Commit Graph
4 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
DottaandPaperclip 519b345d69 fix(ui): expose governed retained-file recovery (#18848)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - The control plane must preserve saved work before it admits another
attempt.
> - Retained-file recovery already has an authorized API and a bounded
worker.
> - The task UI hid that operation when workspace repair blocked
execution.
> - The run inspector could check source identity but could not request
preservation.
> - This pull request exposes that existing operation with its exact
source binding.
> - The worker still owns file verification, stop receipts, and
execution release.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

Refs #18678 and #18803 for the existing retained-source and continuation
contracts.

**What happened?**

A failed native run could leave an active, system-owned export recovery
action. The task showed a generic Retry control. Its workspace repair
gate correctly refused another provider turn. The run inspector offered
only read-only source inspection. The authorized file-preservation API
had no production UI caller.

**Expected behavior**

An authorized board operator can request preservation of the exact
retained files. The UI keeps the repair hold until the server records
verified preservation. A lost response must keep the same request
identity.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Use an active retained-export action whose workspace recovery is
blocked and retryable.
2. Open its source task while `workspaceRepairRequired` is true.
3. Open the exact failed run and inspect recovery.
4. Before this change, neither surface can request the existing
file-preservation operation.

**Paperclip version or commit**

The focused regression fails on master
`1f55073f96b2485f49f98ee8c261aa14ec2f79ac` before the production UI
edits.

I checked the roadmap and searched open public PRs for this UI repair.
No duplicate was found. This is a repair to the existing recovery
capability.

## What Changed

- Add Recover saved files to the existing task recovery area and
exact-run inspector. Reuse the current board task-mutation access check
and the existing `recoverWorkspace` API.
- Read the exact action, run, company, task, and source observation
again before sending. Refuse changed, retired, foreign, unverified, or
non-retryable sources.
- Save one account-scoped request before POST. Keep its key through a
lost response and reload. Reconcile with GET before an explicit resend.
Use a new key only after an explicit click and a fresh, confirmed
exhausted attempt; do not resend automatically.
- Show queued, recovering, blocked, and verified receipt states
separately. A request acknowledgement does not mark files saved or
resolve the task hold. Hide generic Retry for native export holds. Keep
the existing Retry path for legacy restoration.
- Cover both mounted surfaces and negative access, source, account,
persistence, duplicate-click, and lost-response cases. Update the
existing design guidance and correct the affected run-detail recipe
only.

## Verification

- RED: the new component regression fails with `missing Recover saved
files` before production changes. The original failure is retained.
- GREEN: 265 tests pass across
`WorkspaceExportRecovery.control.test.tsx`,
`WorkspaceExportRecovery.test.tsx`,
`RunWorkspaceRecoverySurface.test.tsx`, and the full
`IssueDetail.test.tsx` suite.
- Review RED/GREEN: the prior UI reused the failed key after a confirmed
exhausted attempt. A focused regression now proves a different key for
an explicit new attempt, while the lost-response controls still prove
key reuse. Mounted task controls prove that verified native preservation
stays available, unverified or stale native sources never offer generic
Retry, and viewers cannot mutate. A separate RED against the exact prior
UI proves the lost legacy control. Its GREEN clicks the existing legacy
Retry API while the workspace hold remains active.
- Full UI TypeScript check passes: `node scripts/run-tsc.mjs -p
ui/tsconfig.json --noEmit`.
- `node scripts/check-token-gates.mjs`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`,
and `git diff --check` pass. The map check proves structure only.
- One early legacy test probe used an unsigned fixture and a readonly
array; those setup failures are retained. The corrected same-user
fixture proves the source RED and GREEN. The first test command used an
unnamed project filter and stopped before loading tests. The corrected
package configuration produced the recorded RED. One initial storage
fault probe did not intercept jsdom's storage method; the corrected
prototype fault proves that unavailable storage sends no POST.
- Dependencies use Node 24.22.2 and a frozen pnpm 9.15.4 install with
scripts disabled. The maintained shared and SDK prerequisite builds pass
on this base. No dependency or lockfile changes are included.
- A later Paperclip Review follow-up found the plain-HTTP UUID gap. Its
focused regression fails before POST with the prior direct call, then
passes with the existing UUID helper. The same storage, lost-response,
retry and source controls remain green.
- Original full CI `41715060582` fails two Cloud-auth task-entry browser
checks at their existing heading assertion. The retained original
artifacts show a late task pane (one already contains the heading; one
still shows Loading conversation). The cause remains unproven. No auth,
fixture, timeout or assertion change is included. Fresh Greptile is 5/5
with zero open threads and Paperclip Review passes on the UUID fix head.
Current full CI `41720068249` attempt 1 failed. Three workers were
terminated by AWS Spot capacity loss. The CLI startup and dense-ZIP
checks also timed out at their unchanged deadlines. The CLI/shared input
trees match a previous passing CI job, and the dense-ZIP case passes one
focused local check. The CLI timeout cause remains unknown. The
coordinator requested one bounded recheck. Attempt 2 succeeds on the
same source, with all current checks green. No source, fixture, timeout
or assertion changed for that recheck. The worker issued no retry. This
pass does not establish the original CLI timeout cause.
- Full recursive typecheck, repository tests, and application build were
not run locally under the bounded UI verification scope. Full CI is
requested.
- No live preservation request, provider turn, deployment, or sandbox
cleanup was performed for this repair. Original saved-file recovery
remains unverified until rollout and real acceptance.

