Commit Graph
3 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
DottaandPaperclip 0373f9f261 fix(recovery): wake retained workspace preservation after Retry (#17741)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip lets people manage AI agents and their saved work.
> - A stopped run can owe workspace preservation before saved input can
continue.
> - Retry saved a recovery request but did not wake the worker that owns
preservation.
> - Older recovery records could also take the bounded scan slots before
a due request.
> - A second Retry could change the revision while the physical owner
was still saving files.
> - This pull request wakes a separate worker after commit, selects due
work first, and keeps the active owner's revision.
> - Saved work can progress without replaying the stopped provider turn
or blocking other finalization.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

An operator approved a saved design and selected Retry after native
workspace finalization failed. The API accepted one canonical request.
The source remained scheduled at zero preservation attempts for more
than 30 minutes. No new provider turn started. A local regression also
found that repeated Retry during export invalidated the physical owner's
completion revision.

**Expected behavior**

Committed Retry must wake bounded source preservation. Due recovery must
progress ahead of passive cleanup obligations and unrelated history.
Duplicate requests must keep one physical attempt. Saved input must
still pass normal admission after verified recovery.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Retain a terminal run with an exhausted workspace recovery and saved
authorized input.
2. Let the delivery coordinator become quiet, then request Retry.
3. Observe the recovery state and physical preservation receipt. Repeat
Retry while the export is held.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Observed on served commit `4b89eec644d6e1a99d58926e77ae58927c3fa87b`.
Local baseline: `a1f77821b9cd5c9c846fdf7a0fa5cc620ad2b6bb`.

Related work: Refs #17053, #17267, #17094. This change repairs explicit
Retry delivery. It is separate from the run instruction projection in
#17724 and historical unsafe-export discovery in #17687.

## What Changed

- Notify a dedicated workspace recovery duty from the transaction that
saves Retry, recovery admission, adoption, or recovery progress.
- Reconstruct work and saved retry deadlines at startup. Fill each free
export slot independently, track physical work for idle drain, and join
the dedicated worker's exports on shutdown.
- Drain one bounded pass through completed cleanup and saved-input
obligations. Restart that pass after committed changes without
repeatedly rechecking paused input.
- Share source eligibility between deadline selection and candidate
consumption. Keep resolved files-only obligations and ignore unrelated
resolved or cancelled history.
- Select due unfinished preservation before passive historical records.
Rotate past source locks held by other workers and retain the indexed
source lookup.
- Bind the canonical Retry intent without changing an active physical
attempt's generation or revision. Preserve that binding across later
progress writes.
- Add real producer, physical preservation, startup, deadline, idle, and
independent finalization regressions. Document the delivery contract.

## Verification

- Red controls: Retry without a notification stayed scheduled; duplicate
Retry invalidated the active export; whole-batch waiting stranded a
third Retry; a scan without cursor rotation starved a source behind two
actual advisory locks. Removing unfinished-first selection left HTTP
Retry scheduled behind five real recovered sources still owing cleanup.
The fixture explicitly verifies their eligibility with the worker's
actual query filter.
- Further red controls: the previous worker visits only two of three
eligible completed sources. Disabling the committed-change cursor reset
misses a new earlier source arriving while two callbacks are held. Both
pass with the final worker.
- Green: the public Retry HTTP route, registered production worker, real
file copyback, duplicate canonical receipts, and public recovery receipt
reload passed on an owned local fixture. Its agent is paused to keep
this files-only check from starting a provider turn.
- Full workspace recovery suite passed 56 tests, including the
foreign-lock regression.
- Execution-control lifecycle suite passed 24 tests. It covers idle SQL,
stored deadlines, cancelled and resolved history, independent
finalization, and shutdown. One, three, and seven paused completed
sources are each visited in a bounded pass, then stay deferred without a
successor or SQL during 90 seconds of fake-clock idle time. A committed
earlier source is evaluated when it arrives during two held callbacks.
- Both GitHub and Telegram `automatic_running` continuation regressions
passed with the new canonical intent binding.
- `pnpm -r typecheck` passed.
- `pnpm build` passed.
- `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and `node
scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs` passed.
- Local `pnpm test:run` could not complete: embedded PostgreSQL
repeatedly failed to start. The owned run was stopped after this setup
failure repeated. Latest-head CI supplies broad coverage.
- Earlier setup failures included a localhost sandbox denial and loss of
the owned disposable Docker database. These were separate from the
product red controls above.
- Local database tests use an explicitly named disposable PostgreSQL
`_test` database. That opt-in database is reset before the suite.
Default embedded test behavior is unchanged.
- Exact-head CI is green at `ef7dcf1ba1060864c9d216c33b51f4d9f8f57fbd`;
Greptile and Ponytail both rate it 5/5, with no unresolved review
threads. Earlier CI caught the indexed discovery assertion and two exact
chat intent-binding regressions; all three were fixed and pass locally
and in CI. A separate chat shard lost contact with its self-hosted
runner without a product assertion result. A later shared runner
shutdown interrupted several jobs; one infrastructure rerun passed
before the final test-and-worker follow-up triggered a fresh green run.
- No staging deployment is part of this PR. The original approval
remains saved; deployed recovery still needs acceptance after rollout.

