Merge public-gh/master into paperclip-company-import-export
This commit is contained in:
dotta
@@ -120,6 +120,7 @@ Useful overrides:
|
||||
```sh
|
||||
HOST_PORT=3200 PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=latest ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
|
||||
PAPERCLIP_DEPLOYMENT_MODE=authenticated PAPERCLIP_DEPLOYMENT_EXPOSURE=private ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
|
||||
SMOKE_DETACH=true SMOKE_METADATA_FILE=/tmp/paperclip-smoke.env PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=latest ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Notes:
|
||||
@@ -131,4 +132,5 @@ Notes:
|
||||
- Smoke script also defaults `PAPERCLIP_PUBLIC_URL` to `http://localhost:<HOST_PORT>` so bootstrap invite URLs and auth callbacks use the reachable host port instead of the container's internal `3100`.
|
||||
- In authenticated mode, the smoke script defaults `SMOKE_AUTO_BOOTSTRAP=true` and drives the real bootstrap path automatically: it signs up a real user, runs `paperclipai auth bootstrap-ceo` inside the container to mint a real bootstrap invite, accepts that invite over HTTP, and verifies board session access.
|
||||
- Run the script in the foreground to watch the onboarding flow; stop with `Ctrl+C` after validation.
|
||||
- Set `SMOKE_DETACH=true` to leave the container running for automation and optionally write shell-ready metadata to `SMOKE_METADATA_FILE`.
|
||||
- The image definition is in `Dockerfile.onboard-smoke`.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,18 +1,19 @@
|
||||
# Publishing to npm
|
||||
|
||||
Low-level reference for how Paperclip packages are built for npm.
|
||||
Low-level reference for how Paperclip packages are prepared and published to npm.
|
||||
|
||||
For the maintainer release workflow, use [doc/RELEASING.md](RELEASING.md). This document is only about packaging internals and the scripts that produce publishable artifacts.
|
||||
For the maintainer workflow, use [doc/RELEASING.md](RELEASING.md). This document focuses on packaging internals.
|
||||
|
||||
## Current Release Entry Points
|
||||
|
||||
Use these scripts instead of older one-off publish commands:
|
||||
Use these scripts:
|
||||
|
||||
- [`scripts/release-start.sh`](../scripts/release-start.sh) to create or resume `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
- [`scripts/release-preflight.sh`](../scripts/release-preflight.sh) before any canary or stable release
|
||||
- [`scripts/release.sh`](../scripts/release.sh) for canary and stable npm publishes
|
||||
- [`scripts/rollback-latest.sh`](../scripts/rollback-latest.sh) to repoint `latest` during rollback
|
||||
- [`scripts/create-github-release.sh`](../scripts/create-github-release.sh) after pushing the stable branch tag
|
||||
- [`scripts/release.sh`](../scripts/release.sh) for canary and stable publish flows
|
||||
- [`scripts/create-github-release.sh`](../scripts/create-github-release.sh) after pushing a stable tag
|
||||
- [`scripts/rollback-latest.sh`](../scripts/rollback-latest.sh) to repoint `latest`
|
||||
- [`scripts/build-npm.sh`](../scripts/build-npm.sh) for the CLI packaging build
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip no longer uses release branches or Changesets for publishing.
|
||||
|
||||
## Why the CLI needs special packaging
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -23,7 +24,7 @@ The CLI package, `paperclipai`, imports code from workspace packages such as:
|
||||
- `@paperclipai/shared`
|
||||
- adapter packages under `packages/adapters/`
|
||||
|
||||
Those workspace references use `workspace:*` during development. npm cannot install those references directly for end users, so the release build has to transform the CLI into a publishable standalone package.
|
||||
Those workspace references are valid in development but not in a publishable npm package. The release flow rewrites versions temporarily, then builds a publishable CLI bundle.
|
||||
|
||||
## `build-npm.sh`
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -33,89 +34,107 @@ Run:
|
||||
./scripts/build-npm.sh
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This script does six things:
|
||||
This script:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Runs the forbidden token check unless `--skip-checks` is supplied
|
||||
2. Runs `pnpm -r typecheck`
|
||||
3. Bundles the CLI entrypoint with esbuild into `cli/dist/index.js`
|
||||
4. Verifies the bundled entrypoint with `node --check`
|
||||
5. Rewrites `cli/package.json` into a publishable npm manifest and stores the dev copy as `cli/package.dev.json`
|
||||
6. Copies the repo `README.md` into `cli/README.md` for npm package metadata
|
||||
1. runs the forbidden token check unless `--skip-checks` is supplied
|
||||
2. runs `pnpm -r typecheck`
|
||||
3. bundles the CLI entrypoint with esbuild into `cli/dist/index.js`
|
||||
4. verifies the bundled entrypoint with `node --check`
|
||||
5. rewrites `cli/package.json` into a publishable npm manifest and stores the dev copy as `cli/package.dev.json`
|
||||
6. copies the repo `README.md` into `cli/README.md` for npm metadata
|
||||
|
||||
`build-npm.sh` is used by the release script so that npm users install a real package rather than unresolved workspace dependencies.
|
||||
After the release script exits, the dev manifest and temporary files are restored automatically.
|
||||
|
||||
## Publishable CLI layout
|
||||
## Package discovery and versioning
|
||||
|
||||
During development, [`cli/package.json`](../cli/package.json) contains workspace references.
|
||||
|
||||
During release preparation:
|
||||
|
||||
- `cli/package.json` becomes a publishable manifest with external npm dependency ranges
|
||||
- `cli/package.dev.json` stores the development manifest temporarily
|
||||
- `cli/dist/index.js` contains the bundled CLI entrypoint
|
||||
- `cli/README.md` is copied in for npm metadata
|
||||
|
||||
After release finalization, the release script restores the development manifest and removes the temporary README copy.
|
||||
|
||||
## Package discovery
|
||||
|
||||
The release tooling scans the workspace for public packages under:
|
||||
Public packages are discovered from:
|
||||
|
||||
- `packages/`
|
||||
- `server/`
|
||||
- `cli/`
|
||||
|
||||
`ui/` remains ignored for npm publishing because it is private.
|
||||
`ui/` is ignored because it is private.
|
||||
|
||||
This matters because all public packages are versioned and published together as one release unit.
|
||||
The version rewrite step now uses [`scripts/release-package-map.mjs`](../scripts/release-package-map.mjs), which:
|
||||
|
||||
## Canary packaging model
|
||||
- finds all public packages
|
||||
- sorts them topologically by internal dependencies
|
||||
- rewrites each package version to the target release version
|
||||
- rewrites internal `workspace:*` dependency references to the exact target version
|
||||
- updates the CLI's displayed version string
|
||||
|
||||
Canaries are published as semver prereleases such as:
|
||||
Those rewrites are temporary. The working tree is restored after publish or dry-run.
|
||||
|
||||
- `1.2.3-canary.0`
|
||||
- `1.2.3-canary.1`
|
||||
## Version formats
|
||||
|
||||
They are published under the npm dist-tag `canary`.
|
||||
Paperclip uses calendar versions:
|
||||
|
||||
This means:
|
||||
- stable: `YYYY.MDD.P`
|
||||
- canary: `YYYY.MDD.P-canary.N`
|
||||
|
||||
- `npx paperclipai@canary onboard` can install them explicitly
|
||||
- `npx paperclipai onboard` continues to resolve `latest`
|
||||
- the stable changelog can stay at `releases/v1.2.3.md`
|
||||
Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
## Stable packaging model
|
||||
- stable: `2026.318.0`
|
||||
- canary: `2026.318.1-canary.2`
|
||||
|
||||
Stable releases publish normal semver versions such as `1.2.3` under the npm dist-tag `latest`.
|
||||
## Publish model
|
||||
|
||||
The stable publish flow also creates the local release commit and git tag on `release/X.Y.Z`. Pushing that branch commit/tag, creating the GitHub Release, and merging the release branch back to `master` happen afterward as separate maintainer steps.
|
||||
### Canary
|
||||
|
||||
Canaries publish under the npm dist-tag `canary`.
|
||||
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
|
||||
- `paperclipai@2026.318.1-canary.2`
|
||||
|
||||
This keeps the default install path unchanged while allowing explicit installs with:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npx paperclipai@canary onboard
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Stable
|
||||
|
||||
Stable publishes use the npm dist-tag `latest`.
|
||||
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
|
||||
- `paperclipai@2026.318.0`
|
||||
|
||||
Stable publishes do not create a release commit. Instead:
|
||||
|
||||
- package versions are rewritten temporarily
|
||||
- packages are published from the chosen source commit
|
||||
- git tag `vYYYY.MDD.P` points at that original commit
|
||||
|
||||
## Trusted publishing
|
||||
|
||||
The intended CI model is npm trusted publishing through GitHub OIDC.
|
||||
|
||||
That means:
|
||||
|
||||
- no long-lived `NPM_TOKEN` in repository secrets
|
||||
- GitHub Actions obtains short-lived publish credentials
|
||||
- trusted publisher rules are configured per workflow file
|
||||
|
||||
See [doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md](RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md) for the GitHub/npm setup steps.
|
||||
|
||||
## Rollback model
|
||||
|
||||
Rollback does not unpublish packages.
|
||||
Rollback does not unpublish anything.
|
||||
|
||||
Instead, the maintainer should move the `latest` dist-tag back to the previous good stable version with:
|
||||
It repoints the `latest` dist-tag to a prior stable version:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/rollback-latest.sh <stable-version>
|
||||
./scripts/rollback-latest.sh 2026.318.0
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
That keeps history intact while restoring the default install path quickly.
|
||||
|
||||
## Notes for CI
|
||||
|
||||
The repo includes a manual GitHub Actions release workflow at [`.github/workflows/release.yml`](../.github/workflows/release.yml).
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended CI release setup:
|
||||
|
||||
- use npm trusted publishing via GitHub OIDC
|
||||
- require approval through the `npm-release` environment
|
||||
- run releases from `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
- use canary first, then stable
|
||||
This is the fastest way to restore the default install path if a stable release is bad.
|
||||
|
||||
## Related Files
|
||||
|
||||
- [`scripts/build-npm.sh`](../scripts/build-npm.sh)
|
||||
- [`scripts/generate-npm-package-json.mjs`](../scripts/generate-npm-package-json.mjs)
|
||||
- [`scripts/release-package-map.mjs`](../scripts/release-package-map.mjs)
|
||||
- [`cli/esbuild.config.mjs`](../cli/esbuild.config.mjs)
|
||||
- [`doc/RELEASING.md`](RELEASING.md)
|
||||
|
||||
281
doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md
Normal file
281
doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,281 @@
|
||||
# Release Automation Setup
|
||||
|
||||
This document covers the GitHub and npm setup required for the current Paperclip release model:
|
||||
|
||||
- automatic canaries from `master`
|
||||
- manual stable promotion from a chosen source ref
|
||||
- npm trusted publishing via GitHub OIDC
|
||||
- protected release infrastructure in a public repository
|
||||
|
||||
Repo-side files that depend on this setup:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`
|
||||
- `.github/CODEOWNERS`
|
||||
|
||||
Note:
|
||||
|
||||
- the release workflows intentionally use `pnpm install --no-frozen-lockfile`
|
||||
- this matches the repo's current policy where `pnpm-lock.yaml` is refreshed by GitHub automation after manifest changes land on `master`
|
||||
- the publish jobs then restore `pnpm-lock.yaml` before running `scripts/release.sh`, so the release script still sees a clean worktree
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Merge the Repo Changes First
|
||||
|
||||
Before touching GitHub or npm settings, merge the release automation code so the referenced workflow filenames already exist on the default branch.
|
||||
|
||||
Required files:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`
|
||||
- `.github/CODEOWNERS`
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Configure npm Trusted Publishing
|
||||
|
||||
Do this for every public package that Paperclip publishes.
|
||||
|
||||
At minimum that includes:
|
||||
|
||||
- `paperclipai`
|
||||
- `@paperclipai/server`
|
||||
- public packages under `packages/`
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.1. In npm, open each package settings page
|
||||
|
||||
For each package:
|
||||
|
||||
1. open npm as an owner of the package
|
||||
2. go to the package settings / publishing access area
|
||||
3. add a trusted publisher for the GitHub repository `paperclipai/paperclip`
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.2. Add one trusted publisher entry per package
|
||||
|
||||
npm currently allows one trusted publisher configuration per package.
