2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
DottaandPaperclip	663c44cb2b	fix: continue conversations after confirmed remote runner stop (#13254) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Users can stop a run and send another message on the same task. > - Remote runners need evidence from their sandbox provider that execution stopped. > - Local process checks cannot prove that a remote process exited. > - This pull request records provider stop receipts and uses them for conversation admission. > - New user messages can proceed after confirmed cleanup without repeating interrupted actions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #13237 and #13239. Related: #13163 covers app-restart recovery; this change covers an explicit stop followed by a new user message. **What happened?** A stopped remote Claude ACP task kept its execution hold after Daytona cleanup succeeded. Native runners also rejected remote process identities and retained stale session cleanup gates. A message sent during cleanup could stay deferred after the sandbox stopped. **Expected behavior** After the provider confirms that the old execution stopped, a new user message starts a fresh turn. Pending user messages must not need another message to trigger admission. Prior action outcomes remain recorded. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start a long-running task in Daytona with a legacy Claude ACP or native ACP runner. 2. Cancel the run while its tool is active. 3. Send a new message immediately, or after cleanup completes. 4. Observe the execution hold despite the old sandbox having stopped. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at 7b829efdf6. The branch is rebased on current master. ## What Changed - Add optional provider stop receipts to sandbox release and destroy hooks. Old plugins remain compatible. - Bind receipts to the company, run, lease, and provider resource. Failed cleanup cannot supply stop authority. - Acknowledge legacy remote cancellation after confirmed termination. - Admit native user continuations using remote receipts instead of host process checks. - Retire only the settled cleanup owner matching the stopped company, run, and provider resource. Isolate cleanup gates between remote sandboxes, including two sandboxes owned by one run. - Reconsider user messages deferred during remote cleanup through normal admission, including successful later cleanup retries. - Preserve receipts through cleanup retries and inline cleanup after failed startup. - Permit provider destruction after a terminal remote checkpoint failure. Busy ownership still blocks destruction. - Add regression tests and update execution semantics. - Give the real preview fixture ten seconds for cold startup. Reuse release-mode Rust artifacts for the filtered parity checks, avoiding a duplicate debug test build that exhausted CI disk twice; test filters and assertions are unchanged. ## Verification - Recursive typecheck and build passed. - Targeted server, Daytona plugin, and native runtime tests passed. They cover missing or mismatched receipts, failed cleanup, local process protection, exact cleanup ownership, and a message sent during cleanup. - Live Daytona tests passed for legacy Claude ACP, native per-turn, native warm, and a newly created native runner using disposable sandboxes. Each original run was cancelled; its explicit follow-up completed with no execution hold. The disposable case confirmed a new sandbox after deletion. - Native tests used the provider's Opus 5 selector, `opus[1m]`, and the Linux runner bundle from the sandbox image. Existing checkpoint/sync finalization warnings remained visible before the native follow-ups reached committed success. This change does not repair those separate warnings or guarantee recovery of uncheckpointed files. - A direct live provider test also passed with the final delete-wait change: the destroy hook returned its receipt only after Daytona reported the sandbox destroyed. The final Daytona plugin suite passed all 153 tests; its build passed. - After rebasing on master, 284 targeted server/plugin tests and 313 native executor tests passed. The native session runtime suite passed all 128 tests. - The review regression passed all 145 tests across the continuation, environment runtime, and pending-cleanup sweep suites. Recursive typecheck and build passed again after that fix. - The security review's exact-resource finding is fixed. Cleanup completion requires the same provider-resource scope used during session creation. All 128 native runtime tests, 61 server continuation/cleanup tests, recursive typecheck, and build passed after this fix. The two-sandboxes-in-one-run regression proves one receipt cannot retire the other quarantine. - Greptile reviewed the final commit at 5/5, the security scan passed, and no review threads remain unresolved. The final native executor suite also passed all 313 tests. - The full local suite reached 10,616 passing tests before stopping on four failures. All four now pass in focused reruns: the final-code continuation/teardown suites, the attachment suite, and the native session test after building its required fake-provider binary. The original full run overlapped source edits and did not reach the remaining groups; it is not counted as a full-suite pass. - The preview exposure suite passed all 25 applicable tests (three Linux-only tests skipped locally) after the startup allowance change. Both release-mode Rust parity commands passed locally. All final-head PR checks passed, including full server/workspace/browser test groups, full native runner verification, build, typecheck, canary dry-run, and the aggregate gates. ## Risks - A provider must return a receipt only after confirmed termination. Incorrect provider claims could permit overlapping execution. - Older providers without receipts retain the existing hold. Missing evidence, failed cleanup, active ownership, pauses, approvals, and budgets still block admission. - This change preserves unknown action outcomes and old checkpoints. It does not authorize replay or alter historical runs. - No database migration or telemetry contract change is required. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with repository inspection, code execution, and browser tools. The exact backend revision 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 references) - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run targeted 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>	2026-09-11 15:18:37 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	5545f6d166	feat: let user messages continue stopped native tasks (#13239) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their tasks. > - A failed native run can leave a durable execution hold. > - The hold prevents automatic replay of actions with unknown outcomes. > - It can also prevent the agent from answering a new user message. > - A new user message should authorize a fresh turn after the prior execution stops. > - This pull request adds that admission path and preserves the existing execution gates. > - Users can continue the conversation without certifying every past action. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Server task wake admission and native execution recovery. **Problem or motivation** A native task can remain blocked after automatic recovery stops. A new user message is saved, but its run is cancelled before the agent can answer. **Proposed solution** Use a new authenticated user comment to authorize a fresh turn. Check stopped predecessor ownership and available history. Retain uncertain action outcomes. Commit the new run and hold retirement together. **Roadmap alignment** This is a focused improvement to the existing self-healing runs and recovery behavior. Builds on merged #13237, which covers legacy conversation continuation. This PR adds native admission and preserves native automatic-recovery eligibility and budgets. ## What Changed - Admit a fresh native turn for a new user comment after every held predecessor has stopped. - Validate the comment author, task, timing, process ownership, controller, and cleanup leases. - Preserve failed runs, unknown action outcomes, and the failed incident's attempt count. - Record the new comment and run in the existing recovery audit history. - Validate the saved continuation source and discard consumed user-wake authority from later automatic replacements. - Keep pause, approval, budget, ownership, and dependency interaction rules. - Add database and actual wake-path regressions. Update the execution contract. ## Verification - [Full CI run 34626750213](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/34626750213) passed on `c58e6c087e0df7530c747d80b27d491da925a9c4`: all 31 reported checks passed, including all server/workspace suites, browser shards, native runner verification, build, typecheck, release dry run, and aggregate gates. The two conditional Storybook checks were skipped. - Greptile reviewed this exact head at 5/5. All review threads are resolved, and security checks passed. - All 218 local targeted tests passed across explicit native continuation, continuation history, safe replacement, durable chat wakeups, wake queue, issue liveness, native session resume, and run dispatch. The native implementation is unchanged by the final rebase onto master. - Full workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final head. Complete test coverage is supplied by the green CI suites; local tests used the targeted suites above. - Regressions cover scoped authorization, concurrent delivery, live ownership, later admission gates, retained message receipts, and automatic replacement after terminal-task or reviewer changes. ## Risks - A fresh model turn can choose to repeat an action. Paperclip preserves prior history and does not replay recorded calls. - Missing process identity and remote ownership without a target-aware stop proof retain the hold. A terminal database row alone does not prove that execution stopped. - No schema or dependency changes. Existing historical tasks are not awakened by deployment. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and test execution. This session does not expose a more specific model build ID or context-window size. ## 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>	2026-09-11 12:33:57 -05:00