mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-29 04:25:52 +01:00
3d07e06be7ff24c04e8143eda1e893cf54349652
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
bf3ef12f3a |
fix(evals): qualify model spend separately from operating costs (#17928)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agent work and its budgets. > - Product E2E campaigns must explain each model request and attempt. > - The current completion gate also requires complete operating-cost evidence. > - Long-lived observability and storage charges can block a campaign after its model receipts are complete. > - An operator can now choose model-request readiness in a retained allowance. > - The report keeps full accounting, operating holds and model readiness separate. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17889, #17523, #17452. **What happened?** A hosted campaign could pass both product cases and retain complete model receipts, yet fail readiness because operating charges were unresolved. **Expected behavior** An explicit model-readiness policy permits complete model receipts to qualify a run. Unknown operating charges stay visible and reserved. Missing model receipts and budget violations still block qualification. **Steps to reproduce** Use a campaign with four unresolved operating reservations and one completed model request. The regression checks readiness before and after the final model receipt, then checks an operating overrun. The default policy retains the original full-accounting gate. ## What Changed - Add the explicit `accountingReadiness: "model_requests"` allowance policy. Bind it into operating-bound configuration when present. - Derive a model subtotal and receipt-coverage projection from the retained journal. Show it beside full accounting and retained holds. - Use the selected readiness policy in scheduled finalization. Keep product, cleanup, feedback, trace and budget checks. - Refresh two existing eval prerequisites found by the full unit suite: the active Copilot image identity and the model-account catalog mapping. - Document the policy and its limit: it does not certify a full-lifecycle operating-cost ceiling. ## Verification - Regression failed on the old implementation with `Invalid operating overhead fields` and passed after the change. - Focused accounting/operations/finalization checks: 54 tests passed before the final policy assertions. - Existing image/catalog failures reproduced, then their 12 checks passed after the metadata repairs. - Product E2E unit suite: 4,360 passed and 2 skipped, plus 137 Node checks. Product E2E and workspace typechecks and workspace build passed. - Review regressions: 35 focused accounting/finalization checks passed on |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
b6e690044a |
feat(evals): allow reviewed bounded provisional accounting (#17365)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Product E2E campaigns include model, setup, storage and observability costs. > - Some billing windows close after the tests and reports finish. > - Requiring settled receipts for retained storage can block a good campaign for weeks. > - A reservation alone does not prove that a pending charge has an upper bound. > - This change permits provisional completion only with reviewed evidence for the exact cost configuration. > - Reports preserve unknown amounts and holds until later reconciliation. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs: #17360, #17354 **What existing behavior does this improve?** The Product E2E scheduled accounting gate and its retained cost reports. **Current behavior** Every pending receipt fails finalization. A completed test can wait through the retained-storage billing window. The journal has dollar reservations but no explicit qualification of their bounds. **Proposed behavior** Permit provisional completion when all pending charges have reviewed full-lifecycle bounds, no requests remain in flight, no receipts conflict, and known costs plus held amounts fit the campaign limit. Keep all existing holds and receipt-finality rules. Missing evidence still fails. **Reason and benefit** An operator can distinguish delayed but bounded billing from unbounded or missing costs. The campaign can finish without claiming that its invoice is settled. **Breaking changes** The journal accepts optional bound metadata and an invalidation record. New reports add an optional bounded-pending count. Current readers retain old journals and reports without granting them bounds. Older code must not read new bound-bearing journals. The existing daily/weekly enable gates and budget amounts stay unchanged. **Additional context** This implements the operator-approved provisional-cost policy for the existing eval harness. It does not change product budgets or the agent-eval roadmap. A targeted GitHub search found no duplicate open PR. ## What Changed - Accounting owns a narrow evidence contract: a reviewed audit hash, exact configuration hash and full-lifecycle scope. - Gateway reservations retain that evidence