|
||||
|
||||
Configure:
|
||||
|
||||
- workflow: `.github/workflows/release.yml`
|
||||
|
||||
Repository:
|
||||
|
||||
- `paperclipai/paperclip`
|
||||
|
||||
Environment name:
|
||||
|
||||
- leave the npm trusted-publisher environment field blank
|
||||
|
||||
Why:
|
||||
|
||||
- the single `release.yml` workflow handles both canary and stable publishing
|
||||
- GitHub environments `npm-canary` and `npm-stable` still enforce different approval rules on the GitHub side
|
||||
|
||||
### 2.3. Verify trusted publishing before removing old auth
|
||||
|
||||
After the workflows are live:
|
||||
|
||||
1. run a canary publish
|
||||
2. confirm npm publish succeeds without any `NPM_TOKEN`
|
||||
3. run a stable dry-run
|
||||
4. run one real stable publish
|
||||
|
||||
Only after that should you remove old token-based access.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Remove Legacy npm Tokens
|
||||
|
||||
After trusted publishing works:
|
||||
|
||||
1. revoke any repository or organization `NPM_TOKEN` secrets used for publish
|
||||
2. revoke any personal automation token that used to publish Paperclip
|
||||
3. if npm offers a package-level setting to restrict publishing to trusted publishers, enable it
|
||||
|
||||
Goal:
|
||||
|
||||
- no long-lived npm publishing token should remain in GitHub Actions
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Create GitHub Environments
|
||||
|
||||
Create two environments in the GitHub repository:
|
||||
|
||||
- `npm-canary`
|
||||
- `npm-stable`
|
||||
|
||||
Path:
|
||||
|
||||
1. GitHub repository
|
||||
2. `Settings`
|
||||
3. `Environments`
|
||||
4. `New environment`
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Configure `npm-canary`
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended settings for `npm-canary`:
|
||||
|
||||
- environment name: `npm-canary`
|
||||
- required reviewers: none
|
||||
- wait timer: none
|
||||
- deployment branches and tags:
|
||||
- selected branches only
|
||||
- allow `master`
|
||||
|
||||
Reasoning:
|
||||
|
||||
- every push to `master` should be able to publish a canary automatically
|
||||
- no human approval should be required for canaries
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Configure `npm-stable`
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended settings for `npm-stable`:
|
||||
|
||||
- environment name: `npm-stable`
|
||||
- required reviewers: at least one maintainer other than the person triggering the workflow when possible
|
||||
- prevent self-review: enabled
|
||||
- admin bypass: disabled if your team can tolerate it
|
||||
- wait timer: optional
|
||||
- deployment branches and tags:
|
||||
- selected branches only
|
||||
- allow `master`
|
||||
|
||||
Reasoning:
|
||||
|
||||
- stable publishes should require an explicit human approval gate
|
||||
- the workflow is manual, but the environment should still be the real control point
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Protect `master`
|
||||
|
||||
Open the branch protection settings for `master`.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended rules:
|
||||
|
||||
1. require pull requests before merging
|
||||
2. require status checks to pass before merging
|
||||
3. require review from code owners
|
||||
4. dismiss stale approvals when new commits are pushed
|
||||
5. restrict who can push directly to `master`
|
||||
|
||||
At minimum, make sure workflow and release script changes cannot land without review.
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Enforce CODEOWNERS Review
|
||||
|
||||
This repo now includes `.github/CODEOWNERS`, but GitHub only enforces it if branch protection requires code owner reviews.
|
||||
|
||||
In branch protection for `master`, enable:
|
||||
|
||||
- `Require review from Code Owners`
|
||||
|
||||
Then verify the owner entries are correct for your actual maintainer set.
|
||||
|
||||
Current file:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/CODEOWNERS`
|
||||
|
||||
If `@cryppadotta` is not the right reviewer identity in the public repo, change it before enabling enforcement.
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Protect Release Infrastructure Specifically
|
||||
|
||||
These files should always trigger code owner review:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`
|
||||
- `scripts/release.sh`
|
||||
- `scripts/release-lib.sh`
|
||||
- `scripts/release-package-map.mjs`
|
||||
- `scripts/create-github-release.sh`
|
||||
- `scripts/rollback-latest.sh`
|
||||
- `doc/RELEASING.md`
|
||||
- `doc/PUBLISHING.md`
|
||||
|
||||
If you want stronger controls, add a repository ruleset that explicitly blocks direct pushes to:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/**`
|
||||
- `scripts/release*`
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Do Not Store a Claude Token in GitHub Actions
|
||||
|
||||
Do not add a personal Claude or Anthropic token for automatic changelog generation.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended policy:
|
||||
|
||||
- stable changelog generation happens locally from a trusted maintainer machine
|
||||
- canaries never generate changelogs
|
||||
|
||||
This keeps LLM spending intentional and avoids a high-value token sitting in Actions.
|
||||
|
||||
## 11. Verify the Canary Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
After setup:
|
||||
|
||||
1. merge a harmless commit to `master`
|
||||
2. open the `Release` workflow run triggered by that push
|
||||
3. confirm it passes verification
|
||||
4. confirm publish succeeds under the `npm-canary` environment
|
||||
5. confirm npm now shows a new `canary` release
|
||||
6. confirm a git tag named `canary/vYYYY.MDD.P-canary.N` was pushed
|
||||
|
||||
Install-path check:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npx paperclipai@canary onboard
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 12. Verify the Stable Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
After at least one good canary exists:
|
||||
|
||||
1. resolve the target stable version with `./scripts/release.sh stable --date YYYY-MM-DD --print-version`
|
||||
2. prepare `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` on the source commit you want to promote
|
||||
3. open `Actions` -> `Release`
|
||||
4. run it with:
|
||||
- `source_ref`: the tested commit SHA or canary tag source commit
|
||||
- `stable_date`: leave blank or set the intended UTC date like `2026-03-18`
|
||||
do not enter a version like `2026.318.0`; the workflow computes that from the date
|
||||
- `dry_run`: `true`
|
||||
5. confirm the dry-run succeeds
|
||||
6. rerun with `dry_run: false`
|
||||
7. approve the `npm-stable` environment when prompted
|
||||
8. confirm npm `latest` points to the new stable version
|
||||
9. confirm git tag `vYYYY.MDD.P` exists
|
||||
10. confirm the GitHub Release was created
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation note:
|
||||
|
||||
- the GitHub Actions stable workflow calls `create-github-release.sh` with `PUBLISH_REMOTE=origin`
|
||||
- local maintainer usage can still pass `PUBLISH_REMOTE=public-gh` explicitly when needed
|
||||
|
||||
## 13. Suggested Maintainer Policy
|
||||
|
||||
Use this policy going forward:
|
||||
|
||||
- canaries are automatic and cheap
|
||||
- stables are manual and approved
|
||||
- only stables get public notes and announcements
|
||||
- release notes are committed before stable publish
|
||||
- rollback uses `npm dist-tag`, not unpublish
|
||||
|
||||
## 14. Troubleshooting
|
||||
|
||||
### Trusted publishing fails with an auth error
|
||||
|
||||
Check:
|
||||
|
||||
1. the workflow filename on GitHub exactly matches the filename configured in npm
|
||||
2. the package has the trusted publisher entry for the correct repository
|
||||
3. the job has `id-token: write`
|
||||
4. the job is running from the expected repository, not a fork
|
||||
|
||||
### Stable workflow runs but never asks for approval
|
||||
|
||||
Check:
|
||||
|
||||
1. the `publish` job uses environment `npm-stable`
|
||||
2. the environment actually has required reviewers configured
|
||||
3. the workflow is running in the canonical repository, not a fork
|
||||
|
||||
### CODEOWNERS does not trigger
|
||||
|
||||
Check:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `.github/CODEOWNERS` is on the default branch
|
||||
2. branch protection on `master` requires code owner review
|
||||
3. the owner identities in the file are valid reviewers with repository access
|
||||
|
||||
## Related Docs
|
||||
|
||||
- [doc/RELEASING.md](RELEASING.md)
|
||||
- [doc/PUBLISHING.md](PUBLISHING.md)
|
||||
- [doc/plans/2026-03-17-release-automation-and-versioning.md](plans/2026-03-17-release-automation-and-versioning.md)
|
||||
477
doc/RELEASING.md
477
doc/RELEASING.md
@@ -1,220 +1,174 @@
|
||||
# Releasing Paperclip
|
||||
|
||||
Maintainer runbook for shipping a full Paperclip release across npm, GitHub, and the website-facing changelog surface.
|
||||
Maintainer runbook for shipping Paperclip across npm, GitHub, and the website-facing changelog surface.
|
||||
|
||||
The release model is branch-driven:
|
||||
The release model is now commit-driven:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Start a release train on `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
2. Draft the stable changelog on that branch
|
||||
3. Publish one or more canaries from that branch
|
||||
4. Publish stable from that same branch head
|
||||
5. Push the branch commit and tag
|
||||
6. Create the GitHub Release
|
||||
7. Merge `release/X.Y.Z` back to `master` without squash or rebase
|
||||
1. Every push to `master` publishes a canary automatically.
|
||||
2. Stable releases are manually promoted from a chosen tested commit or canary tag.
|
||||
3. Stable release notes live in `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`.
|
||||
4. Only stable releases get GitHub Releases.
|
||||
|
||||
## Versioning Model
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip uses calendar versions that still fit semver syntax:
|
||||
|
||||
- stable: `YYYY.MDD.P`
|
||||
- canary: `YYYY.MDD.P-canary.N`
|
||||
|
||||
Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
- first stable on March 18, 2026: `2026.318.0`
|
||||
- second stable on March 18, 2026: `2026.318.1`
|
||||
- fourth canary for the `2026.318.1` line: `2026.318.1-canary.3`
|
||||
|
||||
Important constraints:
|
||||
|
||||
- the middle numeric slot is `MDD`, where `M` is the UTC month and `DD` is the zero-padded UTC day
|
||||
- use `2026.303.0` for March 3, not `2026.33.0`
|
||||
- do not use leading zeroes such as `2026.0318.0`
|
||||
- do not use four numeric segments such as `2026.3.18.1`
|
||||
- the semver-safe canary form is `2026.318.0-canary.1`
|
||||
|
||||
## Release Surfaces
|
||||
|
||||
Every release has four separate surfaces:
|
||||
Every stable release has four separate surfaces:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Verification** — the exact git SHA passes typecheck, tests, and build
|
||||
2. **npm** — `paperclipai` and public workspace packages are published
|
||||
3. **GitHub** — the stable release gets a git tag and GitHub Release
|
||||
4. **Website / announcements** — the stable changelog is published externally and announced
|
||||
|
||||
A release is done only when all four surfaces are handled.
|
||||
A stable release is done only when all four surfaces are handled.
|
||||
|
||||
Canaries only cover the first two surfaces plus an internal traceability tag.
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Invariants
|
||||
|
||||
- Canary and stable for `X.Y.Z` must come from the same `release/X.Y.Z` branch.
|
||||
- The release scripts must run from the matching `release/X.Y.Z` branch.
|
||||
- Once `vX.Y.Z` exists locally, on GitHub, or on npm, that release train is frozen.
|
||||
- Do not squash-merge or rebase-merge a release branch PR back to `master`.
|
||||
- The stable changelog is always `releases/vX.Y.Z.md`. Never create canary changelog files.
|
||||
|
||||
The reason for the merge rule is simple: the tag must keep pointing at the exact published commit. Squash or rebase breaks that property.
|
||||
- canaries publish from `master`
|
||||
- stables publish from an explicitly chosen source ref
|
||||
- tags point at the original source commit, not a generated release commit
|
||||
- stable notes are always `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`
|
||||
- canaries never create GitHub Releases
|
||||
- canaries never require changelog generation
|
||||
|
||||
## TL;DR
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Start the release train
|
||||
### Canary
|
||||
|
||||
Use this to compute the next version, create or resume the branch, create or resume a dedicated worktree, and push the branch to GitHub.
|
||||
Every push to `master` runs the canary path inside [`.github/workflows/release.yml`](../.github/workflows/release.yml).
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/release-start.sh patch
|
||||
```
|
||||
It:
|
||||
|
||||
That script:
|
||||
|
||||
- fetches the release remote and tags
|
||||
- computes the next stable version from the latest `v*` tag
|
||||
- creates or resumes `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
- creates or resumes a dedicated worktree
|
||||
- pushes the branch to the remote by default
|
||||
- refuses to reuse a frozen release train
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Draft the stable changelog
|
||||
|
||||
From the release worktree:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
VERSION=X.Y.Z
|
||||
claude --print --output-format stream-json --verbose --dangerously-skip-permissions --model claude-opus-4-6 "Use the release-changelog skill to draft or update releases/v${VERSION}.md for Paperclip. Read doc/RELEASING.md and .agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md, then generate the stable changelog for v${VERSION} from commits since the last stable tag. Do not create a canary changelog."
