4 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	2dd9811e8b	Own agent hiring and termination in a lifecycle module (#15631) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Agent creation, approval, pause, and termination change whether an agent can work. > - These changes currently use separate service and database paths. > - Some agents need setup after their record exists and before their harness can run. > - This PR adds one module that owns those state changes and their transactions. > - The module records progress and retries incomplete work after a server restart. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A hire can become active before its execution environment is ready. Direct agent state writes also bypass one common lifecycle boundary. Termination does not have a durable step for resource cleanup. **Proposed solution** Use agent lifecycle commands for hiring, approval, pause, resume, and termination. Keep proposed hires pending until approval. Prepare each approved hire, test its saved harness configuration, and then permit work. Wait for required plugin work before completing a step. **Alternatives considered** A general database commit hook would expose transaction details to callers. A timer alone would delay each new hire. This module owns each command transaction and starts its worker after commit. A periodic scan recovers work after a process stops. **Roadmap alignment** This change adds the lifecycle boundary for the existing agent and plugin systems. It does not add a user interface or a provider implementation. It replaces the lifecycle delivery approach in #15391. Related proposals include #11475 and #13099; this change does not add their external executor protocols. ## What Changed - Add durable approval, preparation, verification, pause, resume, stop, and cleanup states. - Keep agent creation, lifecycle state, configuration writes, and agent record deletion behind `modules/agent-lifecycle`. Keep validation, credential rules, reads, onboarding, invitations, general approvals, and company data deletion in their services. - Commit a hire before the remaining onboarding or invitation work. Serialize requests with the existing dedicated database connection helper. Reuse the hire after a failed attempt. - Keep accepted work in the run queue during setup. Require execution and cleanup evidence before completing pause or termination. - Retain the original credential owner when approving migrated hires. - Start lifecycle work after each command commits. Use database leases and revision checks for retries and late results. - Add a generic required plugin method and capability. Store the required plugin IDs for each agent. Track host and plugin completion separately. - Keep harness verification and credential rules in services. Supply their results to lifecycle through explicit ports. Reject failed logins and incomplete probes. - Remove reverse imports from lifecycle adapters into services. Share record queries and validation below both layers. - Use one hire decision path for agent IDs and approval IDs. Resolve the approval and agent change in one transaction. Expose policy reconciliation on the command object. - Save configuration and verification invalidation through one module operation. Ordinary commands own their transaction. Restrict the shared transaction integration to its listed callers. Reject identity, company, accounting, timestamp, and unknown fields. - Require completed termination before deleting agent records. The company deletion service calls the module through a separate deletion interface. - Save an approved secret before applying its agent binding. A failed binding leaves the secret approved. A retry reuses it. - Remove old permission and metadata export files. Move hire configuration rules out of lifecycle persistence. - Report failed worker steps and scans with operation context and known error codes. Omit provider messages, stacks, and configuration values. Document ordinary application use and extension rules. - Recover expired native owners only after execution stops. Retry cleanup of failed retained leases. Wait for setup in the live smoke script. - Keep manual, budget, and company pause reasons separate. Guard execution status writes with the ready state. - Add a migration, boundary checks, regression tests, and a lifecycle guide. Keep the current UI. - Limit periodic policy checks to 100 eligible agents per minute. Continue from the last agent ID. Exclude pending hires and agents in termination or a final state. Keep explicit company and budget updates immediate. ## Verification - Latest head `ccc3c86b0` aligns the shared status update schema with the PATCH route. All 15 shared tests, 104 server route/OpenAPI tests, 2 CLI tests, and shared/server/CLI TypeScript checks pass. The Greptile comment is fixed. CI is running; no new Apex review was requested for this small fix. - Rebase `75708ac94` rebases onto master at `2eb5187e4`. The backup test uses the shared 90-second timeout from master; the older timeout commit was removed. The affected backup test passes. - Agent budget edits now pass the target agent ID through enforcement. All 50 affected tests, server TypeScript, and 11 boundary tests pass. Both configuration update paths have regression coverage. CI is running on the latest head. No new Apex review was requested for these small fixes. - Rebase `9b568666a` preserves the run-control extraction and delivery-work startup changes from master. All 559 affected tests, server TypeScript, and 11 boundary tests pass. CI and Apex review are running on the final head. - The policy scan fix passes 56 lifecycle and diagnostic tests, 24 policy and caller tests, and 11 boundary tests. A regression test checks the page limit, interval, excluded states, and cursor wraparound. - Rebase `fd4698750` passes all 611 tests in eight affected lifecycle, route, and heartbeat suites. Server TypeScript and all 11 module boundary tests pass. The company deletion rollback and concurrent hire tests are included. - Follow-up `00aac7646` fixes the failed decision deletion test and the