5 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Devin FoleyandPaperclip	3ebd7bc0c9	test: isolate accounting fixtures and include all adapter suites (#14989) ... Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-10-06 18:13:46 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	f91a6e27c0	feat(issues): contain cross-issue agent side effects (#10837) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the control plane that coordinates autonomous agent work. > - Agents need to collaborate on issues beyond their current assignment. > - Cross-issue comments and updates are useful, but an unbounded run can create cascading side effects. > - The control plane must preserve company-wide collaboration while containing each run's influence. > - Comment attribution must also show the responsible user and the acting agent in audits. > - This pull request adds run-bound cross-issue containment, attribution, and agent-class wake rules. > - The benefit is safer collaboration without restoring issue-assignee ownership restrictions. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** Agent-authenticated issue comments, updates, reopen behavior, and assignee wake routing. **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting: server routes and services, shared contracts, database schema and migration, and implementation documentation. **Current behavior** An authenticated agent can collaborate across company issues, but one heartbeat run has no per-run side-effect boundary. Comment records also do not persist the responsible user separately from the acting agent. **Proposed behavior** Require a valid heartbeat run for agent cross-issue comments and updates. Audit each attempt and cap a run at 20 cross-issue effects. Keep the cap in log-only mode until it automatically changes to enforcement at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Preserve same-issue writes. Use agent-class wakes for agent comments. Keep same-run completion comments from reopening completed work. Record the responsible user on agent-authored comments and activity. **Reason and benefit** Agents can collaborate on other issues without an assignment gate, while each run has an atomic and inspectable side-effect limit. Operators can identify both the acting agent and the responsible user. **Breaking changes** After 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC, the twenty-first cross-issue comment or update from one heartbeat run returns a containment error. Agent cross-issue writes without valid run context are rejected. The migration is additive and backfills existing agent-authored comment attribution where the source data is available. ## What Changed - Added an atomic per-run counter for cross-issue agent comments and updates. - Added audit events for allowed and rejected cross-issue effects. - Added the automatic log-only to enforcement flip at 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. - Added responsible-user attribution to agent-authored comments, activity records, shared types, and validators. - Added an additive migration and migration coverage for existing comments. - Updated reopen, resume, and wake behavior so agent comments create agent-class wakes and same-run completion comments remain inert. - Updated the implementation specification and regression coverage. ## Verification - `pnpm exec vitest run server/src/__tests__/cross-issue-influence-limit.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-attribution-audit-routes.test.ts server/src/__tests__/issue-comment-reopen-routes.test.ts packages/db/src/issue-comment-on-behalf-migration.test.ts` — 97 tests passed. - `pnpm -r typecheck` — passed, including migration safety checks. - `pnpm test:run` — server batch: 3,364 passed and 2 skipped; UI batch: 3,504 passed. One unrelated CLI doctor test warned because this 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` — 8 tests passed and confirmed the CLI failure was ambient-environment sensitive. - `pnpm build` — passed. ## Risks - The fixed enforcement timestamp changes production behavior automatically on 2026-08-11 00:00 UTC. Audit logs before that time provide rollout visibility. - The per-run counter serializes on the heartbeat-run row. This prevents concurrent attempts from racing past the cap but adds a small lock scope for cross-issue writes. - Existing comments can only be backfilled when their acting run or agent attribution is recoverable. > 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 GPT-5 in the Codex agent runtime. The runtime did not expose a context-window size. Reasoning, shell tools, code editing, and test execution were 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>	2026-08-04 13:17:49 -05:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	d51f42ed64	test(server): drain heartbeat runs to quiescence in sibling suite teardown (#10464) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip uses heartbeats to run work. > - Test suites share heartbeat run state during teardown. > - Late heartbeat work can race shared table deletes. > - That race can deadlock or fail foreign key checks. > - The primary suite already uses a drain helper to wait for quiescence. > - This pull request reuses that helper in the sibling suites that share the race. > - The benefit is stable teardown and fewer flake failures. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this change. Refs: #10450 This pull request reuses the quiescence drain from the primary suite. ## What Changed - Added `server/src/__tests__/helpers/drain-heartbeat-runs.ts`. - Reused the shared helper in `low-trust-red-team-routes.test.ts`. - Applied the drain to the eight sibling suites that share the race. - Kept the existing test intent unchanged. ## Verification - `git log --oneline origin/master..origin/test/heartbeat-teardown-quiescence-drain-sweep` - `git diff --stat origin/master...origin/test/heartbeat-teardown-quiescence-drain-sweep` - Existing local test evidence in the handoff shows the primary suite and the guarded suites pass. - The handoff also records a stress loop with no `40P01` or `23503` errors. ## Risks - Low risk. The change touches test teardown only. - The helper waits for active runs to drain. A new real background execution path may need the same guard. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-5, tool-use and code execution 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 linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` 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 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, or no docs update was required for this test-only change - [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>	2026-07-29 14:23:12 -07:00
Devin FoleyandClaude	ce7dedf33d	perf(ci): balance general-server test shards by recorded suite duration (#9516) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - Its PR CI runs the general-server vitest lane pinned to `maxWorkers=1` and sharded across 3 runners (introduced in #8360) > - Suites were assigned to shards round-robin by sorted file index, so shard test time was unbalanced: a recent PR run split 73s / 153s / 115s, and the heaviest shard made "General tests (server 2/3)" the slowest check in the whole workflow at 314s wall > - The slowest shard sets the lane's wall time, so unbalanced partitions waste the other two runners and stretch the PR critical path > - This pull request replaces the round-robin assignment with a deterministic longest-processing-time partition weighted by a checked-in per-suite duration manifest > - The benefit is near-even shard weights (projected 113s / 113s / 113s with the current manifest), taking roughly 40s off the PR critical path with no reduction in coverage ## Linked Issues or Issue Description - Refs #8360 (introduced the 3-way general-server sharding this PR rebalances) - No public issue exists. Problem: the general-server test lane's round-robin shard assignment ignores per-suite duration, so one shard can carry multiple 30s+ suites while another finishes in half the time; the slowest shard alone determines the check's wall time. ## What Changed - `scripts/general-server-shard.mjs` (new): manifest loader and deterministic LPT (longest-processing-time) partitioner; suites missing from the manifest get the median recorded weight, and a missing or malformed manifest degrades to uniform weights so the lane never fails on stale data - `scripts/general-server-shard-durations.json` (new): per-suite duration manifest sampled from a real PR run (240 suites); the `$comment` field documents how to regenerate it - `scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs`: both shard-selection sites (run and `--dry-run`) now use the balanced partition instead of index round-robin - `scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs`: 6 new tests covering skew-balance vs round-robin, determinism, median fallback for unlisted suites, malformed-manifest degradation, manifest coverage of the current suite set, and real-partition balance - `server/src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts`: hardened the `afterEach` sweep — post-run bookkeeping (run-event records, follow-up wake scheduling) can still insert rows briefly after a run reaches a terminal status, and a late insert landing between the `agent_wakeup_requests` and `agents` deletes failed teardown with a foreign-key violation on the first CI attempt of this PR; the sweep now retries so a late background write cannot take down the shard - `release-verify.yml` shares the same runner script and inherits the balancing with no workflow change ## Verification - `node --test scripts/__tests__/run-vitest-stable-shard.test.mjs` — 9/9 pass (run against current master) - `npx vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts` — 6/6 pass against embedded Postgres with the hardened teardown - `node --test scripts/__tests__/release-verify-workflow.test.mjs` — 2/2 pass - `node scripts/run-vitest-stable.mjs --dry-run` with each shard flag shows every suite assigned exactly once across the 3 shards, with projected weights ~113s each ## Risks - Low risk: partition changes which runner executes which suite, not what runs; a completeness test asserts every suite is assigned to exactly one shard - The duration manifest will drift as suites are added/changed; unlisted suites get the median weight and a coverage test flags when the manifest covers less than half the suite set, so drift degrades balance gracefully rather than breaking the lane > 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 - Claude Fable 5 (`claude-fable-5`, Anthropic), extended thinking enabled, agentic tool use (file edits, shell, test execution) via Claude Code ## 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: Claude (Paperclip SWE) <noreply@paperclip.ing>	2026-07-13 12:25:54 -07:00
