2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	d33b40a5c3	fix: recover saved work and provide reliable task Retry (#16965) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The control plane must retain work when an execution or workspace export fails. > - Retained-workspace holds can leave saved input waiting with no usable Retry action. > - Users cannot verify process ownership or repair provider allocations. > - This pull request gives system recovery a durable budget and gives each deliberate Retry a durable intent. > - Safe recovery can preserve files, settle an accepted result, or prepare an independent workspace. > - One task state keeps infrastructure diagnostics out of the ordinary conversation while preserving real permission and approval gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A task with a retained workspace can show recovery, failed-run and saved-message warnings at the same time. Historical runs without native workspace descriptors cannot use the native restore path. Old recovery metadata can prevent a new attempt even when an independent workspace would be safe. **Expected behavior** Paperclip owns bounded infrastructure retries and file preservation. A user can request another attempt with ordinary Retry. Thinking appears immediately. The service preserves completed effects and current user controls. It does not claim that starting fresh recovered the old files. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Retain a failed run and its workspace after export or process-stop failure. 2. Save a follow-up while the recovery hold is active. 3. Open the task and try to continue without infrastructure credentials or operator certification. Refs #16906, #16835, #16883. This extends their recovery and receipt contracts. Related work: #16962 and #16963. ## What Changed - Add task-level Retry with company-scoped authorization, all-status idempotency and durable admission before physical work. Keep exact-run Retry compatible. - Add typed recovery phases, finite persisted backoff, historical adoption and durable local failure diagnostics. - Preserve native workspaces or verified historical snapshots. Admit an independent fresh workspace only after execution containment. Keep old-source preservation and cleanup obligations separate. - Carry completed publication and API receipts forward. Fence uncertain mutation retries across replacement runs. Preserve connected-chat identity and authorization. - Re-enter normal dispatch for saved input. Reuse accepted results through the existing finalizer. - Use one task interruption projection across the thread, composer and task list. Show optimistic Thinking, ordinary Retry and genuine user gates. - Add PostgreSQL, filesystem, API, browser-fixture and controlled provider coverage. Document the behavior and update the feature/access maps. ## Verification - All GitHub Actions CI jobs pass on `6d8c6d27d50586d8548b31d03b47f6d73a0ee11d`: typecheck, all server/chat/workspace and serialized suites, Runner checks, eight browser shards, canary and build. The required merge gate passes. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, with no actionable findings or unresolved review threads. Its two earlier P1 findings are fixed. - Full recursive typecheck and build pass locally on the final commit. All 16 task Retry cases pass against isolated real PostgreSQL. The unrelated-success case and both stale Retry cases fail on the previous code and pass after the fix. - The corrected gateway fixture passes its uncertain-mutation and independent-read case. Four real HTTP API cases pass for definite 403/422 rejection, completed-effect reuse, and uncertain-effect fences across deliberate and automatic retries. These focused gateway/API checks used a temporary database lifecycle harness on an existing healthy local PostgreSQL process. The standard repository helper is unchanged. - Earlier qualification covers 291 task UI cases, saved-file copyback and ancestry, current Agent Chat ownership races, nine chat Retry API browser cases, and six assembled browser recovery fixtures. A real API/PostgreSQL/native-runner journey showed Thinking in 25 ms despite a delayed response, admitted one successor in a separate workspace, retained original files, and survived reload. - The controlled Daytona test interrupts export, joins the controller, restarts it in a separate process, and verifies one agent start, one external sentinel operation, retained file contents and no premature cleanup. It does not establish abrupt-kill or live LLM/GitHub acceptance. - The full local `pnpm test:run` was attempted and was not green: an OAuth row-lock timing assertion failed, and a later suite exhausted macOS PostgreSQL semaphores. The ten OAuth timing cases passed on rerun against a separate database. Later embedded database initialization failures remain recorded; the final CI matrix passes. - Security scanning passed on production-code commit `63953edf069b111c6becc3144dffa6deb52f68b5`. Its only successor changes one test-fixture identity line. The final scan is neutral/inconclusive because its pinned merge-base checkout failed or timed out. Both rerun API requests returned 404, so no fresh successful scan is claimed. Socket and Snyk checks pass on the final head. - The optional Paperclip Review remains queued behind an earlier run in workspace finalization. Its prior completed assessment was incomplete because a comparison tool was blocked by the platform filter. It is not counted as a completed code review. GitHub does not require this check for merge. - Hosted acceptance remains pending deployment. Local and CI results do not establish recovery of a hosted task or its retained files. ## Risks - Recovery changes span admission, physical ownership and dispatch. Incorrect evidence could permit overlapping work. Existing physical locks and authoritative stop requirements remain in place. - The migration adds concurrent indexes. It requires the existing top-level migration runner and retries incomplete index creation safely. - A fresh attempt can complete while old-source preservation remains unresolved. The service retains that obligation and does not report those files as recovered. - Unknown tool mutations remain blocked until their authoritative receipt owner resolves them. Generic upstream tools have no universal result-query protocol. - Recovery and diagnostics stay inside the stack. No Cloud incident endpoint, notification worker or new outbound reporting channel is included. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The runtime does not expose a more specific model version or context-window size. The model used reasoning, shell execution, source editing and browser tools. No model subagents were used for this implementation. ## 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 (focused suites; the full local run limitation is documented above) - [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>	2026-10-20 19:58:53 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	f7e36ba3e2	fix: isolate repository-free low-trust tasks in private directories (#14766) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work by agents within company boundaries. > - Email tasks can run under the low-trust review preset. > - These tasks must use an isolated workspace and a sandbox. > - The default workspace strategy assumed that the project had a Git repository. > - A project without a configured workspace failed before the agent could start. > - This change gives each such task a private directory and keeps the sandbox requirement. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An inbound email assigned to a low-trust agent failed with `git_worktree_base_not_git_checkout` when its boundary project had no configured workspace. Setup had accepted the project and sandbox. **Expected behavior** The agent can process email without a repository. Its workspace stays isolated from other tasks and the shared agent home. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Select a low-trust agent with an active sandbox and a project boundary. 2. Leave the project without a configured workspace. 3. Receive an email through AgentMail. 4. Observe that startup fails before provider work starts. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced against `5edf55d73`. **Deployment mode** Hosted staging with sandbox execution. Related: #13256 added email tasks. #13636 fixed default isolation for projects without workspaces; the explicit isolation used by low-trust tasks still needed this path. ## What Changed - Select private task directories for low-trust sandbox tasks with no configured workspace or explicit workspace strategy. - Keep each directory scoped to its company and task. Retain files across turns and reassignment and reject symlink paths and mismatched workspace reuse. - Preserve Git validation for configured workspaces and explicit strategies, plus the existing authorization and remote gates for referenced projects. - Add a startup regression and directory isolation tests. Document the supported repository-free path. ## Verification - The startup regression failed before the fix with the same Git validation error. - 260 targeted email, workspace policy, heartbeat, referenced-project and directory tests pass. - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` pass on the latest commit. - All CI checks, including the complete sharded test suite and canary dry run, pass on `b4ccd9802b09b2e95499df72d48b4a3906b8c328`. - The final commit also passes the same server shard locally: 60 files, 1,024 passed / 6 skipped tests. The earlier all-groups local run was interrupted during follow-up edits; complete-suite verification comes from CI on the final commit. - Deployed the reviewed commit to staging and independently verified the full serving SHA. Two real Codex runs in Daytona succeeded and finalized the same private company/task workspace. The first wrote a 35-byte marker; the second read the existing file without modifying it and returned the independently verified SHA-256 `ce3bbeb44d07ca6822826d3a5945752a38d30b356d10829f3159a191e5aa92a6`. - Live runtime caveat: Codex reported a nested `bwrap` loopback permission error and used its configured escalated execution inside Daytona. The outer Daytona sandbox remained active for both runs. - The startup regression uses a real database, production trust checks, workspace persistence, sandbox lease acquisition and realization, and a fake provider. It checks reassignment and allows only an authorized referenced project. - The transfer regression runs production archive/sync-back/merge code against distinct filesystem roots: create output in one sandbox, restore it, then read and update it in a fresh sandbox. The provider I/O is emulated; live staging verification is separate. ## Risks - The new default applies only to low-trust sandbox tasks without workspace configuration. Standard agents and explicit Git strategies keep their existing behavior. - Task directories retain work across turns and consume instance storage. The change does not migrate or copy existing shared files. - No database migration or credential changes are required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The exact runtime model revision 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>	2026-09-30 18:06:07 -05:00