mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-11-14 17:22:00 +01:00
289b402c26f2ec419e1ef219c8f573ccc329a2aa
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
9c18cf61da |
fix(runner): keep discarded OpenCode token deltas from delaying tool calls (#20209)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Native OpenCode runs use a TypeScript app-server proxy between OpenCode and runnerd > - runnerd reads the proxy's frames in order, only after the controller acknowledges earlier events > - For each frame, runnerd rewrites its whole durable provider state with fsync, including every tool result that the turn retains > - The proxy sent one `item/delta` frame for each reasoning or tool-output token, and runnerd discards `item/delta` > - A Paperclip tool call request therefore waited behind hundreds of discarded frames, and the wait grew with each tool result in the turn > - This pull request stops the proxy from sending the token deltas that runnerd does not consume > - The benefit is that tool calls reach runnerd without that queue, so agent turns finish faster ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened** In the chat eval `plugins.configure-plugin` (runner-opencode, deepseek-v4.1-flash, GitHub Actions run 42574640038), `paperclip_search_api` calls in one turn slowed from about 1.4 s to 9-15 s each. The server handled every call in 50-250 ms (`tool.execution` spans). For one `call_api` call, 6.3 s passed between the server's 403 and the next agent activity. Time to first token was about 4.4 s. The run events show the cause. Events that OpenCode streams reach runnerd in bursts. In one burst, the usage events for three different model requests arrived within 0.5 s, which no model can do. Each burst ends with the next tool call request. 143 of 203 recorded runner-opencode runs that we checked show such bursts, and 108 show a gap of 8 s or more. Many chat eval cases that time out use this runner. The mechanism: 1. OpenCode streams reasoning one token at a time. The proxy forwarded each token as its own `item/delta` frame. 2. runnerd reads proxy frames in order and only after the controller acknowledges earlier events. For each frame it calls `save_state`. That serializes the whole provider state, with the tool results retained in the turn, and fsyncs it. 3. runnerd's Codex facade has no mapping for `item/delta`, so it discards the frame after the save. 4. A tool call request is one more frame in the same ordered stream. It waits until runnerd works through every earlier delta frame. The wait is about (reasoning tokens) x (save cost), and the save cost grows with each retained tool result. **Expected behavior** A Paperclip tool call reaches runnerd soon after OpenCode makes it. Its delay does not grow with the reasoning length or with the number of earlier tool calls in the turn. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run a native OpenCode chat turn with a reasoning model that makes many sequential Paperclip tool calls, for example `search_api`. 2. Compare each tool's `item.completed` tool_result time with the `tool.execution.completed` time and with the next `item.started` tool_use time in the run events. 3. See that the gap grows during the turn, and that events for several model requests arrive within less than one second. 4. For a local model of the mechanism: run the pinned OpenCode binary with a controlled OpenAI-compatible provider that streams 300 reasoning tokens before each tool call. Pass the driver events through the proxy's mapping and batching into a reader that consumes one frame at a time with a save cost that grows by 4 ms per completed tool result. Before this change, 8 sequential calls waited 1.7, 3.1, 4.2, 5.4, 6.7, 7.9, 9.2 and 10.5 s behind 142-261 queued frames. After this change, they waited 64-93 ms behind 0 frames. ## What Changed - `shouldForwardOpenCodeProxyItem` now takes the event type and payload. For `item.delta`, it forwards only assistant text (`agentMessage` or `text`), which runnerd maps to `item/agentMessage/delta`. - The proxy keeps reasoning and tool-output token deltas. Completed reasoning and tool items still go to runnerd as `item/completed`. Tool progress still goes as `item/updated`. - New regression test: a step with 1,000 streamed reasoning and tool-output tokens puts the same number of frames before the tool call request as a step with 1 token, and no `item/delta` frame is written. - New test: assistant text deltas are still forwarded. Completed reasoning items are still forwarded. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run src/cli/opencode-proxy-events.test.ts src/cli/opencode-proxy-output.test.ts` in `packages/paperclip-runner`: 15 passed. - Red/green: with the predicate change reverted, the two new tests fail. With the change, they pass. - `tsc --noEmit -p tsconfig.test.json` in `packages/paperclip-runner` has no errors in the changed files. Local errors exist only in `src/eval/workflow-harness.ts`, which needs a built `@paperclipai/paperclip-eval-kernel`. - Local before/after measurement with the real pinned OpenCode binary (`opencode-ai@1.18.34`), described in Steps to reproduce, step 4. - Not run locally: the suites that need the `paperclip-runnerd` debug binary or the bundled provider entrypoints (`runnerd-opencode-streaming-tools`, `runnerd-codex-transport`, `opencode-proxy-thread-read`). They fail the same way on the unchanged base in this worktree because those build outputs are missing. CI covers them. ## Risks - Low risk. The changed frames were discarded by runnerd. No persisted state shape changes, so no previous-release story is needed. - If runnerd later maps a reasoning delta method, the proxy must forward it with batching, as it does for assistant text. The test names this boundary. - This change does not change the per-frame durable save in runnerd. Mapped frames (assistant text, tool items) still pay it. A runnerd change that skips the save when a notification changes no state would protect other proxies too. That is a separate change. > 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 - Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 (`claude-opus-5-5`), used through Claude Code with tool use (shell, file edits, local benchmarks). ## 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge 🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code) --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
0f94521017 |
fix(runner): restore local session and task integrity (#12721)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane for agents that perform work. > - Paperclip Runner connects durable provider sessions to individual task runs through PRP. > - Provider continuity and per-run authority are different lifetimes. > - The existing implementation mixed those lifetimes and lost event metadata between provider frames, runnerd, persistence, API sanitization, and the task thread. > - That caused failed continuation, missing progress and Plans, duplicate replies, hidden failures, and unsafe recovery. > - This repair gives every heartbeat fresh authority, preserves qualified provider-session continuity, and restores one lossless presentation path without changing direct adapters. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A second native heartbeat could reuse tickets, leases, command receipts, sequence state, and run identity from the first heartbeat. Provider phase and item identity could be lost before the UI read them. Redaction could corrupt protocol discriminators while still missing malformed credential tails. The task thread could fold progress into the final response, hide failures, or show more than one final answer. Native Codex also exposed approval modes that do not yet have a durable approval bridge. **Expected behavior** Each heartbeat uses a new PRP authority epoch. Codex and OpenCode preserve exact qualified provider sessions; ACPX emits an explicit continuity event when its qualified process-replacement policy is used. Every accepted provider event is presented, classified as internal, or surfaced as unsupported. The task page shows chronological progress, reasoning summaries, activity, Plans, interactions, terminal failures, and exactly one final reply. Direct adapters retain their existing path. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable the unified experimental Paperclip Runner setting. 2. Create a local native Codex, OpenCode, ACPX Claude, or ACPX Codex agent. 3. Run response, Plan, structured-question/resume, restart, cancellation, and failure scenarios. 4. Reload the task while active, waiting, failed, and settled. 5. On the old implementation, observe stale run authority, missing classifications, incomplete output, or duplicated/folded replies. **Paperclip version or commit** The repair is based directly on `master` at `87d05e194b643810d16d20612115acd01d735d43`. **Deployment mode** Local development with the embedded database. Related work: Refs #12616, #12646, #12666, #12685, and #12700. ## What Changed - Rotates PRP control-plane, outbox, ticket, lease, command, receipt, and sequence authority for each heartbeat while carrying forward only a validated provider-session identity. - Reads `control-plane-state.json`, validates both durable schemas and lifecycle values, resumes coherent current runs, archives qualified settled authority, and quarantines malformed or mismatched scoped state without moving ambiguous live legacy state. - Preserves Codex provider phase and stable item identities so commentary remains progress and only `final_answer` becomes final. - Adds raw OpenCode HTTP/SSE boundary coverage and canonical reasoning lifecycle mapping. - Makes ACPX normalization lossless for visible reasoning, tool lifecycle metadata, stable bounded identities, Plan revisions, structured requests, failures, and qualified process replacement. Only the compatible terminal assistant message is promoted as final. - Applies schema-aware redaction before generic JWT-shaped detection and scans every diagnostic string leaf. Malformed raw/escaped quoted credential tails are redacted in both server and durable Rust state. - Restores snapshot-style chronological task presentation, expandable tool activity, inline Plan cards, visible waiting/resume/cancel/failure states, and exactly one final answer. - Makes `never` the only qualified native Codex permission mode and rejects unsupported persisted native modes with remediation. OpenCode and ACPX policies remain intact. - Keeps the unified experimental Runner setting as the only enablement flag. Onboarding and direct Codex, Claude, and OpenCode stay on their legacy execution/finalization paths. - Adds cross-language goldens, authority/recovery/fault coverage, exact response/count assertions, and native plus legacy acceptance scenarios. ## Verification - Pull-request GitHub Actions run Rust formatting/tests, TypeScript checks, server/UI tests, builds, protocol drift checks, browser E2E, and security scans. - A separate workflow-only validation ref is pinned directly on this PR head and runs the 35-cell paid local matrix: three core scenarios plus structured-question resume and restart/resume for native Codex, native OpenCode, ACPX Claude, ACPX Codex, and direct Codex/Claude/OpenCode. Run: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/33682434315 - Acceptance requires exact single visible replies, monotonic sequences, matching envelope discriminators, one semantic terminal, one run terminal, no unresolved interaction, no duplicate mutation, no secret leakage, provider continuity, and zero native rows for direct adapters. - Per maintainer direction, tests are running in GitHub Actions rather than on the slower local host. Only formatters and static diff checks were run locally. ## Risks - Recovery from old or partial filesystem state is sensitive. The repair fails closed, preserves active or unverifiable authority, and quarantines only state whose scoped ownership is safe to move. - Provider event formats can change. Closed validators and boundary goldens turn new or malformed events into visible diagnostics instead of silent drops. - Shared task presentation could affect direct adapters. Runtime-fact gating plus the direct-adapter matrix protect the existing path. - Managed and remote providers are not qualified here. Shared code continues to compile and fail safely, but live qualification is deferred. > 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 based on GPT-5. The exact deployed snapshot and context-window size are not exposed to this task. It used agentic reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, Git, parallel subagents, and GitHub Actions. ## 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass (intentionally deferred to GitHub Actions) - [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 risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] The paid local-provider matrix is green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
|
2e5a24e177 |
feat(runner): add qualified OpenCode runtime (#12588)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Paperclip Runner provides a durable execution boundary for supported providers. > - The current production runtime supports Codex but cannot execute OpenCode sessions. > - OpenCode needs a qualified transport, strict input mapping, and normalized events. > - This pull request adds the OpenCode runtime as one isolated provider unit. > - The benefit is a reviewable provider expansion that does not weaken the existing Codex path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: packages/paperclip-runner and the Codex-local adapter configuration contract. **Problem or motivation** Paperclip Runner has provider-neutral contracts, but the production backend factory cannot start a qualified OpenCode session. This blocks OpenCode from using the durable runner path. **Proposed solution** Add the qualified OpenCode app-server proxy, driver, MCP bridge, backend, fixtures, and factory wiring. Keep existing Codex behavior unchanged. **Alternatives considered** Keeping OpenCode only on the direct adapter path would avoid this runtime work, but it would not provide durable runner recovery or normalized provider events. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting provider-runtime project. This change extends the existing Paperclip Runner architecture. ## What Changed - Added the qualified OpenCode app-server proxy and input queue. - Added collaboration-mode and provider-event normalization. - Added the OpenCode MCP bridge and native session backend. - Added strict fixtures and focused unit coverage. - Added only the package exports and adapter configuration required by this runtime. - Kept deferred SDK, lab, eval, and public package surfaces out of this change. ## Verification - GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this PR. - Run the package type checks and focused OpenCode tests in CI. - Run repository typecheck, test, build, security, and policy gates through the stack-aware workflow. - Local tests were not run because this checkout is resource constrained. ## Risks - OpenCode protocol changes could affect event normalization or recovery. - The driver fails closed on malformed input and unsupported runtime behavior. - Existing Codex selection remains unchanged unless the stored provider is OpenCode. > 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. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel agent review. ## 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 linked existing issues or described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local Paperclip issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout - [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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge ## Stack - Position: 1 of 4 - Base: master - Next: additional qualified provider runtimes |