2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	b2c565038b	test(shared): make the worktree port registry lock suite deterministic (#12798) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Shared worktree services use lock leases and worker-thread heartbeats > - The lock test suite measured wall-clock timing across two threads > - Processor contention allowed a heartbeat tick to change the value during an assertion > - This pull request removes that timing race and restores a regression guard > - The benefit is a stable test suite that still detects slow heartbeats ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** The worktree port registry lock suite failed at random under continuous-integration processor contention. The failure reported a fresh timestamp where the test expected an old timestamp. **Expected behavior** The suite must pass when the heartbeat runs at its supported interval. It must also fail when the heartbeat interval regresses. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Run `npx vitest run src/worktree-port-registry.test.ts` in `packages/shared`. 2. Repeat the run under bounded processor contention. 3. Set the heartbeat interval to 3000 ms and run the asynchronous critical-section test. **Paperclip version or commit** `a661caf74e704f7700a8b8a1e79b76ebd04e3483` **Deployment mode** Built from source. **Installation method** Built from source. **Agent adapter(s) involved** Not adapter-specific (core test). **Database mode** Not database-related. **Additional context** Related open pull requests are #11994, #11985, and #11922. This pull request keeps all five tests active and does not use `skip`, `skipIf`, or `todo`. ## What Changed - Build the fallback-probe lock state by hand so no live heartbeat changes the timestamp during the assertion. - Count distinct heartbeat refreshes in the asynchronous critical-section test. - Close the fake probe and settle the pending lock attempt in a `finally` block. - Keep production code unchanged. ## Verification - `npx vitest run src/worktree-port-registry.test.ts` — 5 of 5 tests pass. - `npx vitest run` — 72 files and 704 tests pass at submit time. - `npx tsc --noEmit` — exit code 0. - Ten target-file runs pass under bounded processor contention. - A 3000 ms heartbeat interval fails with `expected 2 to be greater than or equal to 3`. - An inverted cleanup assertion exits normally in 379 ms without a leaked worker. ## Risks Low risk. This pull request changes one test file. It changes test setup and assertions only. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5 through Codex. Exact model ID: GPT-5. The model used tool calls and code execution. The context window is not disclosed by the runtime. ## 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>	2026-10-02 08:24:00 -07:00
3 people	bd059a073d	fix(workspaces): make managed runtimes reliable across restarts (#11740) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Execution workspaces need isolated databases, ports, and runtime services > - Concurrent workspaces could reuse ports or lose service ownership after a restart > - A markerless worktree also needed seed recovery, but normal markerless instances still needed to boot > - This pull request makes seed, port, and service ownership state explicit and recoverable > - It also checks live process and listener identity before it reclaims shared resources > - The benefit is reliable workspace startup, restart, adoption, and concurrent provisioning ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** Managed workspaces could lose runtime service ownership after a control-plane restart. Concurrent worktrees could also reuse a port when their parent paths differed. A seed recovery change made every markerless instance resolve a worktree seed source, so normal instances without a source could not start. **Expected behavior** Paperclip must preserve healthy managed services across restarts. It must reserve unique ports across worktree parents. It must provision a registered markerless worktree, but it must skip seed work for a normal markerless instance. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start two managed worktrees under different parent paths at the same time. 2. Restart the control plane while a managed service stays alive. 3. Start Paperclip with a config that has no seed markers and no registered worktree source. 4. Observe duplicate port selection, lost service adoption, or a seed-source startup error. **Paperclip version or commit** Current `master` plus the workspace runtime reliability changes in this pull request. **Deployment mode** Local development with managed execution workspaces and embedded Postgres. ## What Changed - Added a shared port registry with lease heartbeats, process identity checks, and live listener probes. - Reserved worktree ports across custom parent paths and repaired duplicate legacy assignments. - Preserved and adopted healthy managed services across control-plane restarts. - Reconciled guest bind modes and verified listener ownership before termination or reuse. - Provisioned registered markerless worktree databases and kept normal markerless instance startup as a no-op. - Added CLI, shared, server, and shell regression tests for seed, port, listener, restart, and adoption behavior. - Updated the worktree development documentation. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run cli/src/__tests__/worktree.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 63 tests passed. - `pnpm exec vitest run packages/shared/src/worktree-port-registry.test.ts --reporter=verbose` — 5 tests passed. - Focused runtime Vitest set — 199 tests passed across 37 suites. - `node --test scripts/__tests__/provision-worktree-self-heal.test.mjs` — 10 tests passed. - `git diff --check` passed. ## Risks - Port reservation now depends on lease and process identity data. The fallback listener probe prevents early reclamation when process metadata is incomplete. - Runtime adoption is stricter about bind and owner identity. The tests cover healthy adoption, stale records, PID reuse, and unrelated listeners. - Markerless seed detection now separates registered worktrees from normal instances. The tests cover both paths. - There are no database schema migrations. > 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 with the `gpt-5` model family. The serving snapshot and context-window size are not exposed. The agent used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and 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 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: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing>	2026-08-19 14:55:16 -05:00