mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-22 16:51:28 +02:00
46cbfc67a3bd317ba2844a557b26c8b8fda080b9
8
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Dotta
|
68cb3d17ae |
Carry explicit existing-branch intent in workspace realization
Keep requested branch attachment separate from ownership established by realization, and round-trip the optional intent through the shared request contract.
Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
(cherry picked from commit
|
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
a14e51d592 |
refactor(environment): classify environment capabilities from static driver definitions (#12045)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Environment runtime drivers provide workspace, lease, and custom image behavior > - Runtime code used driver identity checks and several capability-specific members > - These checks spread capability rules across the runtime and made new drivers harder to verify > - This pull request adds one general capability classifier and one static driver support table > - The benefit is one fail-closed capability model that keeps current behavior and supports future drivers ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Environment runtime capability checks for workspace realization, custom images, lease capabilities, and duplex authorization. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting (multiple of the above) **Current behavior** The runtime selects several capability paths from driver identity and separate capability members. Custom image gates also trust provider declarations without checking every matching live worker method. **Proposed behavior** The runtime uses one general capability classifier and one static support table. Custom image gates require both the provider declaration and every matching live worker method. The public capability names remain unchanged. **Reason and benefit** The change keeps capability rules in one place. It removes identity conditions from runtime consumers and makes unsupported drivers fail closed. **Breaking changes** None. The public names sandboxCapabilities, sandboxProviders, and EffectiveSandboxCapabilities remain available. ## What Changed - Add classifyEnvironmentCapabilities and static support definitions for all four driver families. - Add resolveCapabilities to every environment runtime driver. - Move driver traits into environment-driver-traits.ts and migrate runtime consumers. - Require provider declarations and matching live worker methods for all custom image gates. - Migrate duplex authorization to the general resolver and remove the dead sandbox-only member. - Delete the unused resolveEffectiveSandboxCapabilities wrapper and update its test. ## Verification - pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server typecheck - pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-capability-contract.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-runtime.test.ts — 92 tests pass - pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-driver-traits.test.ts server/src/__tests__/general-capability-classifier.test.ts — 12 tests pass - pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/environment-custom-images-service.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-capabilities.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-duplex.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-execution-target-duplex-kill-switch.test.ts — 66 tests pass ## Risks The main risk is a capability gate that denies a valid driver or permits an invalid driver. The static support matrix, live worker method checks, and regression tests reduce this risk. No database, public API, or published type name changes. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, with tool use and code execution. The deployment does not provide a separate context-window value. ## 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 (for example, docs/... or 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> |
||
|
|
417336f8be |
fix(workspaces): attach PR preparation to existing branches (#11703)
<!-- Write all pull request text in Simplified Technical English (ASD-STE100): short sentences, one instruction per sentence, simple approved vocabulary, and the active voice. --> ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Execution workspaces isolate an agent task from the primary checkout. > - Pull request preparation can need a branch that already contains completed work. > - The workspace policy could not require an exact existing branch. > - Workspace cleanup also treated worktree creation as branch ownership. > - This pull request adds an exact existing-branch policy and separate branch ownership metadata. > - The benefit is safe pull request preparation that preserves every existing commit and operator-owned branch. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A pull request preparation run could not pin its execution workspace to an exact existing branch. Workspace reuse and cleanup could also confuse worktree creation with branch ownership. **Expected behavior** The run must attach only to the requested branch in an isolated Git worktree. It must fail if the branch is missing, busy, or inconsistent. Cleanup must not delete a branch that Paperclip does not own. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a branch that contains completed work. 2. Configure a pull request preparation task to use that branch. 