public update schema. All 126 affected server tests, 8 shared tests, 2 CLI tests, and 11 boundary tests pass. Shared, server, CLI, and UI TypeScript checks pass. - Server TypeScript passes: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`. - All 11 boundary tests pass: `node --test scripts/check-module-boundaries.test.mjs`. The repository boundary scan also passes. - All 68 lifecycle, failure diagnostic, and harness verification tests pass. Tests reject forbidden fields through the root command, combined transition command, and restricted transaction integration. They also check invalid fields returned by configuration preparation. - Failure tests cover host work, plugin work, claims, renewals, deferrals, and scans. Log tests check known error codes and exclusion of private error contents. - All 355 tests in 10 existing caller suites pass. These tests cover secret approval, pairing, pending hires, credentials, company import, built-in agents, managed agents, instructions, and skills. - The branch is rebased onto `origin/master` at `2eb5187e4`. The queue guards and cancellation lock fix use the extracted heartbeat queue. Agent cancellation uses the extracted run-control file. The source diff scan found no secrets or private URLs. - Earlier checks cover approval retries, rollback, late verification results, policy holds, deletion rollback, concurrent company deletion, and queue admission during setup. - Before the rebase, CI passed on `00aac7646` and Greptile Apex rated it 5/5 with no open comments. CI and a new Apex review are pending for the rebased commit. The branch has no merge conflicts. - The full local build and native Dot suite were not run. The host has no Cargo. No live provider test was run. ## Risks - Background policy recovery takes more than one minute when more than 100 agents are eligible. Explicit company and budget updates still reconcile immediately. - The restricted configuration integration keeps an agent reference and its dependent records in one transaction. It cannot change a budget or invoke a lifecycle transition. A periodic scan starts pending setup after that transaction commits. - Secret approval and binding use separate transactions. A failed binding can leave an approved secret with no agent binding. - New approved hires remain unavailable until setup and verification complete. Existing clients see `paused` during these steps. This PR does not change the UI. - Migration `0320_daily_onslaught.sql` maps existing statuses and pause reasons. It does not create external resources or claim that an existing harness passed verification. - Use a coordinated server update for this migration. Older server versions can write legacy status without the new lifecycle checks. - A failed onboarding or invitation request can leave a committed hire. A retry reuses that hire and completes the remaining records. - Deletion requires completed termination. Company deletion can require another request while cleanup is pending. - Required plugins must make repeated calls safe and reject older revisions. A disabled or removed required plugin blocks completion until it is restored. - A new hire can run a second harness test after the existing UI test. Some adapters can charge for this test. - No live provider test was run. Provider implementation and resource backfill remain separate work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code tools, and local test execution. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have described the issue in this PR with the feature request field labels - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] Targeted local tests pass - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the new commit - [x] Greptile Apex is 5/5 with no open comments on the new commit - [x] I will address review comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-09 09:05:12 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	ae0c1fbbd5	refactor(server): move the admission half of the deferred wake state machine into the wake-queue module (#13136) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The heartbeat service admits wake requests while an issue has an active execution run. > - That admission branch mixes wake policy, database reads, and database writes in one service. > - This structure makes the wake-queue boundary hard to test and extend. > - This pull request moves the admission policy and its database adapter into the wake-queue module. > - The result keeps heartbeat orchestration small and makes the admission behavior testable in isolation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The heartbeat service now delegates deferred wake admission to the wake-queue module. The module keeps the existing merge, defer, and ordinary-wake outcomes. **Subsystem affected** server/ — REST API and orchestration services. **Current behavior** The heartbeat service contains a 146-line branch that reads wake state, chooses an outcome, and writes the result. **Proposed behavior** The wake-queue module owns the pure admission decision and the adapter reads and writes. The heartbeat service calls one module method. **Reason and benefit** This boundary reduces service coupling and lets module tests cover the admission policy. The change keeps the existing reason strings and outcomes. **Breaking changes** None. The change preserves the current behavior and public API. **Additional context** This pull request follows [PR #13132](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/13132), which merged the first slice of this refactor. I searched GitHub for duplicate and related pull requests before opening this pull request. ## What Changed - Move deferred wake admission policy into `server/src/modules/wake-queue`. - Add module ports and a PostgreSQL adapter for the admission reads and writes. - Keep the existing wake outcomes and stored reason strings. - Extend the module boundary check to reject service imports from the application layer. - Add unit and adapter tests for the moved behavior. ## Verification - `node --test scripts/check-module-boundaries.test.mjs` passes. - The `server/src/modules/wake-queue` suite passes 58 tests. - The eight pinned heartbeat and queued-comment tests remain unchanged and require CI verification. - Every continuous-integration check must reach a terminal green state before merge. ## Risks The refactor changes the location of wake admission logic. A missed adapter condition could change deferred wake behavior. The tests cover the policy outcomes and the adapter writes. The residual tenant-scope risk remains documented in the review record. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, tool use and code execution. The implementation author ran the tests and prepared the commit set. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-10 00:55:48 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	f65991a5f1	refactor(server): move scheduled-retry and queued-run dispatch into a run-dispatch module (#12920) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The server heartbeat service dispatches scheduled retries and queued runs. > - The service kept policy decisions and database writes in one large file. > - This layout made policy branches harder to test and transaction boundaries harder to inspect. > - This pull request moves the policy rules and database transactions into a run-dispatch module. > - The benefit is a smaller service, pure policy tests, and clear transaction ownership. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The server heartbeat service promotes scheduled retries and cancels stale queued runs. **Subsystem affected** server/ — REST API and orchestration services. **Current behavior** The heartbeat service contains the policy rules and the database writes for these dispatch paths. **Proposed behavior** A run-dispatch module owns pure policy functions and semantic database transactions. The public service contracts stay unchanged. **Reason and benefit** The new layout separates branch rules from database effects. It makes each policy branch easier to test and keeps each operation’s row writes in one transaction. **Breaking changes** None. The public service contracts stay unchanged. ## What Changed - Move scheduled-retry promotion and queued-run staleness rules into pure functions. - Add table-driven unit tests for each policy branch. - Move promotion and cancellation writes into semantic transactions. - Keep row locking, company isolation, and post-commit effects unchanged. ## Verification - `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passes. - `tsc --noEmit` from `server/` reports no errors. - The focused server test command passes 228 tests in six files. - Full pull request CI passes. - Greptile reports 5/5, and all review threads are resolved. ## Risks The main risk concerns changed transaction boundaries in scheduled-retry promotion and queued-run cancellation. The focused tests retain coverage for locking, transactionality, company isolation, and transport contracts. The public service contracts do not change. ## Model Used Codex, GPT-5, with code execution and tool use. The context window is not provided by the runtime. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes: #` / `Refs: #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I have addressed all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-08 11:00:55 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	3ed5b7c5c8	refactor(server): extract the active-run output watchdog into a feature module (#12853) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server recovery service monitors active runs and applies watchdog decisions > - The watchdog rules and database operations lived in one large recovery service > - This structure made the rules harder to test and made company scoping harder to inspect > - This pull request moves the watchdog into domain, application, and adapter layers > - The benefit is a smaller recovery service, pure policy tests, and clear company-scoped ports ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The active-run output watchdog that detects silence, suppression, and terminal evidence. **Current behavior** The recovery service contains the watchdog policy, use cases, database operations, and process control in one file. **Proposed behavior** A feature module separates pure policy, use cases and ports, and Postgres and process adapters. The recovery service delegates its public watchdog methods to this module. **Reason and benefit** The separation makes policy decisions easy to test. Company identifiers on every reader and writer port make tenant scope clear. Smaller service methods reduce change risk. **Breaking changes** None. The recovery service keeps its public methods and call sites. Related public watchdog work includes [#7043](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7043) and [#7770](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7770). ## What Changed - Add the `server/src/modules/active-run-watchdog/` feature module with domain, application, and adapter layers. - Move watchdog policy, use cases, Postgres access, and local process control into the module. - Keep the recovery service public methods and delegate them to the module. - Add 53 pure module test cases and retain 8 Postgres integration cases. - Add company scoping and transaction rollback coverage. ## Verification - Run `vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/modules` and confirm 3 files and 53 cases pass. - Run `vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` and confirm 1 file and 8 cases pass. - Run the full server suite in pull request CI. - Compare the type-check result with a fresh baseline on the same checkout. ## Risks The main risk is a behavior change in recovery decisions during the move across layers. The pure policy tests cover the moved rules. The integration tests cover database behavior, company scope, and transaction rollback. Pull request CI runs the full server suite. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, runtime-managed context window, tool use, code execution, and repository review support. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-09-05 09:15:59 -07:00