2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	dc6dd23ea4	Add plugin Runner preparation task contract (#16993) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages work for AI agents. > - Environment plugins can own Runner tasks. > - Core selects provider policy and runtime assignments. > - The execution environment must resolve its own paths and configuration. > - The task API needs a preparation exchange before execution. > - This PR adds that exchange under the existing lease authority. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** The environment task API can start a Runner. It cannot return a prepared provider configuration from Core requirements. **Proposed solution** Add a versioned `prepare` request and `prepared` result. Keep the provider configuration bound to its task and requirements. Check the same company, run, project, and retained-session authority as submission. **Alternatives considered** A shell preparation command would expose execution details in the API. Provider-specific ownership flags would spread this contract across backends. **Roadmap alignment** This extends the existing plugin and remote execution APIs. It does not add a separate execution system. Refs #16977, #15406. The prerequisite #16977 is merged. This PR now targets master. Runner transport and provider implementations follow separately. ## What Changed - Add strict launch requirements and prepared result schemas. - Add the preparation capability version and saved configuration ID. - Apply existing lease and resource checks to preparation. - Document idempotency, cancellation, recovery, and cleanup requirements. ## Verification - `pnpm -r typecheck` passed. - Plugin SDK build passed. - All 55 Dot Runner and native Codex server integration tests passed with Cargo available on PATH. - All 18 environment task runtime tests passed. These include preparation dispatch, inactive leases, wrong run identity, unauthorized projects, result identity, and unknown command rejection. - The broader root suite on the parent refactor finished with 22,420 passing tests, seven failed tests in unchanged Git and diagnostic code, and two suite setup errors because Cargo was absent from its PATH. This PR does not claim a passing full root suite. - No live provider calls or deployment were run. - Standard Greptile and Apex each scored commit `d3ac15906240b7066f5ff505ed2ffd9ef5dd43c1` 5/5. There are no unresolved review threads. - All 55 CI checks passed. Two optional checks were skipped. The branch is ready and mergeable against master. - A fresh master fetch and merge-base check passed immediately before the Apex request. ## Risks - This defines a new optional worker operation. Existing providers keep their current operations. - A provider must validate policy and resource bindings. Schema validation alone does not validate a concrete provider descriptor. - This PR defines the exchange. It does not connect native execution to a preparation provider. ## Model Used - OpenAI Codex, GPT-6. Reasoning and repository tools. The exact serving model identifier and context 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 - [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>	2026-10-20 11:41:49 -07:00
Nicky LeachandPaperclip	33cc567f75	Add lease-scoped Runner task hooks to environment plugins (#15406) ... ## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates AI agents and their runs. > - Environment plugins own remote capacity. > - A plugin needs a typed API to start and stop its installed Runner. > - Core must derive authority from the saved lease. > - A lost reply or controller restart must not lose cleanup authority. > - This PR adds the worker contract and the host task service. > - Native execution and Runner changes are separate PRs. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Plugin SDK and environment lease services. **Current behavior** Environment plugins have no typed Runner task hook. Core cannot dispatch these tasks or recover their credential handoff through a saved lease. **Proposed behavior** Add validated task operations, worker negotiation, company and project checks, retained-session authorization, and durable cleanup. Keep credentials out of lease metadata. **Additional context** This PR is the first part of a smaller series. Runner installed-home support is in #16977. Native execution and setup are in #16978. Both are stacked drafts. This PR does not enable native plugin execution, change default environments, add a route, or add a database migration. ## What Changed - Add `supportsTasks` and `onEnvironmentTask` with seven typed operations. - Validate worker requests and responses. Reject shell commands and file transfer operations. - Pin dispatch and cleanup to the saved company, lease, plugin, and driver. - Authorize projects and retained sessions. Validate the current run separately from the retained PRP identity. - Save dispatch before the provider call. Fence admission during cleanup. Require observed process termination. - Save account writeback authority on the lease. Recover Codex refreshes through the existing account and secret services. - Document the task API. Keep the Runner, heartbeat, setup, workspace, and provider changes in later PRs. ## Verification - Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the separated API scope. - 201 focused tests passed: SDK worker dispatch, task validation, PostgreSQL task lineage, credential recovery, and existing environment cleanup. - The lineage test covers a third run, repeated same-run replacements, a stale submitting run, and exact termination receipts. - Initial commands hit sandbox socket/IPC restrictions. The permitted runs executed PostgreSQL and passed. A typecheck attempt lacked Cargo in PATH; the run with the installed toolchain passed. - The earlier combined implementation had a full local run with 22,286 passing tests, 120 skips, and eight failed assertions. Task fixture failures were fixed before this split. Remaining host Git and temporary-path assertions are recorded in the previous PR revision. This split does not claim a fresh full local suite pass. - The standard Greptile review scored this API head 5/5 with no unresolved threads. CI is green. The single Apex review also scored this head 5/5 with no actionable findings. - Fresh API CI lost a self-hosted runner during server shard 9. GitHub reported lost communication, with no failed test step. The affected jobs passed on retry without code changes. - CI on the prior combined head failed an unchanged workspace dev-server readiness case. No unrelated test fix is included here. Fresh CI is required for this smaller head. - This scope does not run a provider or a Cloud test. The user owns deployment and the intermediate Cloud test. ## Risks - The API is opt-in. Native plugin execution requires the later integrations. - Providers must make task submission idempotent and prove descendant termination. - A failed status read or credential export keeps the lease available for cleanup. - Codex refresh writeback requires the same active grant, secret reference, and session epoch. Revocation or account replacement discards the old refresh. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used source inspection, code execution, tests, and GitHub tools. The exact served 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 local checks and recorded failures and their results 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>	2026-10-20 09:14:23 -07:00