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Verify and publish a canary
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/release-preflight.sh canary patch
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh patch --canary --dry-run
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh patch --canary
|
||||
PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=canary ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
|
||||
```
|
||||
- verifies the pushed commit
|
||||
- computes the canary version for the current UTC date
|
||||
- publishes under npm dist-tag `canary`
|
||||
- creates a git tag `canary/vYYYY.MDD.P-canary.N`
|
||||
|
||||
Users install canaries with:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
npx paperclipai@canary onboard
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Publish stable
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/release-preflight.sh stable patch
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh patch --dry-run
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh patch
|
||||
git push public-gh HEAD --follow-tags
|
||||
./scripts/create-github-release.sh X.Y.Z
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Then open a PR from `release/X.Y.Z` to `master` and merge without squash or rebase.
|
||||
|
||||
## Release Branches
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip uses one release branch per target stable version:
|
||||
|
||||
- `release/0.3.0`
|
||||
- `release/0.3.1`
|
||||
- `release/1.0.0`
|
||||
|
||||
Do not create separate per-canary branches like `canary/0.3.0-1`. A canary is just a prerelease snapshot of the same stable train.
|
||||
|
||||
## Script Entry Points
|
||||
|
||||
- [`scripts/release-start.sh`](../scripts/release-start.sh) — create or resume the release train branch/worktree
|
||||
- [`scripts/release-preflight.sh`](../scripts/release-preflight.sh) — validate branch, version plan, git/npm state, and verification gate
|
||||
- [`scripts/release.sh`](../scripts/release.sh) — publish canary or stable from the release branch
|
||||
- [`scripts/create-github-release.sh`](../scripts/create-github-release.sh) — create or update the GitHub Release after pushing the tag
|
||||
- [`scripts/rollback-latest.sh`](../scripts/rollback-latest.sh) — repoint `latest` to the last good stable version
|
||||
|
||||
## Detailed Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Start or resume the release train
|
||||
|
||||
Run:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/release-start.sh <patch|minor|major>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Useful options:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/release-start.sh patch --dry-run
|
||||
./scripts/release-start.sh minor --worktree-dir ../paperclip-release-0.4.0
|
||||
./scripts/release-start.sh patch --no-push
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The script is intentionally idempotent:
|
||||
|
||||
- if `release/X.Y.Z` already exists locally, it reuses it
|
||||
- if the branch already exists on the remote, it resumes it locally
|
||||
- if the branch is already checked out in another worktree, it points you there
|
||||
- if `vX.Y.Z` already exists locally, remotely, or on npm, it refuses to reuse that train
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Write the stable changelog early
|
||||
|
||||
Create or update:
|
||||
|
||||
- `releases/vX.Y.Z.md`
|
||||
|
||||
That file is for the eventual stable release. It should not include `-canary` in the filename or heading.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended structure:
|
||||
|
||||
- `Breaking Changes` when needed
|
||||
- `Highlights`
|
||||
- `Improvements`
|
||||
- `Fixes`
|
||||
- `Upgrade Guide` when needed
|
||||
- `Contributors` — @-mention every contributor by GitHub username (no emails)
|
||||
|
||||
Package-level `CHANGELOG.md` files are generated as part of the release mechanics. They are not the main release narrative.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Run release preflight
|
||||
|
||||
From the `release/X.Y.Z` worktree:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/release-preflight.sh canary <patch|minor|major>
|
||||
# or
|
||||
./scripts/release-preflight.sh stable <patch|minor|major>
|
||||
npx paperclipai@canary onboard --data-dir "$(mktemp -d /tmp/paperclip-canary.XXXXXX)"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The preflight script now checks all of the following before it runs the verification gate:
|
||||
### Stable
|
||||
|
||||
- the worktree is clean, including untracked files
|
||||
- the current branch matches the computed `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
- the release train is not frozen
|
||||
- the target version is still free on npm
|
||||
- the target tag does not already exist locally or remotely
|
||||
- whether the remote release branch already exists
|
||||
- whether `releases/vX.Y.Z.md` is present
|
||||
Use [`.github/workflows/release.yml`](../.github/workflows/release.yml) from the Actions tab with the manual `workflow_dispatch` inputs.
|
||||
|
||||
Then it runs:
|
||||
[Run the action here](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/workflows/release.yml)
|
||||
|
||||
Inputs:
|
||||
|
||||
- `source_ref`
|
||||
- commit SHA, branch, or tag
|
||||
- `stable_date`
|
||||
- optional UTC date override in `YYYY-MM-DD`
|
||||
- enter a date like `2026-03-18`, not a version like `2026.318.0`
|
||||
- `dry_run`
|
||||
- preview only when true
|
||||
|
||||
Before running stable:
|
||||
|
||||
1. pick the canary commit or tag you trust
|
||||
2. resolve the target stable version with `./scripts/release.sh stable --date "$(date +%F)" --print-version`
|
||||
3. create or update `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` on that source ref
|
||||
4. run the stable workflow from that source ref
|
||||
|
||||
Example:
|
||||
|
||||
- `source_ref`: `master`
|
||||
- `stable_date`: `2026-03-18`
|
||||
- resulting stable version: `2026.318.0`
|
||||
|
||||
The workflow:
|
||||
|
||||
- re-verifies the exact source ref
|
||||
- computes the next stable patch slot for the chosen UTC date
|
||||
- publishes `YYYY.MDD.P` under npm dist-tag `latest`
|
||||
- creates git tag `vYYYY.MDD.P`
|
||||
- creates or updates the GitHub Release from `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Local Commands
|
||||
|
||||
### Preview a canary locally
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
pnpm -r typecheck
|
||||
pnpm test:run
|
||||
pnpm build
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh canary --dry-run
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Publish one or more canaries
|
||||
|
||||
Run:
|
||||
### Preview a stable locally
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh <patch|minor|major> --canary --dry-run
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh <patch|minor|major> --canary
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh stable --dry-run
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Result:
|
||||
### Publish a stable locally
|
||||
|
||||
- npm gets a prerelease such as `1.2.3-canary.0` under dist-tag `canary`
|
||||
- `latest` is unchanged
|
||||
- no git tag is created
|
||||
- no GitHub Release is created
|
||||
- the worktree returns to clean after the script finishes
|
||||
This is mainly for emergency/manual use. The normal path is the GitHub workflow.
|
||||
|
||||
Guardrails:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh stable
|
||||
git push public-gh refs/tags/vYYYY.MDD.P
|
||||
PUBLISH_REMOTE=public-gh ./scripts/create-github-release.sh YYYY.MDD.P
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
- the script refuses to run from the wrong branch
|
||||
- the script refuses to publish from a frozen train
|
||||
- the canary is always derived from the next stable version
|
||||
- if the stable notes file is missing, the script warns before you forget it
|
||||
## Stable Changelog Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Concrete example:
|
||||
Stable changelog files live at:
|
||||
|
||||
- if the latest stable is `0.2.7`, a patch canary targets `0.2.8-canary.0`
|
||||
- `0.2.7-canary.N` is invalid because `0.2.7` is already stable
|
||||
- `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Smoke test the canary
|
||||
Canaries do not get changelog files.
|
||||
|
||||
Run the actual install path in Docker:
|
||||
Recommended local generation flow:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
VERSION="$(./scripts/release.sh stable --date 2026-03-18 --print-version)"
|
||||
claude --print --output-format stream-json --verbose --dangerously-skip-permissions --model claude-opus-4-6 "Use the release-changelog skill to draft or update releases/v${VERSION}.md for Paperclip. Read doc/RELEASING.md and .agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md, then generate the stable changelog for v${VERSION} from commits since the last stable tag. Do not create a canary changelog."
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The repo intentionally does not run this through GitHub Actions because:
|
||||
|
||||
- canaries are too frequent
|
||||
- stable notes are the only public narrative surface that needs LLM help
|
||||
- maintainer LLM tokens should not live in Actions
|
||||
|
||||
## Smoke Testing
|
||||
|
||||
For a canary:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=canary ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For the current stable:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=latest ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Useful isolated variants:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
@@ -222,201 +176,76 @@ HOST_PORT=3232 DATA_DIR=./data/release-smoke-canary PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=canary .
|
||||
HOST_PORT=3233 DATA_DIR=./data/release-smoke-stable PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=latest ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If you want to exercise onboarding from the current committed ref instead of npm, use:
|
||||
Automated browser smoke is also available:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/clean-onboard-ref.sh
|
||||
PAPERCLIP_PORT=3234 ./scripts/clean-onboard-ref.sh
|
||||
./scripts/clean-onboard-ref.sh HEAD
|
||||
gh workflow run release-smoke.yml -f paperclip_version=canary
|
||||
gh workflow run release-smoke.yml -f paperclip_version=latest
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Minimum checks:
|
||||
|
||||
- `npx paperclipai@canary onboard` installs
|
||||
- onboarding completes without crashes
|
||||
- the server boots
|
||||
- the UI loads
|
||||
- basic company creation and dashboard load work
|
||||
- authenticated login works with the smoke credentials
|
||||
- the browser lands in onboarding on a fresh instance
|
||||
- company creation succeeds
|
||||
- the first CEO agent is created
|
||||
- the first CEO heartbeat run is triggered
|
||||
|
||||
If smoke testing fails:
|
||||
## Rollback
|
||||
|
||||
1. stop the stable release
|
||||
2. fix the issue on the same `release/X.Y.Z` branch
|
||||
3. publish another canary
|
||||
4. rerun smoke testing
|
||||
Rollback does not unpublish versions.
|
||||
|
||||
### 6. Publish stable from the same release branch
|
||||
|
||||
Once the branch head is vetted, run:
|
||||
It only moves the `latest` dist-tag back to a previous stable:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh <patch|minor|major> --dry-run
|
||||
./scripts/release.sh <patch|minor|major>
|
||||
./scripts/rollback-latest.sh 2026.318.0 --dry-run
|
||||
./scripts/rollback-latest.sh 2026.318.0
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Stable publish:
|
||||
|
||||
- publishes `X.Y.Z` to npm under `latest`
|
||||
- creates the local release commit
|
||||
- creates the local tag `vX.Y.Z`
|
||||
|
||||
Stable publish refuses to proceed if:
|
||||
|
||||
- the current branch is not `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
- the remote release branch does not exist yet
|
||||
- the stable notes file is missing
|
||||
- the target tag already exists locally or remotely
|
||||
- the stable version already exists on npm
|
||||
|
||||
Those checks intentionally freeze the train after stable publish.
|
||||
|
||||
### 7. Push the stable branch commit and tag
|
||||
|
||||
After stable publish succeeds:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
git push public-gh HEAD --follow-tags
|
||||
./scripts/create-github-release.sh X.Y.Z
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The GitHub Release notes come from:
|
||||
|
||||
- `releases/vX.Y.Z.md`
|
||||
|
||||
### 8. Merge the release branch back to `master`
|
||||
|
||||
Open a PR:
|
||||
|
||||
- base: `master`
|
||||
- head: `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
|
||||
Merge rule:
|
||||
|
||||
- allowed: merge commit or fast-forward
|
||||
- forbidden: squash merge
|
||||
- forbidden: rebase merge
|
||||
|
||||
Post-merge verification:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
git fetch public-gh --tags
|
||||
git merge-base --is-ancestor "vX.Y.Z" "public-gh/master"
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
That command must succeed. If it fails, the published tagged commit is not reachable from `master`, which means the merge strategy was wrong.
|
||||
|
||||
### 9. Finish the external surfaces
|
||||
|
||||
After GitHub is correct:
|
||||
|
||||
- publish the changelog on the website
|
||||
- write and send the announcement copy
|
||||
- ensure public docs and install guidance point to the stable version
|
||||
|
||||
## GitHub Actions Release
|
||||
|
||||
There is also a manual workflow at [`.github/workflows/release.yml`](../.github/workflows/release.yml).
|
||||
|
||||
Use it from the Actions tab on the relevant `release/X.Y.Z` branch:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Choose `Release`
|
||||
2. Choose `channel`: `canary` or `stable`
|
||||
3. Choose `bump`: `patch`, `minor`, or `major`
|
||||
4. Choose whether this is a `dry_run`
|
||||
5. Run it from the release branch, not from `master`
|
||||
|
||||
The workflow:
|
||||
|
||||
- reruns `typecheck`, `test:run`, and `build`
|
||||
- gates publish behind the `npm-release` environment
|
||||
- can publish canaries without touching `latest`
|
||||
- can publish stable, push the stable branch commit and tag, and create the GitHub Release
|
||||
|
||||
It does not merge the release branch back to `master` for you.
