mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-28 20:21:50 +01:00
codex/private-task-storage
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
799e4d556f |
fix: make accounting durable and synchronize cost reporting (#14997)
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
984f092ddf |
Add project and agent resource lifecycle hooks (#15280)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and projects for work. > - Plugins need reliable lifecycle hooks for these resources. > - In-process notifications can disappear during a restart. > - A lifecycle record must commit with the resource change. > - This pull request adds a generic lifecycle journal without provider calls. > - A later plugin delivery layer can use these records without losing lifecycle changes. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** Resource provisioning needs durable hooks for agent hiring, pause, resume, termination, and project creation. Hooks must cover shared service callers, budget actions, and approval paths. Capture should work for all plugins and deployment modes. **Proposed solution** Record content-free events in the resource transaction. Deduplicate creation and unchanged status. Preserve each pause/resume cycle. Commit approval, activation, and creation together. Commit termination and API-key revocation together. **Alternatives considered** Event subscriptions alone cannot survive process failure. Cloud-only capture would exclude other plugins. Provider calls inside tenant transactions would couple resource creation to external services. **Roadmap alignment** This is lifecycle infrastructure for the existing plugin system. It adds no provider, adapter, UI, or plugin read API. Repository mutations and backfill remain separate work. Searches found no duplicate lifecycle-journal PR. ## What Changed - Add a company-scoped lifecycle journal and an additive migration. - Record hired-agent and project creation from shared services. - Record agent pause, resume, and termination, including generic updates and budget actions. - Lock agent state changes to suppress concurrent duplicate hooks. - Make hire approval, rejection, and termination transactions atomic with their lifecycle records. - Document capture, ordering, future per-plugin acknowledgments, and migration scope. ## Verification - Full workspace typecheck: `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Production build: `pnpm build` passed. - Focused agent, project, approval, budget, and built-in regressions: 102 tests passed across 9 suites. - Final lifecycle journal check: 14 tests passed. It covers repeated/concurrent transitions, rollback, key revocation, self-hosted capture, and company boundaries. - Review regression: 32 lifecycle and approval tests passed, including rejected-hire rollback and retry; server typecheck passed after the fix. - The initial local `pnpm test:run` overlapped the rejection fix and reported the new rollback regression against the earlier service code. A fresh lifecycle run passed all 14 tests. Fresh full local shards were stopped once the complete CI test matrix passed on the final commit. - `git diff --check` and a local secret/PII scan passed. - Greptile: 5/5 on `3ee3903f8e1a171ea3ba2bea9caa2b5766a3f807`, with the review thread resolved. - [Complete CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/37374227222) on `3ee3903f8e1a171ea3ba2bea9caa2b5766a3f807`: general server/chat/workspace tests, serialized server suites, runner checks, build, typecheck, canary, and all end-to-end shards. The requester waived CI during the Actions outage, but the workflow subsequently completed successfully. ## Risks - The migration creates an empty table. It does not scan or backfill existing resources. - Apply the normal database migration before running this server version. Event-write failure intentionally rolls back the resource change. - Pending hires cannot bypass approval through pause or resume. - Capture works on all deployments. Plugin delivery, retention, retries, and provider actions remain separate work. No plugin can read this journal through a new API in this PR. - Future delivery must enforce company scope, track acknowledgments per plugin, and preserve resource order. A global sequence cursor can skip uncommitted transactions. - A termination hook does not authorize deleting persistent volumes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, based on GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and tool use. The exact deployment model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. ## 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
ef617bee5c |
[codex] Enforce backend execution release gates (#9089)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Backend execution safety is part of the control plane contract: agents must stop at budget hard limits, stale execution paths must not create duplicate live work, and checkout ownership must remain authoritative. > - The recovery branch bundled these release-gate checks with broader unrelated work. > - Reviewers need a narrow PR that isolates only the backend safety behavior and regression coverage. > - This pull request keeps budget incident creation idempotent so repeated evaluation does not duplicate release-gate telemetry or approvals. > - It also adds focused coverage for idle timer skips, stale queued-run behavior, and live checkout conflict preservation. > - The benefit is a smaller, reviewable release-gate slice for budget hard stops, stale execution recovery, and ownership-safe issue mutation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #8866 This PR extracts a focused backend safety slice from the closed broad recovery PR. The underlying problem is that release-gate behavior needs direct regression coverage before review: budget hard stops should not duplicate incidents/logging on repeated evaluation, timer wakes should respect the no-actionable-work skip policy, stale queued runs should remain invalidated, and active checkout ownership must survive conflicting checkout attempts without side effects. ## What Changed - Made budget incident creation report whether an incident was newly created, so soft/hard threshold activity logs are emitted once per incident window. - Added embedded Postgres budget release-gate tests covering soft incident idempotency, hard-stop pause/cancel behavior, budget override resume behavior, and telemetry redaction. - Added heartbeat coverage for skipping generic timer wakes when the agent opts into `skipTimerWhenNoActionableWork`, while preserving legacy/proactive timer behavior. - Added stale execution lock route coverage proving a conflicting checkout returns `409` without overwriting live checkout or execution ownership and without writing checkout activity. ## Verification - `./node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/budgets-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-process-recovery.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-stale-queue-invalidation.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` - First run: 3 files passed, 98 tests passed; `issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts` failed during import because the isolated worktree initially lacked dev dependency links for `supertest`. - `CI=true NODE_ENV=development pnpm install --frozen-lockfile --ignore-scripts` - Recreated worktree dev dependency links; emitted unrelated plugin SDK bin warnings because plugin SDK dist files were not built under `--ignore-scripts`. - `./node_modules/.bin/vitest run server/src/__tests__/issue-stale-execution-lock-routes.test.ts --no-file-parallelism --maxWorkers=1` - Passed: 1 file, 7 tests. - `git diff --check` - Passed. ## Risks Low to medium risk. The production code change is intentionally small and only suppresses duplicate threshold activity logging for already-open budget incidents, but it affects budget release-gate observability. The new tests use embedded Postgres and should catch regressions in budget hard stops, timer wake gating, stale queue invalidation, and checkout conflict preservation. > For core feature work, check [`ROADMAP.md`](ROADMAP.md) first and discuss it in `#dev` before opening the PR. Feature PRs that overlap with planned core work may need to be redirected — check the roadmap first. See `CONTRIBUTING.md`. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5 coding agent, tool-use enabled. ## 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
8fbbc4ada6 | Fix budget incident resolution edge cases | ||
|
Dotta
|
5f2c2ee0e2 | Harden budget enforcement and migration startup |