## Risks

- More recovery writes now wake a bounded maintenance duty. Completed
history must not keep it active. Idle and deadline tests cover this
boundary.
- Resolved files-only obligations must remain eligible without granting
replay. The startup regression checks that path.
- Provider stop proof, copyback ownership, source binding, retry
budgets, and normal execution admission remain required. There is no
schema or public API change.

## Model Used

- OpenAI Codex based on GPT-6, with code execution and browser tools.
The exact serving 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>
2026-10-26 10:28:12 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip eaacadeba3 fix(recovery): let preservation owners reopen retained sources (#17053)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Recovery must save retained workspace files before ordinary
execution can resume.
> - The environment runtime blocks access to retained sources to prevent
unsafe reuse or deletion.
> - The recovery worker also used that ordinary resume path.
> - The guard returned no lease, so recovery reported an invalid source
binding before it could save files.
> - This pull request gives the physical preservation owner a separate,
source-bound resume path.
> - Ordinary execution and destructive cleanup keep their existing
guards.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #16965.

**What happened?**

A retained workspace with a workspaceRestoreRecovery marker could not
recover through the real environment runtime. The runtime returned null
before calling the provider. Recovery classified this as
source_binding_invalid. Earlier recovery fixtures replaced the runtime
facade, so they did not exercise this guard.

**Expected behavior**

The verified preservation owner can reopen its exact stopped allocation
to save files. Other callers remain blocked. Recovery preserves newer
local files and does not start another agent or repeat a completed
external action.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Seed a terminal source run with a retained sandbox, a recovery
action, and the workspaceRestoreRecovery lease marker.
2. Give the source a verified stop receipt.
3. Call recoverRetainedWorkspace through environmentRuntimeService.
4. Before this change, the recovery action returns to blocked with
source_binding_invalid. No files are copied.

**Paperclip version or commit**

Reproduced on master at 65f59e339a. The
same failure was observed in a served build containing #16965.

## What Changed

- Add an internal preservation resume method. It validates the exact
company, task, run, action, lease, environment, current physical owner,
and stop-only cleanup claim before provider access.
- Keep ordinary resume and destructive cleanup blocked for protected
sources.
- Run all retained-workspace fixtures through the assembled environment
runtime. Add a failing-before/passing-after protected-source regression
and four rejection cases.
- Use the same runtime path and protection marker in the opt-in Daytona
interruption probe. Allow a verified immutable snapshot UUID as its
input.
- Document the authority boundary and verification recipes.

## Verification

- Red: the protected-source regression failed with expected recovered,
received blocked. It recorded source_binding_invalid before provider
resume.
- Green: 235 tests passed across workspace recovery, durable task Retry,
and environment runtime. These include saved files, newer local files,
bounded retries, competing owners, and no extra run or wake.
- pnpm -r typecheck and pnpm build passed. The initial sandboxed
typecheck could not open a tsx IPC pipe; the same command passed with
local process access.
- node scripts/check-maps.mjs and git diff --check passed.
- Live Daytona qualification passed using the same immutable snapshot ID
as the affected deployment. Export was interrupted after a real
download; a second controller restored the files and verified one
original agent start, one simulated external action, one saved snapshot,
and a stopped retained source. The disposable sandbox was deleted after
verification.
- Greptile reviewed 804dfe24ef at 5/5 with
no actionable findings or unresolved review threads.
- Full current-commit CI passed:
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39540771747.
Required ci / verify and ci / e2e passed. Superagent, Socket, and Snyk
checks passed.
- Full local pnpm test:run did not pass: 22,992 tests passed, one
managed-run identity test timed out at 60 seconds, and 100 tests skipped
across the first general-server phase. The command stopped before its
later phases. The unchanged agent-identity.test.ts suite then passed all
11 tests in isolation in 15.53 seconds. The original timeout remains
recorded; it is not reclassified as a full local pass. The same commit's
complete CI test matrix passed.
- The optional Paperclip Review completed with a neutral advisory 5/5 on
the same head and no actionable findings. It inspected all eight changed
files and connected code. It did not independently run tests or the
provider probe.
- Hosted ordinary Retry recorded one durable intent and no successor run
while file preservation remained blocked. The existing published review
stayed unchanged. Hosted recovery remains unverified until this
follow-up is deployed. A Retry acknowledgement alone does not prove
recovery.

## Risks

- Recovery can reopen a retained sandbox. The dedicated path requires
the current physical ownership claim and the exact source's stop-only
intent. It does not clear the ordinary protection marker.
- Provider failures retain the source and use the existing bounded
recovery budget. The provider cannot substitute another allocation.
- The live probe uses a disposable sandbox and simulated
agent/external-effect counters. It does not prove a live LLM or GitHub
review journey.
- No schema, public API, permission, budget, pause, or approval changes.

## Model Used

OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution,
browser verification, and test tools. The exact served model variant and
context window are not exposed by 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 (focused suites; full suite
still running)
- [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>
2026-10-21 07:27:45 -05:00
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