DottaandPaperclip	5dff52631d	fix(heartbeat): throttle redundant issue re-wakes (#9470) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane people use to coordinate AI agents and their work > - Heartbeat admission decides when an agent should start another adapter session for an issue > - After process-loss recovery, assignment pollers and reconcilers can repeatedly request another wake while the issue remains `in_progress` > - When the preceding runs succeeded without issue-visible progress, those event-free wakes provide no new information but still pay the full cost of an adapter session > - Existing liveness evidence is too broad for this case because workspace tool calls can make a run look active without moving the issue > - This pull request adds an issue-scoped admission throttle for consecutive no-progress re-wakes while preserving every wake that carries new information or recovery intent > - The benefit is bounded recovery cost without delaying comments, operator actions, failures, or other meaningful events ## Linked Issues or Issue Description No public GitHub issue exists for this bug. **What happened?** After a process died, external wake drivers could re-wake the same agent for the same `in_progress` issue every few seconds. Each succeeded run that produced no issue-visible progress could be followed by another full adapter session despite no new issue input. In the observed recovery smoke, one recovery consumed 25 sessions and 2.4× the direct-run cost. **Expected behavior** Repeated event-free re-wakes should back off after consecutive successful runs produce no issue-visible progress. Any new information, explicit operator intent, or failed-run recovery should continue immediately. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Start an issue heartbeat and simulate process loss while the issue remains `in_progress`. 2. Allow assignment/reconciliation drivers to request repeated event-free wakes for the same agent and issue. 3. Complete each follow-up run successfully without adding a comment, issue mutation, document, work product, interaction, or continuation. 4. Observe repeated adapter sessions starting every few seconds without new issue input. **Environment** - Version: reproduced on `master` before this change - Deployment: local development, built from source - Adapter scope: core bug; not adapter-specific - Database: reproduced and tested with embedded Postgres ## What Changed - Add a pure issue re-wake throttle that detects consecutive succeeded runs without issue-visible progress and applies a 120-second exponential cooldown capped at 30 minutes. - Gate event-free `enqueueWakeup` requests and return the explicit skip reason `issue_rewake_throttled` while the cooldown is active. - Always bypass throttling for comment wakes, new issue activity, explicit resumes, `forceFreshSession`, event-shaped reasons, and post-failure recovery. - Add focused pure unit coverage and database-backed heartbeat admission coverage for throttle and bypass behavior. ## Verification - `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts` — 12 passed. - `cd server && pnpm vitest run src/__tests__/heartbeat-issue-rewake-throttle.test.ts` — 6 passed with embedded Postgres. - `cd server && pnpm run typecheck` — passed. - Neighbor suites previously verified: `heartbeat-dependency-scheduling`, `heartbeat-process-recovery`, `run-continuations`, `heartbeat-issue-liveness-escalation`, `recovery-stale-issue-lock-sweep`, and `heartbeat-comment-wake-batching` — 131 tests passed. ## Risks - A progress classifier that is too narrow could defer a legitimate event-free poll; the cooldown is bounded and new issue activity bypasses it immediately. - A progress classifier that is too broad could allow the original heartbeat storm; tests intentionally distinguish issue-visible mutations from workspace-only activity. - Low compatibility risk: no schema, API contract, or migration changes. > 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 coding agent. The runtime does not expose the exact underlying model ID or context-window size; reasoning, terminal tool use, code inspection, GitHub CLI access, and test execution were 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 public PR branch name describes the change 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>	2026-07-12 20:38:27 -05:00