3. Start the task and observe that the prior policy cannot require the exact branch. **Paperclip version or commit** This behavior reproduces on the base revision before this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local development with isolated Git worktrees. ## What Changed - Add `existingBranch` to the execution workspace policy and shared validation contracts. - Require `existingBranch` to use an isolated Git worktree and reject conflicting branch templates. - Attach to the exact branch without creating, renaming, resetting, or deleting it. - Track branch ownership separately from worktree creation and use that ownership during cleanup. - Return HTTP 422 for invalid existing-branch settings on every issue-producing route. - Add a bounded repair script for existing pull request preparation tasks. - Add focused policy, route, heartbeat, runtime, and ready-comment tests. - Document the exact-branch behavior and safety rules. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/execution-workspace-policy.test.ts server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-workspace-session.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-existing-branch-validation-status.test.ts server/src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts server/src/services/workspace-runtime-exposure.test.ts server/src/services/workspace-runtime-ready-comment.test.ts` passed 335 tests. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed for all workspace projects. - `pnpm test:run` passed 4,431 tests. Two unrelated embedded-Postgres setup hooks timed out under aggregate load. Their isolated rerun passed 74 tests. - `pnpm build` passed for all workspace projects. - The two review regressions passed with 139 unrelated tests skipped. - All latest-head CI gates passed after one unrelated timing-sensitive test passed on rerun. - Greptile scored the latest head 5/5 with no unresolved review threads. ## Risks - Invalid workspace settings now return HTTP 422 instead of a generic validation response. - The exact branch must already exist and must not be checked out by another worktree. - The new policy fails closed when it cannot prove branch identity or ownership. - This change has no database migration. > 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 from the GPT-5 family assisted with this change. The runtime did not expose its exact deployment ID or context window. The agent used high-reasoning mode, repository tools, shell execution, and code execution. ## 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
|
dcac49a4fd |
feat(workspaces): defer isolated setup until runtime start (#10653)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Isolated workspaces give each task a safe and reproducible checkout. > - The existing setup cloned the development database before an agent needed to run the app. > - This made worktree creation slower and heavier for tasks that never start a service. > - Runtime services already use one server start path for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. > - This pull request moves heavy setup to that start path and keeps worktree creation lean. > - The benefit is faster isolated workspace creation with the same reliable runtime setup when a service starts. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related pull request: #10652 covers the initial deferred database-seeding slice. This pull request supersedes it with end-to-end runtime provisioning and safe cleanup. **What existing behavior does this improve?** This improves isolated worktree creation, runtime service startup, and isolated instance cleanup. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: CLI worktree setup, server runtime orchestration, shared workspace contracts, and development scripts. **Current behavior** Paperclip seeds an isolated development database during worktree creation. It can also leave an isolated instance directory after workspace teardown. This work happens even when no runtime service starts. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip creates the worktree with a lean eager setup. It runs an idempotent runtime provision command before the first managed service spawn. Concurrent starts share one provision attempt. Teardown removes the isolated instance safely. **Reason and benefit** Many agent tasks only edit and test code. They do not need a running Paperclip instance. Deferring the database seed reduces workspace startup cost while preserving automatic setup for tasks that start the app. **Breaking changes** None. The new runtime provision command is optional. Existing workspace behavior is unchanged when it is absent. ## What Changed - Split Paperclip worktree setup into a lean eager script and an idempotent runtime provision script. - Added `runtimeProvisionCommand` to project, issue, realized workspace, and persisted workspace contracts. - Added a per-workspace provision mutex before local service spawn for heartbeat, operator, and startup recovery flows. - Added a persisted `provisioning` service state and the `workspace_runtime_provision` operation phase. - Kept provision time outside the service readiness timeout and made failed attempts visible and retryable. - Reclaimed isolated instance data during safe workspace teardown. - Serialized deferred database seeding across processes and bound teardown to the instance root captured in persisted workspace metadata. - Added tests for config flow, concurrency, retry, no-op behavior, readiness timing, scripts, CLI commands, and cleanup. - Documented the eager and runtime provisioning contracts. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm build` - `pnpm test:run` (server: 3,201 passed; UI: 3,345 passed; the CLI phase exposed one environment-sensitive AWS doctor assertion because the agent runtime injects static AWS credentials) - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/secrets.test.ts -t 'passes AWS doctor checks when non-secret provider config is present'` - Focused runtime tests cover serialized provisioning, retry after stderr failure, absent-command no-op behavior, operation logging, persisted state order, and readiness timeout exclusion. - Focused CLI and cleanup tests cover concurrent seed serialization, stale-lock fail-closed behavior, persisted instance ownership, and rewritten sibling pointers. ## Risks - A faulty runtime provision script blocks service startup. Paperclip records stderr, marks the service failed, and retries on the next start. - Concurrent service requests share an in-process provision attempt, while the seed command uses an atomic filesystem lock across processes. A stale lock fails closed and requires an operator to verify no seed is running before removing it. - Isolated instance cleanup is destructive. The cleanup service validates ownership and path containment before removal. > 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, `gpt-5.6-sol`, with agentic reasoning, tool use, and code execution. The service does not expose the 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> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
53bcf3897f |
feat: sync @-mentioned projects into remote sandboxes (confined sandbox transport, flag ON) (#10564)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The run layer must move project context into the sandbox that executes the agent > - Local sandboxes already stage referenced projects for @-mentions > - Remote confined sandboxes dropped the whole referenced set, so the agent lost needed files and paths > - This pull request keeps the confined sandbox transport aligned with the local behavior for referenced projects > - It does this behind a remote-only flag that defaults on, while SSH keeps the old drop-only path > - The benefit is that remote runs can read the same referenced project context that local runs already provide ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting. This change touches server orchestration, sandbox transport, and observability. **Problem or motivation** A run can @-mention another project. Local targets stage each referenced project and give the agent a path. Remote confined sandboxes dropped the full referenced set, so the agent could not read those project files or paths. **Proposed solution** Enable referenced-project sync for the confined sandbox transport behind `PAPERCLIP_MULTI_PROJECT_WORKSPACE_SYNC_REMOTE`, which defaults on. Keep the SSH transport out of scope and keep it dropping referenced projects. Repoint each referenced workspace hint at its staged `project-<projectId>` sandbox directory. Publish `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACES_JSON` on the confined sandbox lane. Count each per-project remote staging failure as a `staging` failure in the requested-vs-synced metrics. **Alternatives considered** Keep the remote path drop-only. That keeps the gap open. Move the change into SSH too. That expands scope beyond the target transport and adds risk. **Roadmap alignment** No matching item in `ROADMAP.md` showed up in this review. **Additional context** The change lands in three commits. The first commit opens the gate for the confined sandbox transport. The second commit repoints the workspace hints and publishes the workspace map. The third commit records per-project staging failure data. ## What Changed - Opened remote referenced-project sync for the confined sandbox transport behind `PAPERCLIP_MULTI_PROJECT_WORKSPACE_SYNC_REMOTE`. - Repointed referenced workspace hints to the staged `project-<projectId>` sandbox directories and published `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACES_JSON`. - Counted per-project remote staging failures as first-class `staging` failures in the requested-vs-synced observability. ## Verification - The pushed ref `refs/heads/feat/sync-referenced-projects-remote-sandbox` resolves to the authorized submit SHA. - `git log --oneline origin/master..origin/feat/sync-referenced-projects-remote-sandbox` shows exactly the three expected commits. - The handoff reports server typecheck clean, adapter-utils typecheck clean, and the listed unit tests passing. - The handoff also reports no open review comments and no Greptile score yet. ## Risks - The change touches authorization and sandbox path handling, so regressions could block remote runs or expose the wrong project context. - The new flag defaults on, so any bug in the remote path affects normal remote use. - SSH stays out of scope, so the two transport paths must remain distinct. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 via Codex. Tool use enabled. Context window not reported in this run. ## 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
15ce70dc18 |