## Risks

The client access check is a display guard. The existing server
authorization and physical source, ownership, stop, and snapshot checks
remain authoritative. Unavailable browser storage blocks the request
before POST. A failed acknowledgement retains the request for its owner.
The UI never calls task Retry, recovery resolution, reconstruction,
provider execution, or destructive cleanup. The existing worker retains
its bounded recovery policy and may finish the saved result after real
preservation.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6 family, with repository inspection, code editing,
and test execution. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size
are not exposed to this agent.

## 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>
2026-11-03 16:00:03 -06:00
0b0e53029f fix: recover saved workspace results automatically (#15824)
## Thinking Path

- Paperclip preserves accepted agent results before workspace copyback
and result commitment.
- A replaced controller can leave a physical copyback owner receipt
behind. A lost database lock or expired lease cannot prove that its
tar/Git children stopped.
- Infrastructure recovery should belong to the runtime and deployment
harness; task users should not investigate processes or attest shutdown.
- New receipts record the exact deployment. The harness independently
verifies that deployment fully stopped and signs a short-lived proof
bound to the stack, run, owner and deployment.
- The existing guarded reconciler then finishes the same accepted result
without a new agent turn. Legacy receipts retain the documented
administrator API after independent platform verification.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

An accepted native result can remain at `workspace_finalizing` with an
abandoned physical copyback owner. Repeated recovery sweeps could
replace specific instructions with advice to start new agent work. The
first version of this PR exposed a shutdown-evidence form in the task;
that asks end users to resolve infrastructure details.

**Expected behavior**

Automatically verify and recover the exact stopped deployment, preserve
the original accepted result and existing approval/monitor waits, and
show only a quiet task status. Unknown or live workers must remain
fenced. Older receipts without platform identity need independently
verified operator assistance through the administrator API.

**Steps to reproduce**

1. Persist an accepted native result and a copyback receipt from a prior
controller.
2. Replace that deployment before workspace finalization commits.
3. Let the normal finalization reconciler revisit the saved result.
4. With a platform-bound receipt and a fully stopped deployment,
recovery should finish automatically. With missing, live, unverifiable
or changed ownership, it must not write files or create another provider
turn.

Related public work: #14402 introduced copyback ownership; #9687 handles
dead-run finalize barriers; #15795 handles terminal stale-run cleanup.
This change addresses an accepted result whose physical copyback owner
prevents commitment.

## What Changed

- Record Railway project, environment, service and deployment identity
on new physical copyback owners.
- Request read-only platform verification from the managed cloud
harness. Require an Ed25519 stop receipt with a disjoint purpose,
configured signing key, exact stack/run/owner/deployment binding and
valid expiry.
- Keep live, unknown, malformed, unavailable and legacy owners fenced.
Compare the whole prior receipt during ownership takeover, under the
existing dedicated advisory lock.
- Persist platform proof and audit automatic takeover. Resume normal
finalization of the same saved result, preserving task ownership,
approved boundaries, monitors and pending confirmations.
- Remove process metadata, shutdown evidence, confirmation checkboxes
and infrastructure-repair forms from task views. Suppress the duplicate
technical owner-recovery card. Show “Restoring saved work…” only from
server-confirmed recovery or queued operator recovery; platform identity
alone shows the operator-assistance fallback. Remove the status when
recovery resolves.
- Share current-task, current-running-execution, accepted-result,
authoritative-reviewer and newer-execution checks between automatic and
operator recovery. Validate after the provider lookup, atomically with
the owner claim, and again before file publication; closed or superseded
tasks cannot start copyback.
- Keep the separately authorized exact-owner API for operator recovery
of legacy receipts, with active-lock, live-controller, stale-result and
newer-execution rejection. Generic dismissal cannot bypass the copyback
fence.
- Replace obsolete form stories with production-backed automatic,
queued, legacy, completed and mobile examples; retain stable suite IDs.
Update the operator runbook and scoped Storybook catalog.