before dispatch. Changed limits or rates fail before dispatch. Unexpected routing, model identity or excessive usage invalidates a bound durably. - Operating allowances can carry separately reviewed bounds for each cost component, including its full storage lifetime. No existing allowance becomes qualified by default. - Reports and Braintrust experiment metadata distinguish provisional accounting, complete receipts, blocked accounting and unavailable evidence. Public output omits private audit hashes. - Scheduled finalization allows qualified provisional costs and explicitly rejects spending overruns, including overruns with complete receipts. - Add regressions for legacy data, restarts, late reconciliation, conflicts, malformed evidence, routing uncertainty and exceeded limits. Document the evidence and migration boundaries. ## Verification - Full offline eval-support suite: 4,062 Vitest tests passed, two existing tests skipped; 137 Node tests passed. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck`: passed. - `git diff --check`: passed. - Read the retained hosted qualification journal with the new policy. All six legacy pending charges remain unqualified. Known cost `$0.421245200`, held `$19.327680000`, and committed `$19.748925200` remain unchanged. The journal's SHA-256 is unchanged. The original failed workflow remains failed. - No paid models, network provider calls, receipt imports or reservation releases were used for this verification. - Rebased onto master `4d90634f74`; 142 targeted tests and typecheck passed. - Review reproduced a lost OpenAI input-total limit check when cache details were missing (1 failed, 47 passed). Fix `5fef9ba7c149951a51eae468614a4b89f0b3d6db` preserves unpriced provider usage bounds. Then 178 focused tests, full offline support and typecheck passed. - Current-head hosted CI passed: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/40020746585 (attempt 2). Typecheck, build, all general/Runner/serialized tests and browser gates are green. - CI attempt 1 hit a PostgreSQL deadlock in unchanged chat-test cleanup; its skipped flag restoration caused a second assertion failure. One failed-jobs-only retry passed. Original failure evidence is preserved in attempt 1. No paid eval campaign was rerun. - Greptile reviewed exact head `5fef9ba7c149951a51eae468614a4b89f0b3d6db` at 5/5; its one finding is fixed and resolved. The optional Paperclip review is paused and supplied no assessment. ## Risks - Evidence hashes bind an audit to a configuration; they do not prove the audit is true. Operators must review real provider limits, all price tiers, full resource lifetimes and enforceable infrastructure limits before configuring bounds. - Provisional completion is not invoice settlement. Later billing can reveal overruns, which must be reconciled and inspected. The ledger cannot stop external billing. - Existing pilot journals, configured allowances and price cards have no new bound approval. This PR alone does not qualify or enable recurring paid work. - The gateway cannot qualify a canceled Braintrust request without route confirmation. It preserves that unknown hold. - No new dependency, secret, repository variable, workflow, schedule or cloud resource changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family. The exact deployment ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools and code execution. No paid evaluation model calls were made for this change. ## 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
|
3bd709df8b |
Operationalize Product E2E accounting, tracing, and scheduling (#17009)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents and the work they perform. > - Product E2E tests exercise real agents, tools, setup and cleanup. > - Repeated runs need retained costs and traces, including failed attempts. > - A passing retry must not hide earlier spending or feedback. > - Recurring work also needs admission limits, private reports and failure detection. > - This change supplies those controls while keeping paid activation behind existing gates. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16996 and #17158. This is the consolidated landing of the reviewed eval operations stack: #17019, #17024, #17025, #17027, #17030, #17033, #17035, #17038, #17043, #17044, #17048, #17050, #17051, #17092, #17096, #17100, #17107, #17109, #17112, #17115, #17117, #17121, #17123, #17127, #17130, #17133, #17134, #17137, #17140, #17143, #17154. The repository permits squash merges only. A local rehearsal showed that squashing each slice into master causes repeated conflicts in dependent slices. This PR preserves their commits and lands their combined implementation in one reviewed integration. Superseded slices will close after this merge. ## What Changed - Retain every attempt's cost receipt, including setup, failures, interruptions and retries. Separate reported amounts, estimates, missing costs and reserved capacity in reports and dashboards. - Add bounded request admission, exact model pricecards, gateway error accounting, cache policy and reconciliation evidence. Refuse unsupported routes and requests that cannot fit the allowance. - Integrate Braintrust gateway traces and OTLP correlation, with secret filtering and experiment imports. Record phase timing, including setup, feedback capture and cleanup. - Collect complaint and suggestion evidence after each attempt, including recovery after failures. Retain explicit review dispositions independently from the product grade. - Add gated daily and weekly selections, measured forecasts, setup/readiness checks, wall-time limits and retained monitor notifications. Include declared non-model overhead in admission while reporting the existing subscription separately. - Keep recurring history private, bound uploads and retention, and use isolated archive environments. Keep public publication an explicit operation. Report and publication jobs install only the committed lockfile, with scripts disabled and isolated stores; stale pins fail closed. - Integrate current master, preserve its Product E2E journey billing and privacy checks, and test that shared setup receipts do not double-count estimated agent usage. Preserve upstream fixture repairs. ## Verification - Complete integration baseline `0649a5ce7544ab20825c2183d2f421157db49f24` includes master `a3e1d915a7110a4e115b46396a3f79e6dfb4d05e` and every original stack head as ancestors. - On that integration baseline, `pnpm test:e2e:runner:unit`: 4,012 Vitest tests passed, two skipped, across 193 files; all 137 Node source-contract tests passed. - Focused billing and Product E2E journey contract checks: 24 tests passed. They cover estimates, unknown receipts, single-owner setup costs, browser-only execution and private publication guards. - Monitor and workflow wiring: all 96 Node tests passed. `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`: all gates clean. - `pnpm test:e2e:runner:typecheck` passes after the standard Runner TypeScript build refreshed local declarations. The first attempt rejected the new master `runner_prepared_launch` union member because this checkout retained an older generated declaration; the source union already contained that member. - Current head `492b0708a1c531a023d9ac10f0f3dc6383cc1754` removes dependency re-resolution from archive-authorized reporting jobs after the security scan flagged it. All 15 workflow-security tests pass after updating the old two-install assertion. - Hosted [CI run 39965460180](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/39965460180) passes on the current repaired head, including typecheck, build, general tests, Runner checks, browser shards and canary dry run. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact head with no unresolved threads. The security scan passes after the fixed lockfile-resolution thread was resolved. - Paperclip Review returned a terminal neutral check but an incomplete 0-file assessment on the repaired head: its platform blocked both diff responses as prompt-injection content. This is not a successful code review. No bypass or fabricated pass was attempted; current-head Greptile, security and hosted CI are independent gates. - No paid test, reservation release or recurring-run activation accompanies this landing. Live route qualification and invoice reconciliation remain separate evidence. <details> <summary>Retained earlier validation failures</summary> Earlier broad local runs had two 15-second test timeouts (CLI poll cadence and Retry validation), one embedded-database setup timeout, and later PostgreSQL semaphore exhaustion. The exact timed-out tests passed separately without larger timeouts; the broad-run causes were not established. Those local failures remain distinct from subsequent hosted CI results. The independent #17158 fix records its Muse fixture collision, its UUID correction and hosted verification. Local Muse execution was also blocked by macOS embedded-PostgreSQL startup. No historical failure is treated as a successful paid qualification. </details> ## Risks - Admission is a local control, not a provider invoice cap. Missing provider receipts or resource charges retain unknown amounts and holds; estimates do not become billed dollars. - The bounded path admits only documented local suites and provider routes. Ordinary legacy or separate Runner protocol campaigns have different controls. Merging this code does not qualify additional routes. - Recurrence still needs the existing enable gates and current qualification/allowance evidence. Archive permissions and resources must match the documented private-environment contract. - Legacy reports may lack complete attempt or phase evidence. Reports preserve that limitation and do not infer zero usage from missing data. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, repository tools and code execution. The exact deployment variant and context-window size 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 (targeted checks; full-suite host limitation disclosed 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> |