feat(server): thread plural referenced-project workspaces through run prep (#10448)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates work for autonomous companies. > - A run needs a workspace view before execution starts. > - That view now needs to cover one anchor project and more referenced projects. > - Those extra workspaces must stay separate and must not change the anchor path when the feature stays off. > - This PR threads plural workspace data through run prep behind a default-off kill switch. > - It also keeps extra project workspaces isolated and makes the realization contract round-trip the new shape. > - The benefit is safer run prep for referenced projects without changing the current default path. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description This PR does not link a public GitHub issue. It follows the internal run-prep task for plural referenced-project workspaces. Problem: - Run prep resolves the anchor project today, but it does not yet carry each referenced project into the run workspace view. - That gap blocks runs that need a second repo or sibling project during preparation. Proposed solution: - Thread a plural workspace result through run prep. - Keep the anchor path unchanged when the kill switch is off. - Resolve each referenced project into its own managed checkout directory when the flag is on. Alternatives considered: - Keep one shared workspace and layer the extra repos into it. Rejected because it would blur isolation and make failures harder to bound. - Upload the extra workspaces immediately. Rejected because this PR only prepares the data path. Roadmap alignment: - This change sits in the workspace and sandbox path. - It matches the roadmap work on workspace strategy and cloud or sandbox agents. ## What Changed - Added `additionalWorkspaces[]` to the run workspace result. - Split workspace resolution into an anchor path and an optional referenced-project path behind `PAPERCLIP_MULTI_PROJECT_WORKSPACE_SYNC`. - Kept per-project failure isolation so one bad clone does not stop the run. - Keyed managed workspace directories by `projectId` so sibling workspaces stay separate. - Added `additionalSources[]` to the workspace realization request and kept read and write paths backward compatible. - Added tests for the anchor-only path, the new workspace shape, and the per-project directory rule. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server run typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared run typecheck` - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-project-env.test.ts` 21/21 - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/__tests__/workspace-runtime.test.ts` 98/98 ## Risks Low risk. The new path stays behind a default-off kill switch, so the anchor flow does not change when the flag is off. The main risk is a bad referenced project clone. That case now drops only the affected project and keeps the run alive. The shared type change also needs every consumer to use the new array field where extra workspaces matter. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-5; exact internal model ID not exposed in this environment; tool use enabled) ## 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
|
4e00818574 |
fix(runtime): support in-place workspace realization (#10230)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their execution environments. > - Environment realization decides where an agent runs and which filesystem and toolchain are authoritative. > - Copy-based realization is unsafe for container-anchored tasks because absolute paths such as `/app` can point outside the synchronized tree and task-specific binaries may be absent. > - That mismatch can let an agent successfully verify work in a phantom writable path while sync-back silently discards the result. > - Existing task environments already provide the authoritative filesystem and toolchain, so they should be executed in place rather than copied. > - Copy mode still needs explicit confinement rules so aliases target the synchronized workspace and unsynchronized writable paths fail visibly. > - This pull request adds typed realization metadata, propagates the authoritative root through orchestration, and teaches Codex to honor it. > - The benefit is that container-anchored tasks operate on verifier-visible state with the intended tools, while copy mode remains safe and backward compatible. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this defect. GitHub duplicate searches for in-place execution, workspace realization, and authoritative workspace roots found no related pull request to link. ### What happened? Environment-backed agent runs were always realized through a copied workspace. Tasks anchored to absolute container paths could therefore write outside the synchronized tree, and task-provided toolchains were unavailable in the copy. A run could report success even though sync-back discarded its output. ### Expected behavior Existing task environments should run against their real authoritative root and toolchain. Copy-mode runs should map declared absolute aliases into the synchronized tree and reject writable paths that cannot be restored. ### Steps to reproduce 1. Run a Codex task environment whose required files live under `/app` or `/workspace` and whose required binary exists only in the task container. 2. Observe that copy realization changes the effective filesystem/toolchain or permits writes outside the synchronized root. 3. Complete and verify the task inside the agent sandbox. 4. Observe that the verifier cannot see out-of-tree artifacts or that task-specific commands were unavailable. ### Reproduction context - Paperclip commit: `3a16b91217483d2c233926de5b7f7bc3a1077924` - Deployment: built from source in a task-container execution environment - Adapter: Codex local - Database: not database-related - Access context: agent execution ## What Changed - Added typed `copy | in_place` workspace-realization metadata, authoritative roots, confined aliases, and outbound restore paths to shared execution-target contracts. - Selected in-place realization for existing task environments and skipped archive prepare/restore when the authoritative environment is used directly. - Propagated the authoritative root into adapter context so Codex uses it for cwd and `PAPERCLIP_WORKSPACE_*` semantics, including ACP execution. - Bound copy-mode aliases such as `/app` to the synchronized workspace and rejected writable out-of-tree paths without explicit restore mappings. - Added focused regression coverage while preserving existing copy-mode archive restore behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/shared typecheck` — passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/adapter-utils/src/local-process-sandbox.