2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
3 people	df6156c2e3	fix(server): wake native status reassessment from committed changes (#17709) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents, tasks and their durable native results. > - Changed evidence, task authority or review retirement can require a new status assessment. > - Periodic orphan recovery repeatedly reads history to find these changes. > - This change gives reassessment an owner driven by committed changes and saved deadlines. > - Existing result, assessment, decision and task rows remain durable truth. > - The status committer still verifies current sources and authority before writing. > - Settled or insufficient evidence becomes quiet until a supported producer changes it. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #17702 (merged), #17679 and #17680. This is slice 50, now based on master. It owns native status reassessment; workspace settlement, retained sessions and other orphan duties remain separate. **What happened?** Periodic recovery repeatedly inspects completed native results. Removing that scan without complete writer coverage or current authority checks could strand new evidence or commit an old result over newer work. **Expected behavior** Reassess from existing durable facts after relevant outer transactions commit. Retain real retry/lease deadlines and restart/drain recovery. Preserve current authority, quality-review and supersession checks. Make no recurring SQL when work is settled or dormant. **Steps to reproduce** Complete a native result awaiting evidence or review, leave it idle, then approve a real work product or retire the selected automatic review. Its saved result should advance once when authorized, or record the existing nonterminal business gate, without a periodic scan. ## What Changed - Extract reassessment and its pure status policy from finalization recovery into their owning modules. Add a scoped worker using the existing delivery coordinator and scheduler; no queue table or migration is added. - Retain the three durable discovery triggers: changed work-product history, authoritative task status/version, or retirement of the selected automatic completion review. Preserve selected-source, ownership, effects, retry and lease fences under the existing committer. - Notify from actual task/work-product, claim release, approval, interaction, OAuth, event evidence and workspace-settlement owners before their transaction writes. Keep provider calls outside short transactions and nested writes behind outer commit. - Scope ordinary milestone/finalization/coalesced-input wakes to an issue/run. Keep genuine company authority restoration explicit. Real Photon and coalescer regressions cover all three response/status queues. - Move the current parent's required quality policy into the owner and apply it to every reassessment that could complete a task. An unmet review records the existing in-progress decision and next action, avoiding an operational retry loop. Preserve conversation/session reset locks and the workspace omission-barrier signal. - Skip reassessment in periodic recovery while preserving explicit/startup recovery and the historical supersession guard before independent workspace work. Document the source contract, producer inventory, failures and qualifications in the linked audit. ## Verification - Broad source `9fddb3f0b1157df32b64fb1f22e9d6e9624470e8` passes **2731 distinct cases in 28 complete files**, with no skips: 2458 producer/owner/authority/workspace/quality cases in 394.43 seconds and all 273 governed-response cases in 53.74 seconds. Nineteen dedicated fresh PostgreSQL 17 databases migrate through 0413; eighteen embedded-only invocations preserve fresh-per-call isolation through the existing recovery helper. All 22 temporary imports restore exactly and all 28 hashes match. - Final runtime source `5ea3b0fd016bf7e63ba82a7044825a46a0cd2082` passes **1211 cases in five complete affected files** in 108.23 seconds after the narrowly reproduced evidence-trigger fix: all 43 worker, 145 corpus, 32 finalization-recovery, 968 native-session and 23 quality-review cases. Four fresh databases plus the quality helper's own fresh fixture use PostgreSQL 17. Its one adapted import restores exactly; all five hashes match. The other 27 broad-run test files are unchanged. These qualifications are source-scoped and not cumulatively double-counted. - Required/optional real regressions reproduce retry loops on retired-review and evidence-approval paths before repair; both become SQL quiet afterward with unchanged assertions/time limits. Controlled removal of only ordinary scope guards reproduces two coarse-hint SQL failures; exact guard restoration passes. Real producer, outer transaction, claim, authority, 103-item backlog, retry and drain cases pass. Photon transport is mocked; callbacks, locks and observed SQL are real. - Normal merges preserve 12661 parent/unrelated entries, 35 owned entries and 21 automatic shared results, with five original conflicts reviewed explicitly. The parent's actual squash reconciliation preserves the entire held child tree. The final quality fix changes only its owner and tests. Fourteen added comments are removed with identical nontrivia tokens; no directives are removed and the final comment check is empty. - Database build, server types/build, boundaries and exact-head migration order pass. The database tree is identical to merged #17702: no new SQL, queue table or snapshot is generated. Earlier benchmarks, host limitations, failed assertions and their repairs remain in `doc/plans/2026-10-26-native-status-reassessment-sleep-audit.md` and `doc/idle-native-status-reassessment.md`. - This qualifies targeted external PostgreSQL behavior, not embedded bootstrap on the semaphore-exhausted host, a full local repository suite, deployed sleep or measured fleet savings. Fresh exact-head CI and review remain required. ## Risks - Notifications retain the process-local supported-writer contract. Independent SQL writers and uncoordinated replicas are not covered by a new transport. - Reassessment competes with current authority changes. Existing row/source locks and retries remain required; arbitrary missing identities have no row to lock, so this is not a general predicate-lock guarantee. - Discovery pages 100 rows but retains outstanding candidates in memory. It remains proportional to backlog size, and cancellation occurs between queries. - Other orphan/workspace/session duties and Cloud sleep eligibility remain unchanged. Missing supported producer coverage could strand dormant work, so the producer audit and real callback/transaction tests remain part of acceptance. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with reasoning, repository tools, shell execution and PostgreSQL tests. The runtime does not expose a more specific serving snapshot 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 (targeted scope is stated 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> Co-authored-by: Codex <noreply@openai.com>	2026-10-29 03:40:01 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip	4173059081	fix(inbox): keep advisory GitHub review waits quiet (#17318) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Mine shows a person's participation and requests that need their response. > - Automatic GitHub reviews should remain quiet until the assigned work needs human input. > - Review bots used completion requests to keep tasks in review while CI or a PR was still open. > - Those requests correctly entered Mine, despite the automatic-work filter from #16356. > - This pull request gives published reviews an existing provider-event wait in the in-review state and withdraws superseded completion requests. > - Real input requests and separate approval gates keep their current behavior. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #16356 Refs #13314 An advisory score below 5/5, pending or failed CI, or an unmerged PR does not by itself require a person's approval in Paperclip. The bot can track those conditions without adding a completion card to Mine. ## What Changed - Explain the quiet review lifecycle in the GitHub review instructions. Use a yielded provider-event wait, or an existing saved monitor, after publication. Report done when the configured completion conditions are met. - Keep a confirmed, published review in `in_review` during that wait. Reuse existing authorization and monitor delivery. Add no schema, timer, or polling loop. - Recognize the committed external wait in review attention and recovery. Shared execution receives a verified publication flag; GitHub receipt lookup stays with the GitHub module. Other chat waits keep their current status. - Withdraw an older system-created completion request only when the same bot has published both reviews and its new report has no attention request. Keep explicit cards, separate approval gates, and requests without the prior review evidence. Finish validation stays read-only; withdrawal commits atomically with the new status after checking current governance, the admitted result, and both low-risk contracts. - Update the product rule, capability maps, and regression coverage. ## Verification - Final commit `7c502118eec36028d1b4537bb8797ef893940bf0`: 54 GitHub checks passed, two intentionally skipped, none pending or failed. Greptile is 5/5, the security scan passed, and all review threads are resolved. - Passed: `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Rechecked server typecheck and build after the final authorization guard. - Passed: 195 tests across `external-chat-wait.integration.test.ts`, `status-arbiter.test.ts`, `review-instructions.test.ts`, and `issue-liveness.test.ts`. The database suite used an isolated PostgreSQL 18 container through `PAPERCLIP_TEST_DATABASE_URL`. - Acceptance coverage: 3/5 stays in review outside Mine; 5/5 with pending completion conditions stays in review; 5/5 with satisfied conditions finishes quietly; a real repository-access request enters Mine until resolved. Also covers obsolete-card withdrawal, transaction rollback, rejected reports, separate approval gates, multiple reviewed heads, saved monitors, and revoked endpoints, repositories, or membership. - Passed: `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, `node scripts/check-module-boundaries.mjs`, and `git diff --check`. - The initial acceptance run exposed a missing authenticated user in the test fixture. Added the user required by the existing addressee authorization check. All 154 tests in that database suite then passed, including the final rerun. - Review found premature withdrawal during validation, stale repository access, and a missed receipt when a run reviewed multiple heads. The revision fixes all three and includes acceptance regressions. The saved-monitor commit guard now accepts the verified published-review state. - `pnpm test:run` was attempted but could not complete on this Mac. Embedded PostgreSQL failed to allocate semaphores (`semget: No space left on device`); a direct initialization probe confirmed the host resource limit. The isolated database run proves the affected suite, not the full repository suite. - These tests exercise persisted review receipts, finalization, and Mine queries. They do not prove a live model followed the new instructions or submit a live GitHub review. ## Risks - The bot must follow the new lifecycle instructions. A real explicit attention request still enters Mine. - Existing obsolete cards are withdrawn when the same bot publishes a later review and reports no human dependency. This change does not run a bulk cleanup of historical inbox entries. - Review attention now recognizes an external response path. It requires an applied current status decision, a successful bound run, and current conversation, repository, and principal authorization. - No migration or UI change. The full local test suite is unverified because of the host database limit; CI passes on the final commit. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with reasoning, repository inspection, code editing, and test execution. The exact deployment model ID 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 `#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 (195 focused tests; full-suite limitation 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>	2026-10-23 07:14:40 -07:00