|
||||
|
||||
## Release Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
### Before any publish
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] The release train exists on `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
- [ ] The working tree is clean, including untracked files
|
||||
- [ ] If package manifests changed, the CI-owned `pnpm-lock.yaml` refresh is already merged on `master` before the train is cut
|
||||
- [ ] The required verification gate passed on the exact branch head you want to publish
|
||||
- [ ] The bump type is correct for the user-visible impact
|
||||
- [ ] The stable changelog file exists or is ready at `releases/vX.Y.Z.md`
|
||||
- [ ] You know which previous stable version you would roll back to if needed
|
||||
|
||||
### Before a stable
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] The candidate has already passed smoke testing
|
||||
- [ ] The remote `release/X.Y.Z` branch exists
|
||||
- [ ] You are ready to push the stable branch commit and tag immediately after npm publish
|
||||
- [ ] You are ready to create the GitHub Release immediately after the push
|
||||
- [ ] You are ready to open the PR back to `master`
|
||||
|
||||
### After a stable
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] `npm view paperclipai@latest version` matches the new stable version
|
||||
- [ ] The git tag exists on GitHub
|
||||
- [ ] The GitHub Release exists and uses `releases/vX.Y.Z.md`
|
||||
- [ ] `vX.Y.Z` is reachable from `master`
|
||||
- [ ] The website changelog is updated
|
||||
- [ ] Announcement copy matches the stable release, not the canary
|
||||
Then fix forward with a new stable patch slot or release date.
|
||||
|
||||
## Failure Playbooks
|
||||
|
||||
### If the canary publishes but the smoke test fails
|
||||
### If the canary publishes but smoke testing fails
|
||||
|
||||
Do not publish stable.
|
||||
Do not run stable.
|
||||
|
||||
Instead:
|
||||
|
||||
1. fix the issue on `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
2. publish another canary
|
||||
3. rerun smoke testing
|
||||
1. fix the issue on `master`
|
||||
2. merge the fix
|
||||
3. wait for the next automatic canary
|
||||
4. rerun smoke testing
|
||||
|
||||
### If stable npm publish succeeds but push or GitHub release creation fails
|
||||
### If stable npm publish succeeds but tag push or GitHub release creation fails
|
||||
|
||||
This is a partial release. npm is already live.
|
||||
|
||||
Do this immediately:
|
||||
|
||||
1. fix the git or GitHub issue from the same checkout
|
||||
2. push the stable branch commit and tag
|
||||
3. create the GitHub Release
|
||||
1. push the missing tag
|
||||
2. rerun `PUBLISH_REMOTE=public-gh ./scripts/create-github-release.sh YYYY.MDD.P`
|
||||
3. verify the GitHub Release notes point at `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`
|
||||
|
||||
Do not republish the same version.
|
||||
|
||||
### If `latest` is broken after stable publish
|
||||
|
||||
Preview:
|
||||
Roll back the dist-tag:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/rollback-latest.sh X.Y.Z --dry-run
|
||||
./scripts/rollback-latest.sh YYYY.MDD.P
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Roll back:
|
||||
Then fix forward with a new stable release.
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/rollback-latest.sh X.Y.Z
|
||||
```
|
||||
## Related Files
|
||||
|
||||
This does not unpublish anything. It only moves the `latest` dist-tag back to the last good stable release.
|
||||
|
||||
Then fix forward with a new patch release.
|
||||
|
||||
### If the GitHub Release notes are wrong
|
||||
|
||||
Re-run:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
./scripts/create-github-release.sh X.Y.Z
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If the release already exists, the script updates it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Related Docs
|
||||
|
||||
- [doc/PUBLISHING.md](PUBLISHING.md) — low-level npm build and packaging internals
|
||||
- [.agents/skills/release/SKILL.md](../.agents/skills/release/SKILL.md) — maintainer release coordination workflow
|
||||
- [.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md](../.agents/skills/release-changelog/SKILL.md) — stable changelog drafting workflow
|
||||
- [`scripts/release.sh`](../scripts/release.sh)
|
||||
- [`scripts/release-package-map.mjs`](../scripts/release-package-map.mjs)
|
||||
- [`scripts/create-github-release.sh`](../scripts/create-github-release.sh)
|
||||
- [`scripts/rollback-latest.sh`](../scripts/rollback-latest.sh)
|
||||
- [`doc/PUBLISHING.md`](PUBLISHING.md)
|
||||
- [`doc/RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md`](RELEASE-AUTOMATION-SETUP.md)
|
||||
|
||||
172
doc/memory-landscape.md
Normal file
172
doc/memory-landscape.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
|
||||
# Memory Landscape
|
||||
|
||||
Date: 2026-03-17
|
||||
|
||||
This document summarizes the memory systems referenced in task `PAP-530` and extracts the design patterns that matter for Paperclip.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Paperclip Needs From This Survey
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip is not trying to become a single opinionated memory engine. The more useful target is a control-plane memory surface that:
|
||||
|
||||
- stays company-scoped
|
||||
- lets each company choose a default memory provider
|
||||
- lets specific agents override that default
|
||||
- keeps provenance back to Paperclip runs, issues, comments, and documents
|
||||
- records memory-related cost and latency the same way the rest of the control plane records work
|
||||
- works with plugin-provided providers, not only built-ins
|
||||
|
||||
The question is not "which memory project wins?" The question is "what is the smallest Paperclip contract that can sit above several very different memory systems without flattening away the useful differences?"
|
||||
|
||||
## Quick Grouping
|
||||
|
||||
### Hosted memory APIs
|
||||
|
||||
- `mem0`
|
||||
- `supermemory`
|
||||
- `Memori`
|
||||
|
||||
These optimize for a simple application integration story: send conversation/content plus an identity, then query for relevant memory or user context later.
|
||||
|
||||
### Agent-centric memory frameworks / memory OSes
|
||||
|
||||
- `MemOS`
|
||||
- `memU`
|
||||
- `EverMemOS`
|
||||
- `OpenViking`
|
||||
|
||||
These treat memory as an agent runtime subsystem, not only as a search index. They usually add task memory, profiles, filesystem-style organization, async ingestion, or skill/resource management.
|
||||
|
||||
### Local-first memory stores / indexes
|
||||
|
||||
- `nuggets`
|
||||
- `memsearch`
|
||||
|
||||
These emphasize local persistence, inspectability, and low operational overhead. They are useful because Paperclip is local-first today and needs at least one zero-config path.
|
||||
|
||||
## Per-Project Notes
|
||||
|
||||
| Project | Shape | Notable API / model | Strong fit for Paperclip | Main mismatch |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| [nuggets](https://github.com/NeoVertex1/nuggets) | local memory engine + messaging gateway | topic-scoped HRR memory with `remember`, `recall`, `forget`, fact promotion into `MEMORY.md` | good example of lightweight local memory and automatic promotion | very specific architecture; not a general multi-tenant service |
|
||||
| [mem0](https://github.com/mem0ai/mem0) | hosted + OSS SDK | `add`, `search`, `getAll`, `get`, `update`, `delete`, `deleteAll`; entity partitioning via `user_id`, `agent_id`, `run_id`, `app_id` | closest to a clean provider API with identities and metadata filters | provider owns extraction heavily; Paperclip should not assume every backend behaves like mem0 |
|
||||
| [MemOS](https://github.com/MemTensor/MemOS) | memory OS / framework | unified add-retrieve-edit-delete, memory cubes, multimodal memory, tool memory, async scheduler, feedback/correction | strong source for optional capabilities beyond plain search | much broader than the minimal contract Paperclip should standardize first |
|
||||
| [supermemory](https://github.com/supermemoryai/supermemory) | hosted memory + context API | `add`, `profile`, `search.memories`, `search.documents`, document upload, settings; automatic profile building and forgetting | strong example of "context bundle" rather than raw search results | heavily productized around its own ontology and hosted flow |
|
||||
| [memU](https://github.com/NevaMind-AI/memU) | proactive agent memory framework | file-system metaphor, proactive loop, intent prediction, always-on companion model | good source for when memory should trigger agent behavior, not just retrieval | proactive assistant framing is broader than Paperclip's task-centric control plane |
|
||||
| [Memori](https://github.com/MemoriLabs/Memori) | hosted memory fabric + SDK wrappers | registers against LLM SDKs, attribution via `entity_id` + `process_id`, sessions, cloud + BYODB | strong example of automatic capture around model clients | wrapper-centric design does not map 1:1 to Paperclip's run / issue / comment lifecycle |
|
||||
| [EverMemOS](https://github.com/EverMind-AI/EverMemOS) | conversational long-term memory system | MemCell extraction, structured narratives, user profiles, hybrid retrieval / reranking | useful model for provenance-rich structured memories and evolving profiles | focused on conversational memory rather than generalized control-plane events |
|
||||
| [memsearch](https://github.com/zilliztech/memsearch) | markdown-first local memory index | markdown as source of truth, `index`, `search`, `watch`, transcript parsing, plugin hooks | excellent baseline for a local built-in provider and inspectable provenance | intentionally simple; no hosted service semantics or rich correction workflow |
|
||||
| [OpenViking](https://github.com/volcengine/OpenViking) | context database | filesystem-style organization of memories/resources/skills, tiered loading, visualized retrieval trajectories | strong source for browse/inspect UX and context provenance | treats "context database" as a larger product surface than Paperclip should own |
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Primitives Across The Landscape
|
||||
|
||||
Even though the systems disagree on architecture, they converge on a few primitives:
|
||||
|
||||
- `ingest`: add memory from text, messages, documents, or transcripts
|
||||
- `query`: search or retrieve memory given a task, question, or scope
|
||||
- `scope`: partition memory by user, agent, project, process, or session
|
||||
- `provenance`: carry enough metadata to explain where a memory came from
|
||||
- `maintenance`: update, forget, dedupe, compact, or correct memories over time
|
||||
- `context assembly`: turn raw memories into a prompt-ready bundle for the agent
|
||||
|
||||
If Paperclip does not expose these, it will not adapt well to the systems above.
|
||||
|
||||
## Where The Systems Differ
|
||||
|
||||
These differences are exactly why Paperclip needs a layered contract instead of a single hard-coded engine.
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Who owns extraction?
|
||||
|
||||
- `mem0`, `supermemory`, and `Memori` expect the provider to infer memories from conversations.
|
||||
- `memsearch` expects the host to decide what markdown to write, then indexes it.
|
||||
- `MemOS`, `memU`, `EverMemOS`, and `OpenViking` sit somewhere in between and often expose richer memory construction pipelines.
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip should support both:
|
||||
|
||||
- provider-managed extraction
|
||||
- Paperclip-managed extraction with provider-managed storage / retrieval
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. What is the source of truth?
|
||||
|
||||
- `memsearch` and `nuggets` make the source inspectable on disk.
|
||||
- hosted APIs often make the provider store canonical.
|
||||
- filesystem-style systems like `OpenViking` and `memU` treat hierarchy itself as part of the memory model.
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip should not require a single storage shape. It should require normalized references back to Paperclip entities.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Is memory just search, or also profile and planning state?
|
||||
|
||||
- `mem0` and `memsearch` center search and CRUD.
|
||||
- `supermemory` adds user profiles as a first-class output.
|
||||
- `MemOS`, `memU`, `EverMemOS`, and `OpenViking` expand into tool traces, task memory, resources, and skills.
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip should make plain search the minimum contract and richer outputs optional capabilities.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Is memory synchronous or asynchronous?
|
||||
|
||||
- local tools often work synchronously in-process.
|
||||
- larger systems add schedulers, background indexing, compaction, or sync jobs.
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip needs both direct request/response operations and background maintenance hooks.
|
||||
|
||||
## Paperclip-Specific Takeaways
|
||||
|
||||
### Paperclip should own these concerns
|
||||
|
||||
- binding a provider to a company and optionally overriding it per agent
|
||||
- mapping Paperclip entities into provider scopes
|
||||
- provenance back to issue comments, documents, runs, and activity
|
||||
- cost / token / latency reporting for memory work
|
||||
- browse and inspect surfaces in the Paperclip UI
|
||||
- governance on destructive operations
|
||||
|
||||
### Providers should own these concerns
|
||||
|
||||
- extraction heuristics
|
||||
- embedding / indexing strategy
|
||||
- ranking and reranking
|
||||
- profile synthesis
|
||||
- contradiction resolution and forgetting logic
|
||||
- storage engine details
|
||||
|
||||
### The control-plane contract should stay small
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip does not need to standardize every feature from every provider. It needs:
|
||||
|
||||
- a required portable core
|
||||
- optional capability flags for richer providers
|
||||
- a way to record provider-native ids and metadata without pretending all providers are equivalent internally
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended Direction
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip should adopt a two-layer memory model:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `Memory binding + control plane layer`
|
||||
Paperclip decides which provider key is in effect for a company, agent, or project, and it logs every memory operation with provenance and usage.
|
||||
|
||||
2. `Provider adapter layer`
|
||||
A built-in or plugin-supplied adapter turns Paperclip memory requests into provider-specific calls.
|
||||
|
||||
The portable core should cover:
|
||||
|
||||
- ingest / write
|
||||
- search / recall
|
||||
- browse / inspect
|
||||
- get by provider record handle
|
||||
- forget / correction
|
||||
- usage reporting
|
||||
|
||||
Optional capabilities can cover:
|
||||
|
||||
- profile synthesis
|
||||
- async ingestion
|
||||
- multimodal content
|
||||
- tool / resource / skill memory
|
||||
- provider-native graph browsing
|
||||
|
||||
That is enough to support:
|
||||
|
||||
- a local markdown-first baseline similar to `memsearch`
|
||||
- hosted services similar to `mem0`, `supermemory`, or `Memori`
|
||||
- richer agent-memory systems like `MemOS` or `OpenViking`
|
||||
|
||||
without forcing Paperclip itself to become a monolithic memory engine.
|
||||
424
doc/plans/2026-03-17-docker-release-browser-e2e.md
Normal file
424
doc/plans/2026-03-17-docker-release-browser-e2e.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,424 @@
|
||||
# Docker Release Browser E2E Plan
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
Today release smoke testing for published Paperclip packages is manual and shell-driven:
|
||||
|
||||
```sh
|
||||
HOST_PORT=3232 DATA_DIR=./data/release-smoke-canary PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=canary ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
|
||||
HOST_PORT=3233 DATA_DIR=./data/release-smoke-stable PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=latest ./scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
That is useful because it exercises the same public install surface users hit:
|
||||
|
||||
- Docker
|
||||
- `npx paperclipai@canary`
|
||||
- `npx paperclipai@latest`
|
||||
- authenticated bootstrap flow
|
||||
|
||||
But it still leaves the most important release questions to a human with a browser:
|
||||
|
||||
- can I sign in with the smoke credentials?
|
||||
- do I land in onboarding?
|
||||
- can I complete onboarding?
|
||||
- does the initial CEO agent actually get created and run?
|
||||
|
||||
The repo already has two adjacent pieces:
|
||||
|
||||
- `tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts` covers the onboarding wizard against the local source tree
|
||||
- `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` boots a published Docker install and auto-bootstraps authenticated mode, but only verifies the API/session layer
|
||||
|
||||
What is missing is one deterministic browser test that joins those two paths.
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Add a release-grade Docker-backed browser E2E that validates the published `canary` and `latest` installs end to end:
|
||||
|
||||
1. boot the published package in Docker
|
||||
2. sign in with known smoke credentials
|
||||
3. verify the user is routed into onboarding
|
||||
4. complete onboarding in the browser
|
||||
5. verify the first CEO agent exists
|
||||
6. verify the initial CEO run was triggered and reached a terminal or active state
|
||||
|
||||
Then wire that test into GitHub Actions so release validation is no longer manual-only.
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendation In One Sentence
|
||||
|
||||
Turn the current Docker smoke script into a machine-friendly test harness, add a dedicated Playwright release-smoke spec that drives the authenticated browser flow against published Docker installs, and run it in GitHub Actions for both `canary` and `latest`.
|
||||
|
||||
## What We Have Today
|
||||
|
||||
### Existing local browser coverage
|
||||
|
||||
`tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts` already proves the onboarding wizard can:
|
||||
|
||||
- create a company
|
||||
- create a CEO agent
|
||||
- create an initial issue
|
||||
- optionally observe task progress
|
||||
|
||||
That is a good base, but it does not validate the public npm package, Docker path, authenticated login flow, or release dist-tags.
|
||||
|
||||
### Existing Docker smoke coverage
|
||||
|
||||
`scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` already does useful setup work:
|
||||
|
||||
- builds `Dockerfile.onboard-smoke`
|
||||
- runs `paperclipai@${PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION}` inside Docker
|
||||
- waits for health
|
||||
- signs up or signs in a smoke admin user
|
||||
- generates and accepts the bootstrap CEO invite in authenticated mode
|
||||
- verifies a board session and `/api/companies`
|
||||
|
||||
That means the hard bootstrap problem is mostly solved already. The main gap is that the script is human-oriented and never hands control to a browser test.
|
||||
|
||||
### Existing CI shape
|
||||
|
||||
The repo already has:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/e2e.yml` for manual Playwright runs against local source
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/release.yml` for canary publish on `master` and manual stable promotion
|
||||
|
||||
So the right move is to extend the current test/release system, not create a parallel one.
|
||||
|
||||
## Product Decision
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. The release smoke should stay deterministic and token-free
|
||||
|
||||
The first version should not require OpenAI, Anthropic, or external agent credentials.
|
||||
|
||||
Use the onboarding flow with a deterministic adapter that can run on a stock GitHub runner and inside the published Docker install. The existing `process` adapter with a trivial command is the right base path for this release gate.
|
||||
|
||||
That keeps this test focused on:
|
||||
|
||||
- release packaging
|
||||
- auth/bootstrap
|
||||
- UI routing
|
||||
- onboarding contract
|
||||
- agent creation
|
||||
- heartbeat invocation plumbing
|
||||
|
||||
Later we can add a second credentialed smoke lane for real model-backed agents.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Smoke credentials become an explicit test contract
|
||||
|
||||
The current defaults in `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` should be treated as stable test fixtures:
|
||||
|
||||
- email: `smoke-admin@paperclip.local`
|
||||
- password: `paperclip-smoke-password`
|
||||
|
||||
The browser test should log in with those exact values unless overridden by env vars.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Published-package smoke and source-tree E2E stay separate
|
||||
|
||||
Keep two lanes:
|
||||
|
||||
- source-tree E2E for feature development
|
||||
- published Docker release smoke for release confidence
|
||||
|
||||
They overlap on onboarding assertions, but they guard different failure classes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed Design
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Add a CI-friendly Docker smoke harness
|
||||
|
||||
Refactor `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` so it can run in two modes:
|
||||
|
||||
- interactive mode
|
||||
- current behavior
|
||||
- streams logs and waits in foreground for manual inspection
|
||||
- CI mode
|
||||
- starts the container
|
||||
- waits for health and authenticated bootstrap
|
||||
- prints machine-readable metadata
|
||||
- exits while leaving the container running for Playwright
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended shape:
|
||||
|
||||
- keep `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` as the public entry point
|
||||
- add a `SMOKE_DETACH=true` or `--detach` mode
|
||||
- emit a JSON blob or `.env` file containing:
|
||||
- `SMOKE_BASE_URL`
|
||||
- `SMOKE_ADMIN_EMAIL`
|
||||
- `SMOKE_ADMIN_PASSWORD`
|
||||
- `SMOKE_CONTAINER_NAME`
|
||||
- `SMOKE_DATA_DIR`
|
||||
|
||||
The workflow and Playwright tests can then consume the emitted metadata instead of scraping logs.
|
||||
|
||||
### Why this matters
|
||||
|
||||
The current script always tails logs and then blocks on `wait "$LOG_PID"`. That is convenient for manual smoke testing, but it is the wrong shape for CI orchestration.
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Add a dedicated Playwright release-smoke spec
|
||||
|
||||
Create a second Playwright entry point specifically for published Docker installs, for example:
|
||||
|
||||
- `tests/release-smoke/playwright.config.ts`
|
||||
- `tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts`
|
||||
|
||||
This suite should not use Playwright `webServer`, because the app server will already be running inside Docker.
|
||||
|
||||
### Browser scenario
|
||||
|
||||
The first release-smoke scenario should validate:
|
||||
|
||||
1. open `/`
|
||||
2. unauthenticated user is redirected to `/auth`
|
||||
3. sign in using the smoke credentials
|
||||
4. authenticated user lands on onboarding when no companies exist
|
||||
5. onboarding wizard appears with the expected step labels
|
||||
6. create a company
|
||||
7. create the first agent using `process`
|
||||
8. create the initial issue
|
||||
9. finish onboarding and open the created issue
|
||||
10. verify via API:
|
||||
- company exists
|
||||
- CEO agent exists
|
||||
- issue exists and is assigned to the CEO
|
||||
11. verify the first heartbeat run was triggered:
|
||||
- either by checking issue status changed from initial state, or
|
||||
- by checking agent/runs API shows a run for the CEO, or
|
||||
- both
|
||||
|
||||
The test should tolerate the run completing quickly. For this reason, the assertion should accept:
|
||||
|
||||
- `queued`
|
||||
- `running`
|
||||
- `succeeded`
|
||||
|
||||
and similarly for issue progression if the issue status changes before the assertion runs.
|
||||
|
||||
### Why a separate spec instead of reusing `tests/e2e/onboarding.spec.ts`
|
||||
|
||||
The local-source test and release-smoke test have different assumptions:
|
||||
|
||||
- different server lifecycle
|
||||
- different auth path
|
||||
- different deployment mode
|
||||
- published npm package instead of local workspace code
|
||||
|
||||
Trying to force both through one spec will make both worse.
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Add a release-smoke workflow in GitHub Actions
|
||||
|
||||
Add a workflow dedicated to this surface, ideally reusable:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended triggers:
|
||||
|
||||
- `workflow_dispatch`
|
||||
- `workflow_call`
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended inputs:
|
||||
|
||||
- `paperclip_version`
|
||||
- `canary` or `latest`
|
||||
- `host_port`
|
||||
- optional, default runner-safe port
|
||||
- `artifact_name`
|
||||
- optional for clearer uploads
|
||||
|
||||
### Job outline
|
||||
|
||||
1. checkout repo
|
||||
2. install Node/pnpm
|
||||
3. install Playwright browser dependencies
|
||||
4. launch Docker smoke harness in detached mode with the chosen dist-tag
|
||||
5. run the release-smoke Playwright suite against the returned base URL
|
||||
6. always collect diagnostics:
|
||||
- Playwright report
|
||||
- screenshots
|
||||
- trace
|
||||
- `docker logs`
|
||||
- harness metadata file
|
||||
7. stop and remove container
|
||||
|
||||
### Why a reusable workflow
|
||||
|
||||
This lets us:
|
||||
|
||||
- run the smoke manually on demand
|
||||
- call it from `release.yml`
|
||||
- reuse the same job for both `canary` and `latest`
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Integrate it into release automation incrementally
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase A: Manual workflow only
|
||||
|
||||
First ship the workflow as manual-only so the harness and test can be stabilized without blocking releases.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase B: Run automatically after canary publish
|
||||
|
||||
After `publish_canary` succeeds in `.github/workflows/release.yml`, call the reusable release-smoke workflow with:
|
||||
|
||||
- `paperclip_version=canary`
|
||||
|
||||
This proves the just-published public canary really boots and onboards.
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase C: Run automatically after stable publish
|
||||
|
||||
After `publish_stable` succeeds, call the same workflow with:
|
||||
|
||||
- `paperclip_version=latest`
|
||||
|
||||
This gives us post-publish confirmation that the stable dist-tag is healthy.
|
||||
|
||||
### Important nuance
|
||||
|
||||
Testing `latest` from npm cannot happen before stable publish, because the package under test does not exist under `latest` yet. So the `latest` smoke is a post-publish verification, not a pre-publish gate.
|
||||
|
||||
If we later want a true pre-publish stable gate, that should be a separate source-ref or locally built package smoke job.
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Make diagnostics first-class
|
||||
|
||||
This workflow is only valuable if failures are fast to debug.
|
||||
|
||||
Always capture:
|
||||
|
||||
- Playwright HTML report
|
||||
- Playwright trace on failure
|
||||
- final screenshot on failure
|
||||
- full `docker logs` output
|
||||
- emitted smoke metadata
|
||||
- optional `curl /api/health` snapshot
|
||||
|
||||
Without that, the test will become a flaky black box and people will stop trusting it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Plan
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 1: Harness refactor
|
||||
|
||||
Files:
|
||||
|
||||
- `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`
|
||||
- optionally `scripts/lib/docker-onboard-smoke.sh` or similar helper
|
||||
- `doc/DOCKER.md`
|
||||
- `doc/RELEASING.md`
|
||||
|
||||
Tasks:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Add detached/CI mode to the Docker smoke script.
|
||||
2. Make the script emit machine-readable connection metadata.
|
||||
3. Keep the current interactive manual mode intact.
|
||||
4. Add reliable cleanup commands for CI.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance:
|
||||
|
||||
- a script invocation can start the published Docker app, auto-bootstrap it, and return control to the caller with enough metadata for browser automation
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 2: Browser release-smoke suite
|
||||
|
||||
Files:
|
||||
|
||||
- `tests/release-smoke/playwright.config.ts`
|
||||
- `tests/release-smoke/docker-auth-onboarding.spec.ts`
|
||||
- root `package.json`
|
||||
|
||||
Tasks:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Add a dedicated Playwright config for external server testing.
|
||||
2. Implement login + onboarding + CEO creation flow.
|
||||
3. Assert a CEO run was created or completed.
|
||||
4. Add a root script such as:
|
||||
- `test:release-smoke`
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance:
|
||||
|
||||
- the suite passes locally against both:
|
||||
- `PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=canary`
|
||||
- `PAPERCLIPAI_VERSION=latest`
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 3: GitHub Actions workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Files:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/release-smoke.yml`
|
||||
|
||||
Tasks:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Add manual and reusable workflow entry points.
|
||||
2. Install Chromium and runner dependencies.
|
||||
3. Start Docker smoke in detached mode.
|
||||
4. Run the release-smoke Playwright suite.
|
||||
5. Upload diagnostics artifacts.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance:
|
||||
|
||||
- a maintainer can run the workflow manually for either `canary` or `latest`
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 4: Release workflow integration
|
||||
|
||||
Files:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`
|
||||
- `doc/RELEASING.md`
|
||||
|
||||
Tasks:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Trigger release smoke automatically after canary publish.
|
||||
2. Trigger release smoke automatically after stable publish.
|
||||
3. Document expected behavior and failure handling.
|
||||
|
||||
Acceptance:
|
||||
|
||||
- canary releases automatically produce a published-package browser smoke result
|
||||
- stable releases automatically produce a `latest` browser smoke result
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase 5: Future extension for real model-backed agent validation
|
||||
|
||||
Not part of the first implementation, but this should be the next layer after the deterministic lane is stable.
|
||||
|
||||
Possible additions:
|
||||
|
||||
- a second Playwright project gated on repo secrets
|
||||
- real `claude_local` or `codex_local` adapter validation in Docker-capable environments
|
||||
- assertion that the CEO posts a real task/comment artifact
|
||||
- stable release holdback until the credentialed lane passes
|
||||
|
||||
This should stay optional until the token-free lane is trustworthy.
|
||||
|
||||
## Acceptance Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
The plan is complete when the implemented system can demonstrate all of the following:
|
||||
|
||||
1. A published `paperclipai@canary` Docker install can be smoke-tested by Playwright in CI.
|
||||
2. A published `paperclipai@latest` Docker install can be smoke-tested by Playwright in CI.
|
||||
3. The test logs into authenticated mode with the smoke credentials.
|
||||
4. The test sees onboarding for a fresh instance.
|
||||
5. The test completes onboarding in the browser.
|
||||
6. The test verifies the initial CEO agent was created.
|
||||
7. The test verifies at least one CEO heartbeat run was triggered.
|
||||
8. Failures produce actionable artifacts rather than just a red job.
|
||||
|
||||
## Risks And Decisions To Make
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Fast process runs may finish before the UI visibly updates
|
||||
|
||||
That is expected. The assertions should prefer API polling for run existence/status rather than only visual indicators.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. `latest` smoke is post-publish, not preventive
|
||||
|
||||
This is a real limitation of testing the published dist-tag itself. It is still valuable, but it should not be confused with a pre-publish gate.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. We should not overcouple the test to cosmetic onboarding text
|
||||
|
||||
The important contract is flow success, created entities, and run creation. Use visible labels sparingly and prefer stable semantic selectors where possible.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Keep the smoke adapter path boring
|
||||
|
||||
For release safety, the first test should use the most boring runnable adapter possible. This is not the place to validate every adapter.
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended First Slice
|
||||
|
||||
If we want the fastest path to value, ship this in order:
|
||||
|
||||
1. add detached mode to `scripts/docker-onboard-smoke.sh`
|
||||
2. add one Playwright spec for authenticated login + onboarding + CEO run verification
|
||||
3. add manual `release-smoke.yml`
|
||||
4. once stable, wire canary into `release.yml`
|
||||
5. after that, wire stable `latest` smoke into `release.yml`
|
||||
|
||||
That gives release confidence quickly without turning the first version into a large CI redesign.
|
||||
426
doc/plans/2026-03-17-memory-service-surface-api.md
Normal file
426
doc/plans/2026-03-17-memory-service-surface-api.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,426 @@
|
||||
# Paperclip Memory Service Plan
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
|
||||
Define a Paperclip memory service and surface API that can sit above multiple memory backends, while preserving Paperclip's control-plane requirements:
|
||||
|
||||
- company scoping
|
||||
- auditability
|
||||
- provenance back to Paperclip work objects
|
||||
- budget / cost visibility
|
||||
- plugin-first extensibility
|
||||
|
||||
This plan is based on the external landscape summarized in `doc/memory-landscape.md` and on the current Paperclip architecture in:
|
||||
|
||||
- `doc/SPEC-implementation.md`
|
||||
- `doc/plugins/PLUGIN_SPEC.md`
|
||||
- `doc/plugins/PLUGIN_AUTHORING_GUIDE.md`
|
||||
- `packages/plugins/sdk/src/types.ts`
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendation In One Sentence
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip should not embed one opinionated memory engine into core. It should add a company-scoped memory control plane with a small normalized adapter contract, then let built-ins and plugins implement the provider-specific behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
## Product Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Memory is company-scoped by default
|
||||
|
||||
Every memory binding belongs to exactly one company.
|
||||
|
||||
That binding can then be:
|
||||
|
||||
- the company default
|
||||
- an agent override
|
||||
- a project override later if we need it
|
||||
|
||||
No cross-company memory sharing in the initial design.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Providers are selected by key
|
||||
|
||||
Each configured memory provider gets a stable key inside a company, for example:
|
||||
|
||||
- `default`
|
||||
- `mem0-prod`
|
||||
- `local-markdown`
|
||||
- `research-kb`
|
||||
|
||||
Agents and services resolve the active provider by key, not by hard-coded vendor logic.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Plugins are the primary provider path
|
||||
|
||||
Built-ins are useful for a zero-config local path, but most providers should arrive through the existing Paperclip plugin runtime.
|
||||
|
||||
That keeps the core small and matches the current direction that optional knowledge-like systems live at the edges.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Paperclip owns routing, provenance, and accounting
|
||||
|
||||
Providers should not decide how Paperclip entities map to governance.
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip core should own:
|
||||
|
||||
- who is allowed to call a memory operation
|
||||
- which company / agent / project scope is active
|
||||
- what issue / run / comment / document the operation belongs to
|
||||
- how usage gets recorded
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Automatic memory should be narrow at first
|
||||
|
||||
Automatic capture is useful, but broad silent capture is dangerous.
|
||||
|
||||
Initial automatic hooks should be:
|
||||
|
||||
- post-run capture from agent runs
|
||||
- issue comment / document capture when the binding enables it
|
||||
- pre-run recall for agent context hydration
|
||||
|
||||
Everything else should start explicit.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed Concepts
|
||||
|
||||
### Memory provider
|
||||
|
||||
A built-in or plugin-supplied implementation that stores and retrieves memory.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
- local markdown + vector index
|
||||
- mem0 adapter
|
||||
- supermemory adapter
|
||||
- MemOS adapter
|
||||
|
||||
### Memory binding
|
||||
|
||||
A company-scoped configuration record that points to a provider and carries provider-specific config.
|
||||
|
||||
This is the object selected by key.
|
||||
|
||||
### Memory scope
|
||||
|
||||
The normalized Paperclip scope passed into a provider request.
|
||||
|
||||
At minimum:
|
||||
|
||||
- `companyId`
|
||||
- optional `agentId`
|
||||
- optional `projectId`
|
||||
- optional `issueId`
|
||||
- optional `runId`
|
||||
- optional `subjectId` for external/user identity
|
||||
|
||||
### Memory source reference
|
||||
|
||||
The provenance handle that explains where a memory came from.
|
||||
|
||||
Supported source kinds should include:
|
||||
|
||||
- `issue_comment`
|
||||
- `issue_document`
|
||||
- `issue`
|
||||
- `run`
|
||||
- `activity`
|
||||
- `manual_note`
|
||||
- `external_document`
|
||||
|
||||
### Memory operation
|
||||
|
||||
A normalized write, query, browse, or delete action performed through Paperclip.
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip should log every operation, whether the provider is local or external.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Adapter Contract
|
||||
|
||||
The required core should be small enough to fit `memsearch`, `mem0`, `Memori`, `MemOS`, or `OpenViking`.
|
||||
|
||||
```ts
|
||||
export interface MemoryAdapterCapabilities {
|
||||
profile?: boolean;
|
||||
browse?: boolean;
|
||||
correction?: boolean;
|
||||
asyncIngestion?: boolean;
|
||||
multimodal?: boolean;
|
||||
providerManagedExtraction?: boolean;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export interface MemoryScope {
|
||||
companyId: string;
|
||||
agentId?: string;
|
||||
projectId?: string;
|
||||
issueId?: string;
|
||||
runId?: string;
|
||||
subjectId?: string;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export interface MemorySourceRef {
|
||||
kind:
|
||||
| "issue_comment"
|
||||
| "issue_document"
|
||||
| "issue"
|
||||
| "run"
|
||||
| "activity"
|
||||
| "manual_note"
|
||||
| "external_document";
|
||||
companyId: string;
|
||||
issueId?: string;
|
||||
commentId?: string;
|
||||
documentKey?: string;
|
||||
runId?: string;
|
||||
activityId?: string;
|
||||
externalRef?: string;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export interface MemoryUsage {
|
||||
provider: string;
|
||||
model?: string;
|
||||
inputTokens?: number;
|
||||
outputTokens?: number;
|
||||
embeddingTokens?: number;
|
||||
costCents?: number;
|
||||
latencyMs?: number;
|
||||
details?: Record<string, unknown>;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export interface MemoryWriteRequest {
|
||||
bindingKey: string;
|
||||
scope: MemoryScope;
|
||||
source: MemorySourceRef;
|
||||
content: string;
|
||||
metadata?: Record<string, unknown>;
|
||||
mode?: "append" | "upsert" | "summarize";
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export interface MemoryRecordHandle {
|
||||
providerKey: string;
|
||||
providerRecordId: string;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export interface MemoryQueryRequest {
|
||||
bindingKey: string;
|
||||
scope: MemoryScope;
|
||||
query: string;
|
||||
topK?: number;
|
||||
intent?: "agent_preamble" | "answer" | "browse";
|
||||
metadataFilter?: Record<string, unknown>;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export interface MemorySnippet {
|
||||
handle: MemoryRecordHandle;
|
||||
text: string;
|
||||
score?: number;
|
||||
summary?: string;
|
||||
source?: MemorySourceRef;
|
||||
metadata?: Record<string, unknown>;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export interface MemoryContextBundle {
|
||||
snippets: MemorySnippet[];
|
||||
profileSummary?: string;
|
||||
usage?: MemoryUsage[];
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
export interface MemoryAdapter {
|
||||
key: string;
|
||||
capabilities: MemoryAdapterCapabilities;
|
||||
write(req: MemoryWriteRequest): Promise<{
|
||||
records?: MemoryRecordHandle[];
|
||||
usage?: MemoryUsage[];
|
||||
}>;
|
||||
query(req: MemoryQueryRequest): Promise<MemoryContextBundle>;
|
||||
get(handle: MemoryRecordHandle, scope: MemoryScope): Promise<MemorySnippet | null>;
|
||||
forget(handles: MemoryRecordHandle[], scope: MemoryScope): Promise<{ usage?: MemoryUsage[] }>;
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
This contract intentionally does not force a provider to expose its internal graph, filesystem, or ontology.
|
||||
|
||||
## Optional Adapter Surfaces
|
||||
|
||||
These should be capability-gated, not required:
|
||||
|
||||
- `browse(scope, filters)` for file-system / graph / timeline inspection
|
||||
- `correct(handle, patch)` for natural-language correction flows
|
||||
- `profile(scope)` when the provider can synthesize stable preferences or summaries
|
||||
- `sync(source)` for connectors or background ingestion
|
||||
- `explain(queryResult)` for providers that can expose retrieval traces
|
||||
|
||||
## What Paperclip Should Persist
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip should not mirror the full provider memory corpus into Postgres unless the provider is a Paperclip-managed local provider.
