mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-06 21:05:21 +02:00
master
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
96bf004a79 |
fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. **What happened?** Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. **Expected behavior** Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open **Design previews / Recovery notice** to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show **Agent needs attention**, a plain-language explanation, **Retry agent**, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## 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 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
|
c1f6c3310a |
fix(runner): repair catalog runtime and grading boundaries (#13676)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages tasks across persistent agent sessions. > - The full Runner E2E catalog exposed failures in session restoration, tool validation, and test controls. > - These failures prevented valid work from resuming or made a valid interaction fail the test. > - Invalid completion reports also reached finalization before the provider received useful feedback. > - This pull request repairs those boundaries without changing production prompts or approval policy. > - Focused regressions and fresh paid cases verify each fix. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Follow-up to #13655. Stacked on the trusted worker prerequisite fix in #13674. **What happened?** Read-only skill uploads failed in resumed Daytona sandboxes. Invalid criterion IDs escaped tool validation. A progress event could park a run before its tool response settled. Partial question forms hid required answers. Two test assumptions rejected valid plan keys or failed to navigate an optional question page. **What did you expect to happen?** Resume identical skill bundles, give repairable feedback for malformed completion calls, preserve in-flight tool responses, show all required questions, and test the rendered workflow accurately. **Steps to reproduce** Inspect the failed cases in https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35417932353. Fresh campaigns: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35444497313 and https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35445327618. The later backup cleanup is tested in https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35446477285. Combined report: https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-operational-35444497313/investigation.html. ## What Changed - Compare immutable archives before reusing read-only Daytona bundles. Reject corrupted content and preserve unrelated files. - Validate exact criterion IDs before accepting completion. OpenCode returns a tool error instead of emitting a result that terminates runnerd. - Complete the activity item for rejected OpenCode calls. - Remove retired read-only harness backups without altering live files or following symlinks. A fresh paid rerun exposed this later checkpoint-cleanup failure. - Exclude progress messages from the governed-wait completion boundary. - Reject newly created question forms that omit questions or contradict their stored answer semantics. Keep historical rows readable. - Navigate all rendered question pages and recognize revision-bound descriptive plan keys in the continuation suite. ## Verification - Harness unit suite: 383 tests pass. Harness typecheck passes. - Native session executor and status corpus: 381 tests pass. - Shared question and interaction-service tests: 42 pass; native question bridge and executor: 360 pass. Daytona sync: 21 pass, including foreign-owner archives and corrupted immutable content. - OpenCode driver: 29 tests pass, including wrong, missing, and duplicate criterion IDs followed by a valid retry. - Repository typecheck and build pass. The later OpenCode activity fix also passes its package build. - The latest commit passes all 52 PR checks and Greptile 5/5. The backup-cleanup fix also passes 351 related local tests and server typecheck. Local full-suite coverage completed across runs. adapter-auth-signal-routes and pipelines-routes encountered transient socket resets; both pass on retry, and all remaining 24 serialized files pass. Paid reruns are complete: 27 of 29 unique cases pass using the latest recording per case. Both Daytona controller-restart cases still fail with runner_state_identity_mismatch; the report describes this remaining runtime issue. Eight affected cells need #13674 on master before their rerun. ## Risks Creation rejects inconsistent dual question representations but does not change historical records. Immutable bundle comparison must verify bytes before skipping extraction. Completion feedback must use the contract bound to the current run. Durable suspension and approval checks remain enforced. Production prompts are unchanged. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 via Codex, with repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The exact API model ID and context-window size 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
|
43acbcc398 |
fix(runner): preserve sessions and complete question and approval continuations (#13655)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The native runner connects task state to provider sessions. > - Follow-up turns must retain provider memory and carry new user direction. > - Lost session IDs caused repeated context and extra input tokens. > - Native question answers and approval races could leave valid work blocked. > - This pull request repairs those paths and adds regression coverage. > - Agents can continue accepted work without repeating the conversation or losing the user's answer. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13574. That merged PR shortened continuation prompts and moved question instructions into tool documentation. This change preserves sessions and fixes failures exposed by broader testing. Related runtime work: #13408 and #13410. **What happened?** Native follow-up turns could lose the provider session ID. Completion guidance could replace the original task with its latest comment. Claude native questions could remain pending after the user answered. Approval during a running tool call could suspend the run before the tool response arrived. Onboarding and chat handoff instructions also caused repeated planning or missing plan documents. **Expected behavior** Reuse a valid provider session. Send only new events when that session already has the history. Preserve the task requirements and apply later user direction. Store the question answer and deliver it to the waiting run. Finish governed tool responses before suspending. Execute the accepted plan without asking for the same approval again. **Steps to reproduce** Run the continuation, local-session-integrity, first-task, and agent-chat suites with native Codex and Claude. Include provider-question-bridge, accept-while-running, and plan-handoff. **Paperclip version or commit** This branch is based on master |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
e26d787928 |
Shorten continuation prompts and verify question tool guidance (#13574)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Agents must continue tasks using user answers without losing earlier requirements or approval gates. > - The wake prompt mixed human decisions with prior tool evidence and repeated detailed question instructions. > - Those instructions belong with the question tool, with a short routing hint in the wake. > - The Runner evals need to prove that answers, approvals, and completed work survive later turns. > - This PR shortens the prompts, separates authenticated answers, and adds continuation tests with useful screenshots. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13517. This is a follow-up to the merged onboarding skill and Runner E2E work. Related #13539 covers responses received while a run is active; this PR preserves its cases and adds continuation coverage. Existing continuation/recovery and question PRs were searched; none covers this prompt/documentation and eval change. **What existing behavior does this improve?** The instructions sent when an agent continues a task, the native human-input tool documentation, and the evidence captured by Runner full-stack E2E. **Current behavior** The wake repeats a long question-tool guide. Human answers appear alongside untrusted prior results. Screenshot capture can finish at DOM load while the task still shows a spinner, even when backend behavior checks pass. **Proposed behavior** Keep earlier requirements unless the user changes them. Treat clarification as distinct from approval. Give authenticated human responses a scoped field. Keep tool and agent results as evidence. Put detailed question behavior in the tool descriptor and retain one routing sentence in the native wake. Wait for the correct task and loaded conversation before taking screenshots. **Reason and benefit** Reduce repeated prompt text and make authority boundaries clear. Test that real question cards, later answers, approval gates, and completed child tasks still work. Make screenshots useful for human review. ## What Changed - Shorten shared continuation instructions for legacy and native runners. Separate authenticated user responses from tool results and agent summaries. - Remove the detailed question guide from native wake prompts. Keep its behavior in the canonical `request_human_input` descriptor and existing payload schema. Regenerate semantic contracts and fixture hashes. - Add five continuation cases across four local profiles. Add a dedicated choice-then-text case for native Codex and native Claude. All 22 cells join the shared full E2E campaign. - Cover revised scope, clarification without approval, hostile instructions in a handoff file, and reuse of a completed child after restart. Keep production instructions and fixed user facts. - Capture continuation screenshots only when the intended task and conversation have rendered. Add provider-free browser regressions for loaders and wrong-task capture. - Preserve current master’s extra tool and onboarding cases. The default campaign now contains 166 cells; 35 manual everyday cells remain separate. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck`: passed after replay on current master. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`: 340 passed. Harness typecheck passed. - `PAPERCLIP_PLAYWRIGHT_CHANNEL=chrome pnpm test:e2e:runner:browser-support`: 4 passed. These tests failed against immediate screenshot capture and passed after the fix. - Focused continuation and native-input tests: 36 passed locally. The tool-authority suite could not initialize embedded PostgreSQL locally, including one isolated retry; its 17 assertions did not run locally. The full remote server shards passed on this PR commit. - `pnpm build`: passed after replay on current master. `pnpm test:run` was attempted locally but hit the same embedded PostgreSQL initialization failure; the remaining local run was stopped after complete remote CI passed. This is not claimed as a full local test pass. - [Full PR CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/35232755685): passed on `6a22128c14f4552d0613a6d9a25955db4a1ed02f`. All server/chat/workspace/serialized shards, browser shards, Runner checks, typecheck, build, canary and policy checks passed. The isolated native Runner build and security checks also passed: 57 successful checks, with two expected Storybook skips. - Greptile reviewed the exact PR head at 5/5, with no findings or unresolved review threads. The PR has no merge conflicts. - [Live question-docs report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-question-docs-35227647794/): 3/3 passed at source `83dd132f2` before replay on master. Native Codex and Claude each asked a choice, waited, asked a text question, and saved both answers. Claude also passed a completed-child restart case. All three native turns are checked for absence of the old question block. - [Earlier continuation report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-e2e-continuation-35154943615/): all five continuation cases passed on native Claude. The report retains campaign and revision provenance and separately shows two unresolved onboarding behavior failures. - [Before/after prompt report](https://pages.paperclip.ing/runner-prompt-comparison-20260917/): full text, current recorded Claude inputs, and reproducible reference-token counts. The controlled wake comparison removes 401 reference tokens; the net counted input reduction is 339 after charging the larger tool description. These are text-size estimates, not measured billing savings. ## Risks - Prompt wording affects model behavior. Live results cover the stated cases, not every provider or conversation. Legacy profiles are registered but were not rerun for this change. - The optional continuation field changes prompt data only; there is no database migration or new production API. - Authenticated answer projection excludes generated summaries and agent-resolved interactions. It preserves the answer’s question or approval scope. - The screenshot guard can expose UI loading failures that earlier runs hid. Backend grading alone no longer makes those captures valid. - The two prior onboarding failures remain separate product issues: work before acceptance and a missing saved plan. This PR does not claim the entire onboarding suite passes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser verification. The exact deployed model identifier and context-window size 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 — targeted tests above; the full local database-startup limit is documented - [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> |