## Verification

- Red/green: new platform-proof tests failed before implementation; the
database takeover regression failed against the original ownership
guard; reduced-UI assertions failed against the original form. All pass
after the changes.
- Passed: 59 physical-owner/finalization database tests using isolated
PostgreSQL, including real reconciler commitment from all three
saved-result phases through both automatic and operator recovery. They
preserve result identity, exact saved file bytes, pending approval and
overdue monitor waits, and create no new run or wake request. Unknown
evidence and changed ownership remain fenced.
- Passed: 162 focused proof, cloud identity, recovery route,
recovery-card and reduced-UI tests.
- Passed: full workspace typecheck and build, final server/UI
typechecks, token gates, and Storybook build.
- Browser inspection: desktop task composition shows only the quiet
status; completed example removes it and retains the approval-wait
message. Mobile shows the existing bottom navigation with no horizontal
overflow. These are fixture UI observations, not live provider
acceptance.
- A companion harness change implements the actual provider check,
signed receipts, server-token authentication and bounded/coalesced
provider reads. Its full typecheck and test suite passed: 3,240 passed,
92 skipped, zero failures. This application alone cannot enable platform
verification.
- The updated full application `pnpm test:run` was stopped after
repeated local embedded-Postgres startup failures; it is not claimed
green. The same affected recovery suites pass against isolated
PostgreSQL. CI passed on final head `9ad5c3529e`: 54 successful checks,
two intentional skips, and successful legacy Snyk status. Greptile is
5/5 with no unresolved findings.
- Global Storybook catalog validation is green: 225 files, 2,224
stories. Its 17 catalog/index tests pass. Master was merged and the
inherited index metadata was reconciled after source review.
- Review correction red/green: two UI and two database assertions
reproduced misleading progress / missing server recovery state; all pass
after server-confirmed state was added. All 153 focused server tests and
68 UI tests pass on the final recovery code, including repeated-sweep
idempotence. Full workspace typecheck/build, token gates and Storybook
build also pass.
- Safety regression red/green: stale-task copyback and publication tests
failed against the previous guard. The final suite covers changes during
proof lookup, closed/cancelled tasks, replaced execution/checkout, newer
and queued legacy runs, reassignment and rejected/unbound results, plus
the real reconciler selecting closed or superseded tasks. Files remain
untouched and no workspace operation starts.
- No staging mutations, deployment, live provider probes or live
production recovery were performed. The three historical receipts lack
deployment identity and still require independent operator proof.

## Risks

Automatic takeover requires the companion harness release and configured
runtime-identity keys. Deploying only this application leaves
unavailable evidence fenced. Legacy receipts are not retrospectively
assigned a deployment identity. An authorized operator can still make an
incorrect attestation through the fallback API; its administrator gate
and exact-owner safeguards remain. Provider history that is missing or
deeper than the bounded lookup defers automatic recovery. Copyback can
still fail under its existing retained-workspace policy.

No migration, telemetry change or cloud provider credential delivery is
required. The companion harness PR also has passing CI and a 5/5 review;
neither branch is deployed.

## Model Used

OpenAI Codex, GPT-6, with repository inspection, browser verification,
tool use and code execution. The exact serving model ID and
context-window size were 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 and contains no internal
Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details
- [x] I have run the relevant 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: Paperclip <paperclip@paperclip.ing>
Co-authored-by: Devin Foley <devin@paperclip.ing>
2026-10-13 10:14:45 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 40bb466d78 fix(ui): align chat connection and recovery cards (#15771)
## Thinking Path

> - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for
work.
> - Task pages show external chat connections and recovery notices.
> - These cards use different widths, colors, and spacing.
> - The difference makes related task information harder to scan.
> - This pull request gives these cards one shared surface.
> - The benefit is a consistent task page for chat and email users.

## Linked Issues or Issue Description

**What happened?**

The external chat banner and recovery notice have different backgrounds,
padding, and widths. The first banner needs more space above it.

**Expected behavior**

Connection, recovery, workspace repair, and task email cards use the
same surface. The chat cards have the same width.

**Steps to reproduce**

Open a task with an external Slack conversation and a recovery notice.
Compare the two cards. Open the Tasks / Context notices story to compare
the updated cards with an AgentMail email card.

## What Changed

- Add a shared token-based surface for task context cards.
- Put chat recovery notices in the same width container as the
connection banner.
- Add space above the connection banner.
- Apply the surface to task email cards and workspace export repair.
- Add a Storybook view with per-card width, color, padding, and corner
checks.
- Give the workspace recovery card its own React key to prevent
duplicate connection banners.

## Verification

- Passed `pnpm check:token-gates`.
- Passed 57 tests for ExecutionBlockerNotice, WorkspaceExportRecovery,
and the external chat banner.
- Passed UI typecheck and UI production build.
- Captured desktop and mobile browser screenshots from the real
components with fixture data. The three cards have equal widths,
backgrounds, padding, and corners.
- Full local typecheck needs Cargo, which is absent in the task
environment. Full tests and build could not complete within the
environment memory limit. Remote typecheck, build, all test shards, and
security checks pass on commit e225a8e47. The Canary Dry Run also
passes. Storybook visual/deploy jobs are skipped by workflow policy.

## Risks

- Low risk. Recovery notices move outside the chat panel. Their actions
and API calls stay the same.
- Verify narrow screens and both task layout modes.

## Model Used

- OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Tool use and code execution. The runtime
does not expose an exact model variant 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
- [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>
2026-10-10 10:38:26 -05:00
DottaandPaperclip 14795136f5 fix(runtime): finalize and recover sandbox workspace exports safely (#14402)
Serialize native workspace finalization, validate streamed archives within bounded limits, and quietly recover unsafe exports from saved results. Preserve exact allocations for exhausted transient failures and provide export-only retry without rerunning the provider.

Consolidates #14314, #14315, #14329, and #14334 while preserving the already-merged finalization label changes.

Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
2026-09-28 10:57:32 -05:00