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip core should persist:
|
||||
|
||||
- memory bindings and overrides
|
||||
- provider keys and capability metadata
|
||||
- normalized memory operation logs
|
||||
- provider record handles returned by operations when available
|
||||
- source references back to issue comments, documents, runs, and activity
|
||||
- usage and cost data
|
||||
|
||||
For external providers, the memory payload itself can remain in the provider.
|
||||
|
||||
## Hook Model
|
||||
|
||||
### Automatic hooks
|
||||
|
||||
These should be low-risk and easy to reason about:
|
||||
|
||||
1. `pre-run hydrate`
|
||||
Before an agent run starts, Paperclip may call `query(... intent = "agent_preamble")` using the active binding.
|
||||
|
||||
2. `post-run capture`
|
||||
After a run finishes, Paperclip may write a summary or transcript-derived note tied to the run.
|
||||
|
||||
3. `issue comment / document capture`
|
||||
When enabled on the binding, Paperclip may capture selected issue comments or issue documents as memory sources.
|
||||
|
||||
### Explicit hooks
|
||||
|
||||
These should be tool- or UI-driven first:
|
||||
|
||||
- `memory.search`
|
||||
- `memory.note`
|
||||
- `memory.forget`
|
||||
- `memory.correct`
|
||||
- `memory.browse`
|
||||
|
||||
### Not automatic in the first version
|
||||
|
||||
- broad web crawling
|
||||
- silent import of arbitrary repo files
|
||||
- cross-company memory sharing
|
||||
- automatic destructive deletion
|
||||
- provider migration between bindings
|
||||
|
||||
## Agent UX Rules
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip should give agents both automatic recall and explicit tools, with simple guidance:
|
||||
|
||||
- use `memory.search` when the task depends on prior decisions, people, projects, or long-running context that is not in the current issue thread
|
||||
- use `memory.note` when a durable fact, preference, or decision should survive this run
|
||||
- use `memory.correct` when the user explicitly says prior context is wrong
|
||||
- rely on post-run auto-capture for ordinary session residue so agents do not have to write memory notes for every trivial exchange
|
||||
|
||||
This keeps memory available without forcing every agent prompt to become a memory-management protocol.
|
||||
|
||||
## Browse And Inspect Surface
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip needs a first-class UI for memory, otherwise providers become black boxes.
|
||||
|
||||
The initial browse surface should support:
|
||||
|
||||
- active binding by company and agent
|
||||
- recent memory operations
|
||||
- recent write sources
|
||||
- query results with source backlinks
|
||||
- filters by agent, issue, run, source kind, and date
|
||||
- provider usage / cost / latency summaries
|
||||
|
||||
When a provider supports richer browsing, the plugin can add deeper views through the existing plugin UI surfaces.
|
||||
|
||||
## Cost And Evaluation
|
||||
|
||||
Every adapter response should be able to return usage records.
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip should roll up:
|
||||
|
||||
- memory inference tokens
|
||||
- embedding tokens
|
||||
- external provider cost
|
||||
- latency
|
||||
- query count
|
||||
- write count
|
||||
|
||||
It should also record evaluation-oriented metrics where possible:
|
||||
|
||||
- recall hit rate
|
||||
- empty query rate
|
||||
- manual correction count
|
||||
- per-binding success / failure counts
|
||||
|
||||
This is important because a memory system that "works" but silently burns budget is not acceptable in Paperclip.
|
||||
|
||||
## Suggested Data Model Additions
|
||||
|
||||
At the control-plane level, the likely new core tables are:
|
||||
|
||||
- `memory_bindings`
|
||||
- company-scoped key
|
||||
- provider id / plugin id
|
||||
- config blob
|
||||
- enabled status
|
||||
|
||||
- `memory_binding_targets`
|
||||
- target type (`company`, `agent`, later `project`)
|
||||
- target id
|
||||
- binding id
|
||||
|
||||
- `memory_operations`
|
||||
- company id
|
||||
- binding id
|
||||
- operation type (`write`, `query`, `forget`, `browse`, `correct`)
|
||||
- scope fields
|
||||
- source refs
|
||||
- usage / latency / cost
|
||||
- success / error
|
||||
|
||||
Provider-specific long-form state should stay in plugin state or the provider itself unless a built-in local provider needs its own schema.
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended First Built-In
|
||||
|
||||
The best zero-config built-in is a local markdown-first provider with optional semantic indexing.
|
||||
|
||||
Why:
|
||||
|
||||
- it matches Paperclip's local-first posture
|
||||
- it is inspectable
|
||||
- it is easy to back up and debug
|
||||
- it gives the system a baseline even without external API keys
|
||||
|
||||
The design should still treat that built-in as just another provider behind the same control-plane contract.
|
||||
|
||||
## Rollout Phases
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Control-plane contract
|
||||
|
||||
- add memory binding models and API types
|
||||
- add plugin capability / registration surface for memory providers
|
||||
- add operation logging and usage reporting
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: One built-in + one plugin example
|
||||
|
||||
- ship a local markdown-first provider
|
||||
- ship one hosted adapter example to validate the external-provider path
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: UI inspection
|
||||
|
||||
- add company / agent memory settings
|
||||
- add a memory operation explorer
|
||||
- add source backlinks to issues and runs
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 4: Automatic hooks
|
||||
|
||||
- pre-run hydrate
|
||||
- post-run capture
|
||||
- selected issue comment / document capture
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 5: Rich capabilities
|
||||
|
||||
- correction flows
|
||||
- provider-native browse / graph views
|
||||
- project-level overrides if needed
|
||||
- evaluation dashboards
|
||||
|
||||
## Open Questions
|
||||
|
||||
- Should project overrides exist in V1 of the memory service, or should we force company default + agent override first?
|
||||
- Do we want Paperclip-managed extraction pipelines at all, or should built-ins be the only place where Paperclip owns extraction?
|
||||
- Should memory usage extend the current `cost_events` model directly, or should memory operations keep a parallel usage log and roll up into `cost_events` secondarily?
|
||||
- Do we want provider install / binding changes to require approvals for some companies?
|
||||
|
||||
## Bottom Line
|
||||
|
||||
The right abstraction is:
|
||||
|
||||
- Paperclip owns memory bindings, scopes, provenance, governance, and usage reporting.
|
||||
- Providers own extraction, ranking, storage, and provider-native memory semantics.
|
||||
|
||||
That gives Paperclip a stable "memory service" without locking the product to one memory philosophy or one vendor.
|
||||
488
doc/plans/2026-03-17-release-automation-and-versioning.md
Normal file
488
doc/plans/2026-03-17-release-automation-and-versioning.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,488 @@
|
||||
# Release Automation and Versioning Simplification Plan
|
||||
|
||||
## Context
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip's current release flow is documented in `doc/RELEASING.md` and implemented through:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`
|
||||
- `scripts/release-lib.sh`
|
||||
- `scripts/release-start.sh`
|
||||
- `scripts/release-preflight.sh`
|
||||
- `scripts/release.sh`
|
||||
- `scripts/create-github-release.sh`
|
||||
|
||||
Today the model is:
|
||||
|
||||
1. pick `patch`, `minor`, or `major`
|
||||
2. create `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
3. draft `releases/vX.Y.Z.md`
|
||||
4. publish one or more canaries from that release branch
|
||||
5. publish stable from that same branch
|
||||
6. push tag + create GitHub Release
|
||||
7. merge the release branch back to `master`
|
||||
|
||||
That is workable, but it creates friction in exactly the places that should be cheap:
|
||||
|
||||
- deciding `patch` vs `minor` vs `major`
|
||||
- cutting and carrying release branches
|
||||
- manually publishing canaries
|
||||
- thinking about changelog generation for canaries
|
||||
- handling npm credentials safely in a public repo
|
||||
|
||||
The target state from this discussion is simpler:
|
||||
|
||||
- every push to `master` publishes a canary automatically
|
||||
- stable releases are promoted deliberately from a vetted commit
|
||||
- versioning is date-driven instead of semantics-driven
|
||||
- stable publishing is secure even in a public open-source repository
|
||||
- changelog generation happens only for real stable releases
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommendation In One Sentence
|
||||
|
||||
Move Paperclip to semver-compatible calendar versioning, auto-publish canaries from `master`, promote stable from a chosen tested commit, and use npm trusted publishing plus GitHub environments so no long-lived npm or LLM token needs to live in Actions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Core Decisions
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Use calendar versions, but keep semver syntax
|
||||
|
||||
The repo and npm tooling still assume semver-shaped version strings in many places. That does not mean Paperclip must keep semver as a product policy. It does mean the version format should remain semver-valid.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended format:
|
||||
|
||||
- stable: `YYYY.MDD.P`
|
||||
- canary: `YYYY.MDD.P-canary.N`
|
||||
|
||||
Examples:
|
||||
|
||||
- first stable on March 17, 2026: `2026.317.0`
|
||||
- third canary on the `2026.317.0` line: `2026.317.0-canary.2`
|
||||
|
||||
Why this shape:
|
||||
|
||||
- it removes `patch/minor/major` decisions
|
||||
- it is valid semver syntax
|
||||
- it stays compatible with npm, dist-tags, and existing semver validators
|
||||
- it is close to the format you actually want
|
||||
|
||||
Important constraints:
|
||||
|
||||
- the middle numeric slot should be `MDD`, where `M` is the month and `DD` is the zero-padded day
|
||||
- `2026.03.17` is not the format to use
|
||||
- numeric semver identifiers do not allow leading zeroes
|
||||
- `2026.3.17.1` is not the format to use
|
||||
- semver has three numeric components, not four
|
||||
- the practical semver-safe equivalent is `2026.317.0-canary.8`
|
||||
|
||||
This is effectively CalVer on semver rails.
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Accept that CalVer changes the compatibility contract
|
||||
|
||||
This is not semver in spirit anymore. It is semver in syntax only.
|
||||
|
||||
That tradeoff is probably acceptable for Paperclip, but it should be explicit:
|
||||
|
||||
- consumers no longer infer compatibility from `major/minor/patch`
|
||||
- release notes become the compatibility signal
|
||||
- downstream users should prefer exact pins or deliberate upgrades
|
||||
|
||||
This is especially relevant for public library packages like `@paperclipai/shared`, `@paperclipai/db`, and the adapter packages.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Drop release branches for normal publishing
|
||||
|
||||
If every merge to `master` publishes a canary, the current `release/X.Y.Z` train model becomes more ceremony than value.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended replacement:
|
||||
|
||||
- `master` is the only canary train
|
||||
- every push to `master` can publish a canary
|
||||
- stable is published from a chosen commit or canary tag on `master`
|
||||
|
||||
This matches the workflow you actually want:
|
||||
|
||||
- merge continuously
|
||||
- let npm always have a fresh canary
|
||||
- choose a known-good canary later and promote that commit to stable
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Promote by source ref, not by "renaming" a canary
|
||||
|
||||
This is the most important mechanical constraint.
|
||||
|
||||
npm can move dist-tags, but it does not let you rename an already-published version. That means:
|
||||
|
||||
- you can move `latest` to `paperclipai@1.2.3`
|
||||
- you cannot turn `paperclipai@2026.317.0-canary.8` into `paperclipai@2026.317.0`
|
||||
|
||||
So "promote canary to stable" really means:
|
||||
|
||||
1. choose the commit or canary tag you trust
|
||||
2. rebuild from that exact commit
|
||||
3. publish it again with the stable version string
|
||||
|
||||
Because of that, the stable workflow should take a source ref, not just a bump type.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended stable input:
|
||||
|
||||
- `source_ref`
|
||||
- commit SHA, or
|
||||
- a canary git tag such as `canary/v2026.317.1-canary.8`
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Only stable releases get release notes, tags, and GitHub Releases
|
||||
|
||||
Canaries should stay lightweight:
|
||||
|
||||
- publish to npm under `canary`
|
||||
- optionally create a lightweight or annotated git tag
|
||||
- do not create GitHub Releases
|
||||
- do not require `releases/v*.md`
|
||||
- do not spend LLM tokens
|
||||
|
||||
Stable releases should remain the public narrative surface:
|
||||
|
||||
- git tag `v2026.317.0`
|
||||
- GitHub Release `v2026.317.0`
|
||||
- stable changelog file `releases/v2026.317.0.md`
|
||||
|
||||
## Security Model
|
||||
|
||||
### Recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
Use npm trusted publishing with GitHub Actions OIDC, then disable token-based publishing access for the packages.