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/acp.test.ts packages/adapters/codex-local/src/server/execute.remote.test.ts server/src/__tests__/environment-run-orchestrator.test.ts` — 48 passed, 4 skipped. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed. - `env -u AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID -u AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY -u AWS_SESSION_TOKEN pnpm test:run` — passed across all general and serialized Vitest shards. - `pnpm build` — passed. - Codex `k=1` acceptance run completed July 24, 2026 at 23:54:30 UTC with 4 completed, 0 exceptions, and mean reward 1.0: `build-cython-ext`, `openssl-selfsigned-cert`, `prove-plus-comm`, and `sqlite-db-truncate` each received terminal grade 1.0 against real task-environment paths and toolchains. ## Risks - In-place mode deliberately exposes the authoritative task root to the adapter; incorrect environment metadata could point execution at the wrong root. Typed metadata and focused orchestration tests cover selection and propagation. - Copy-mode writable-path validation is stricter and may reject previously accepted unsafe configurations. The rejection is intentional and produces a visible error instead of silently losing output. - The acceptance run is focused on four Codex task-environment workloads, not a broad cross-adapter benchmark. Existing copy-mode archive tests and the full repository suite remain green. > 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 CLI coding agent; exact model ID and context-window size were not exposed to this runtime. Capabilities used: extended reasoning, repository editing, shell execution, test/build execution, Git, GitHub CLI, and Paperclip API tool use. ## 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> |
||
|
Devin Foley
|
70679a3321 |
Add sandbox environment support (#4415)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip orchestrates AI agents for zero-human companies. > - The environment/runtime layer decides where agent work executes and how the control plane reaches those runtimes. > - Today Paperclip can run locally and over SSH, but sandboxed execution needs a first-class environment model instead of one-off adapter behavior. > - We also want sandbox providers to be pluggable so the core does not hardcode every provider implementation. > - This branch adds the Sandbox environment path, the provider contract, and a deterministic fake provider plugin. > - That required synchronized changes across shared contracts, plugin SDK surfaces, server runtime orchestration, and the UI environment/workspace flows. > - The result is that sandbox execution becomes a core control-plane capability while keeping provider implementations extensible and testable. ## What Changed - Added sandbox runtime support to the environment execution path, including runtime URL discovery, sandbox execution targeting, orchestration, and heartbeat integration. - Added plugin-provider support for sandbox environments so providers can be supplied via plugins instead of hardcoded server logic. - Added the fake sandbox provider plugin with deterministic behavior suitable for local and automated testing. - Updated shared types, validators, plugin protocol definitions, and SDK helpers to carry sandbox provider and workspace-runtime contracts across package boundaries. - Updated server routes and services so companies can create sandbox environments, select them for work, and execute work through the sandbox runtime path. - Updated the UI environment and workspace surfaces to expose sandbox environment configuration and selection. - Added test coverage for sandbox runtime behavior, provider seams, environment route guards, orchestration, and the fake provider plugin. ## Verification - Ran locally before the final fixture-only scrub: - `pnpm -r typecheck` - `pnpm test:run` - `pnpm build` - Ran locally after the final scrub amend: - `pnpm vitest run server/src/__tests__/runtime-api.test.ts` - Reviewer spot checks: - create a sandbox environment backed by the fake provider plugin - run work through that environment - confirm sandbox provider execution does not inherit host secrets implicitly ## Risks - This touches shared contracts, plugin SDK plumbing, server runtime orchestration, and UI environment/workspace flows, so regressions would likely show up as cross-layer mismatches rather than isolated type errors. - Runtime URL discovery and sandbox callback selection are sensitive to host/bind configuration; if that logic is wrong, sandbox-backed callbacks may fail even when execution succeeds. - The fake provider plugin is intentionally deterministic and test-oriented; future providers may expose capability gaps that this branch does not yet cover. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex coding agent on a GPT-5-class backend in the Paperclip/Codex harness. Exact backend model ID is not exposed in-session. Tool-assisted workflow with shell execution, file editing, git history inspection, and local test execution. ## 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 run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [ ] If this change affects the UI, I have included before/after screenshots - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |