in the handoff metadata), with repository tool use and test execution. - OpenAI `gpt-5.5` via Codex CLI for final review repair and PR preparation, with reasoning, repository editing, GitHub tooling, and code execution. ## 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/described the result 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 and contains no internal Paperclip task identifier - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation where needed; no documentation change is required for this bug fix - [x] I have considered and documented risks above - [x] All Paperclip-authored commits include the required co-author trailer --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| public | ||
| src | ||
| storybook | ||
| README.md | ||
| components.json | ||
| index.html | ||
| package.json | ||
| tsconfig.json | ||
| vite.config.ts | ||
| vite.qa.config.mjs | ||
| vitest.config.ts | ||
| vitest.setup.ts | ||
README.md
@paperclipai/ui
Published static assets for the Paperclip board UI.
What gets published
The npm package contains the production build under dist/. It does not ship the UI source tree or workspace-only dependencies.
Storybook
Storybook config, stories, and fixtures live under ui/storybook/.
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui storybook
pnpm --filter @paperclipai/ui build-storybook
Typical use
Install the package, then serve or copy the built files from node_modules/@paperclipai/ui/dist.