|
||||
|
||||
Why:
|
||||
|
||||
- no long-lived `NPM_TOKEN` in repo or org secrets
|
||||
- no personal npm token in Actions
|
||||
- short-lived credentials minted only for the authorized workflow
|
||||
- automatic npm provenance for public packages in public repos
|
||||
|
||||
This is the cleanest answer to the open-repo security concern.
|
||||
|
||||
### Concrete controls
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1. Use one release workflow file
|
||||
|
||||
Use one workflow filename for both canary and stable publishing:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/release.yml`
|
||||
|
||||
Why:
|
||||
|
||||
- npm trusted publishing is configured per workflow filename
|
||||
- npm currently allows one trusted publisher configuration per package
|
||||
- GitHub environments can still provide separate canary/stable approval rules inside the same workflow
|
||||
|
||||
#### 2. Use separate GitHub environments
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended environments:
|
||||
|
||||
- `npm-canary`
|
||||
- `npm-stable`
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended policy:
|
||||
|
||||
- `npm-canary`
|
||||
- allowed branch: `master`
|
||||
- no human reviewer required
|
||||
- `npm-stable`
|
||||
- allowed branch: `master`
|
||||
- required reviewer enabled
|
||||
- prevent self-review enabled
|
||||
- admin bypass disabled
|
||||
|
||||
Stable should require an explicit second human gate even if the workflow is manually dispatched.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3. Lock down workflow edits
|
||||
|
||||
Add or tighten `CODEOWNERS` coverage for:
|
||||
|
||||
- `.github/workflows/*`
|
||||
- `scripts/release*`
|
||||
- `doc/RELEASING.md`
|
||||
|
||||
This matters because trusted publishing authorizes a workflow file. The biggest remaining risk is not secret exfiltration from forks. It is a maintainer-approved change to the release workflow itself.
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4. Remove traditional npm token access after OIDC works
|
||||
|
||||
After trusted publishing is verified:
|
||||
|
||||
- set package publishing access to require 2FA and disallow tokens
|
||||
- revoke any legacy automation tokens
|
||||
|
||||
That eliminates the "someone stole the npm token" class of failure.
|
||||
|
||||
### What not to do
|
||||
|
||||
- do not put your personal Claude or npm token in GitHub Actions
|
||||
- do not run release logic from `pull_request_target`
|
||||
- do not make stable publishing depend on a repo secret if OIDC can handle it
|
||||
- do not create canary GitHub Releases
|
||||
|
||||
## Changelog Strategy
|
||||
|
||||
### Recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
Generate stable changelogs only, and keep LLM-assisted changelog generation out of CI for now.
|
||||
|
||||
Reasoning:
|
||||
|
||||
- canaries happen too often
|
||||
- canaries do not need polished public notes
|
||||
- putting a personal Claude token into Actions is not worth the risk
|
||||
- stable release cadence is low enough that a human-in-the-loop step is acceptable
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended stable path:
|
||||
|
||||
1. pick a canary commit or tag
|
||||
2. run changelog generation locally from a trusted machine
|
||||
3. commit `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`
|
||||
4. run stable promotion
|
||||
|
||||
If the notes are not ready yet, a fallback is acceptable:
|
||||
|
||||
- publish stable
|
||||
- create a minimal GitHub Release
|
||||
- update `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md` immediately afterward
|
||||
|
||||
But the better steady-state is to have the stable notes committed before stable publish.
|
||||
|
||||
### Future option
|
||||
|
||||
If you later want CI-assisted changelog drafting, do it with:
|
||||
|
||||
- a dedicated service account
|
||||
- a token scoped only for changelog generation
|
||||
- a manual workflow
|
||||
- a dedicated environment with required reviewers
|
||||
|
||||
That is phase-two hardening work, not a phase-one requirement.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed Future Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
### Canary workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Trigger:
|
||||
|
||||
- `push` on `master`
|
||||
|
||||
Steps:
|
||||
|
||||
1. checkout the merged `master` commit
|
||||
2. run verification on that exact commit
|
||||
3. compute canary version for current UTC date
|
||||
4. version public packages to `YYYY.MDD.P-canary.N`
|
||||
5. publish to npm with dist-tag `canary`
|
||||
6. create a canary git tag for traceability
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended canary tag format:
|
||||
|
||||
- `canary/v2026.317.1-canary.4`
|
||||
|
||||
Outputs:
|
||||
|
||||
- npm canary published
|
||||
- git tag created
|
||||
- no GitHub Release
|
||||
- no changelog file required
|
||||
|
||||
### Stable workflow
|
||||
|
||||
Trigger:
|
||||
|
||||
- `workflow_dispatch`
|
||||
|
||||
Inputs:
|
||||
|
||||
- `source_ref`
|
||||
- optional `stable_date`
|
||||
- `dry_run`
|
||||
|
||||
Steps:
|
||||
|
||||
1. checkout `source_ref`
|
||||
2. run verification on that exact commit
|
||||
3. compute the next stable patch slot for the UTC date or provided override
|
||||
4. fail if `vYYYY.MDD.P` already exists
|
||||
5. require `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`
|
||||
6. version public packages to `YYYY.MDD.P`
|
||||
7. publish to npm under `latest`
|
||||
8. create git tag `vYYYY.MDD.P`
|
||||
9. push tag
|
||||
10. create GitHub Release from `releases/vYYYY.MDD.P.md`
|
||||
|
||||
Outputs:
|
||||
|
||||
- stable npm release
|
||||
- stable git tag
|
||||
- GitHub Release
|
||||
- clean public changelog surface
|
||||
|
||||
## Implementation Guidance
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Replace bump-type version math with explicit version computation
|
||||
|
||||
The current release scripts depend on:
|
||||
|
||||
- `patch`
|
||||
- `minor`
|
||||
- `major`
|
||||
|
||||
That logic should be replaced with:
|
||||
|
||||
- `compute_canary_version_for_date`
|
||||
- `compute_stable_version_for_date`
|
||||
|
||||
For example:
|
||||
|
||||
- `next_stable_version(2026-03-17) -> 2026.317.0`
|
||||
- `next_canary_for_utc_date(2026-03-17) -> 2026.317.0-canary.0`
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Stop requiring `release/X.Y.Z`
|
||||
|
||||
These current invariants should be removed from the happy path:
|
||||
|
||||
- "must run from branch `release/X.Y.Z`"
|
||||
- "stable and canary for `X.Y.Z` come from the same release branch"
|
||||
- `release-start.sh`
|
||||
|
||||
Replace them with:
|
||||
|
||||
- canary must run from `master`
|
||||
- stable may run from a pinned `source_ref`
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Keep Changesets only if it stays helpful
|
||||
|
||||
The current system uses Changesets to:
|
||||
|
||||
- rewrite package versions
|
||||
- maintain package-level `CHANGELOG.md` files
|
||||
- publish packages
|
||||
|
||||
With CalVer, Changesets may still be useful for publish orchestration, but it should no longer own version selection.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended implementation order:
|
||||
|
||||
1. keep `changeset publish` if it works with explicitly-set versions
|
||||
2. replace version computation with a small explicit versioning script
|
||||
3. if Changesets keeps fighting the model, remove it from release publishing entirely
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip's release problem is now "publish the whole fixed package set at one explicit version", not "derive the next semantic bump from human intent".
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Add a dedicated versioning script
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended new script:
|
||||
|
||||
- `scripts/set-release-version.mjs`
|
||||
|
||||
Responsibilities:
|
||||
|
||||
- set the version in all public publishable packages
|
||||
- update any internal exact-version references needed for publishing
|
||||
- update CLI version strings
|
||||
- avoid broad string replacement across unrelated files
|
||||
|
||||
This is safer than keeping a bump-oriented changeset flow and then forcing it into a date-based scheme.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Keep rollback based on dist-tags
|
||||
|
||||
`rollback-latest.sh` should stay, but it should stop assuming a semver meaning beyond syntax.
|
||||
|
||||
It should continue to:
|
||||
|
||||
- repoint `latest` to a prior stable version
|
||||
- never unpublish
|
||||
|
||||
## Tradeoffs and Risks
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. The stable patch slot is now part of the version contract
|
||||
|
||||
With `YYYY.MDD.P`, same-day hotfixes are supported, but the stable patch slot is now part of the visible version format.
|
||||
|
||||
That is the right tradeoff because:
|
||||
|
||||
1. npm still gets semver-valid versions
|
||||
2. same-day hotfixes stay possible
|
||||
3. chronological ordering still works as long as the day is zero-padded inside `MDD`
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Public package consumers lose semver intent signaling
|
||||
|
||||
This is the main downside of CalVer.
|
||||
|
||||
If that becomes a problem, one alternative is:
|
||||
|
||||
- use CalVer for the CLI package only
|
||||
- keep semver for library packages
|
||||
|
||||
That is more complex operationally, so I would not start there unless package consumers actually need it.
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Auto-canary means more publish traffic
|
||||
|
||||
Publishing on every `master` merge means:
|
||||
|
||||
- more npm versions
|
||||
- more git tags
|
||||
- more registry noise
|
||||
|
||||
That is acceptable if canaries stay clearly separate:
|
||||
|
||||
- npm dist-tag `canary`
|
||||
- no GitHub Release
|
||||
- no external announcement
|
||||
|
||||
## Rollout Plan
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 1: Security foundation
|
||||
|
||||
1. Create `release.yml`
|
||||
2. Configure npm trusted publishers for all public packages
|
||||
3. Create `npm-canary` and `npm-stable` environments
|
||||
4. Add `CODEOWNERS` protection for release files
|
||||
5. Verify OIDC publishing works
|
||||
6. Disable token-based publishing access and revoke old tokens
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 2: Canary automation
|
||||
|
||||
1. Add canary workflow on `push` to `master`
|
||||
2. Add explicit calendar-version computation
|
||||
3. Add canary git tagging
|
||||
4. Remove changelog requirement from canaries
|
||||
5. Update `doc/RELEASING.md`
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 3: Stable promotion
|
||||
|
||||
1. Add manual stable workflow with `source_ref`
|
||||
2. Require stable notes file
|
||||
3. Publish stable + tag + GitHub Release
|
||||
4. Update rollback docs and scripts
|
||||
5. Retire release-branch assumptions
|
||||
|
||||
### Phase 4: Cleanup
|
||||
|
||||
1. Remove `release-start.sh` from the primary path
|
||||
2. Remove `patch/minor/major` from maintainer docs
|
||||
3. Decide whether to keep or remove Changesets from publishing
|
||||
4. Document the CalVer compatibility contract publicly
|
||||
|
||||
## Concrete Recommendation
|
||||
|
||||
Paperclip should adopt this model:
|
||||
|
||||
- stable versions: `YYYY.MDD.P`
|
||||
- canary versions: `YYYY.MDD.P-canary.N`
|
||||
- canaries auto-published on every push to `master`
|
||||
- stables manually promoted from a chosen tested commit or canary tag
|
||||
- no release branches in the default path
|
||||
- no canary changelog files
|
||||
- no canary GitHub Releases
|
||||
- no Claude token in GitHub Actions
|
||||
- no npm automation token in GitHub Actions
|
||||
- npm trusted publishing plus GitHub environments for release security
|
||||
|
||||
That gets rid of the annoying part of semver without fighting npm, makes canaries cheap, keeps stables deliberate, and materially improves the security posture of the public repository.
|
||||
|
||||
## External References
|
||||
|
||||
- npm trusted publishing: https://docs.npmjs.com/trusted-publishers/
|
||||
- npm dist-tags: https://docs.npmjs.com/adding-dist-tags-to-packages/
|
||||
- npm semantic versioning guidance: https://docs.npmjs.com/about-semantic-versioning/
|
||||
- GitHub environments and deployment protection rules: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/how-tos/deploy/configure-and-manage-deployments/manage-environments
|
||||
- GitHub secrets behavior for forks: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/how-tos/write-workflows/choose-what-workflows-do/use-secrets
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user