mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-21 16:27:18 +02:00
5ea3f905cf04b291571129b1754323105221f007
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5ea3f905cf |
fix: preserve workspace finalization during watchdog recovery (#16247)
Keep task completion separate from runtime and workspace settlement. Permit verified board file-only repair of successful legacy retained-source runs without authorizing replay. Co-Authored-By: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
2dd9811e8b |
Own agent hiring and termination in a lifecycle module (#15631)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages AI agents and their work. > - Agent creation, approval, pause, and termination change whether an agent can work. > - These changes currently use separate service and database paths. > - Some agents need setup after their record exists and before their harness can run. > - This PR adds one module that owns those state changes and their transactions. > - The module records progress and retries incomplete work after a server restart. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Problem or motivation** A hire can become active before its execution environment is ready. Direct agent state writes also bypass one common lifecycle boundary. Termination does not have a durable step for resource cleanup. **Proposed solution** Use agent lifecycle commands for hiring, approval, pause, resume, and termination. Keep proposed hires pending until approval. Prepare each approved hire, test its saved harness configuration, and then permit work. Wait for required plugin work before completing a step. **Alternatives considered** A general database commit hook would expose transaction details to callers. A timer alone would delay each new hire. This module owns each command transaction and starts its worker after commit. A periodic scan recovers work after a process stops. **Roadmap alignment** This change adds the lifecycle boundary for the existing agent and plugin systems. It does not add a user interface or a provider implementation. It replaces the lifecycle delivery approach in #15391. Related proposals include #11475 and #13099; this change does not add their external executor protocols. ## What Changed - Add durable approval, preparation, verification, pause, resume, stop, and cleanup states. - Keep agent creation, lifecycle state, configuration writes, and agent record deletion behind `modules/agent-lifecycle`. Keep validation, credential rules, reads, onboarding, invitations, general approvals, and company data deletion in their services. - Commit a hire before the remaining onboarding or invitation work. Serialize requests with the existing dedicated database connection helper. Reuse the hire after a failed attempt. - Keep accepted work in the run queue during setup. Require execution and cleanup evidence before completing pause or termination. - Retain the original credential owner when approving migrated hires. - Start lifecycle work after each command commits. Use database leases and revision checks for retries and late results. - Add a generic required plugin method and capability. Store the required plugin IDs for each agent. Track host and plugin completion separately. - Keep harness verification and credential rules in services. Supply their results to lifecycle through explicit ports. Reject failed logins and incomplete probes. - Remove reverse imports from lifecycle adapters into services. Share record queries and validation below both layers. - Use one hire decision path for agent IDs and approval IDs. Resolve the approval and agent change in one transaction. Expose policy reconciliation on the command object. - Save configuration and verification invalidation through one module operation. Ordinary commands own their transaction. Restrict the shared transaction integration to its listed callers. Reject identity, company, accounting, timestamp, and unknown fields. - Require completed termination before deleting agent records. The company deletion service calls the module through a separate deletion interface. - Save an approved secret before applying its agent binding. A failed binding leaves the secret approved. A retry reuses it. - Remove old permission and metadata export files. Move hire configuration rules out of lifecycle persistence. - Report failed worker steps and scans with operation context and known error codes. Omit provider messages, stacks, and configuration values. Document ordinary application use and extension rules. - Recover expired native owners only after execution stops. Retry cleanup of failed retained leases. Wait for setup in the live smoke script. - Keep manual, budget, and company pause reasons separate. Guard execution status writes with the ready state. - Add a migration, boundary checks, regression tests, and a lifecycle guide. Keep the current UI. - Limit periodic policy checks to 100 eligible agents per minute. Continue from the last agent ID. Exclude pending hires and agents in termination or a final state. Keep explicit company and budget updates immediate. ## Verification - Latest head `ccc3c86b0` aligns the shared status update schema with the PATCH route. All 15 shared tests, 104 server route/OpenAPI tests, 2 CLI tests, and shared/server/CLI TypeScript checks pass. The Greptile comment is fixed. CI is running; no new Apex review was requested for this small fix. - Rebase `75708ac94` rebases onto master at `2eb5187e4`. The backup test uses the shared 90-second timeout from master; the older timeout commit was removed. The affected backup test passes. - Agent budget edits now pass the target agent ID through enforcement. All 50 affected tests, server TypeScript, and 11 boundary tests pass. Both configuration update paths have regression coverage. CI is running on the latest head. No new Apex review was requested for these small fixes. - Rebase `9b568666a` preserves the run-control extraction and delivery-work startup changes from master. All 559 affected tests, server TypeScript, and 11 boundary tests pass. CI and Apex review are running on the final head. - The policy scan fix passes 56 lifecycle and diagnostic tests, 24 policy and caller tests, and 11 boundary tests. A regression test checks the page limit, interval, excluded states, and cursor wraparound. - Rebase `fd4698750` passes all 611 tests in eight affected lifecycle, route, and heartbeat suites. Server TypeScript and all 11 module boundary tests pass. The company deletion rollback and concurrent hire tests are included. - Follow-up `00aac7646` fixes the failed decision deletion test and the public update schema. All 126 affected server tests, 8 shared tests, 2 CLI tests, and 11 boundary tests pass. Shared, server, CLI, and UI TypeScript checks pass. - Server TypeScript passes: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`. - All 11 boundary tests pass: `node --test scripts/check-module-boundaries.test.mjs`. The repository boundary scan also passes. - All 68 lifecycle, failure diagnostic, and harness verification tests pass. Tests reject forbidden fields through the root command, combined transition command, and restricted transaction integration. They also check invalid fields returned by configuration preparation. - Failure tests cover host work, plugin work, claims, renewals, deferrals, and scans. Log tests check known error codes and exclusion of private error contents. - All 355 tests in 10 existing caller suites pass. These tests cover secret approval, pairing, pending hires, credentials, company import, built-in agents, managed agents, instructions, and skills. - The branch is rebased onto `origin/master` at `2eb5187e4`. The queue guards and cancellation lock fix use the extracted heartbeat queue. Agent cancellation uses the extracted run-control file. The source diff scan found no secrets or private URLs. - Earlier checks cover approval retries, rollback, late verification results, policy holds, deletion rollback, concurrent company deletion, and queue admission during setup. - Before the rebase, CI passed on `00aac7646` and Greptile Apex rated it 5/5 with no open comments. CI and a new Apex review are pending for the rebased commit. The branch has no merge conflicts. - The full local build and native Dot suite were not run. The host has no Cargo. No live provider test was run. ## Risks - Background policy recovery takes more than one minute when more than 100 agents are eligible. Explicit company and budget updates still reconcile immediately. - The restricted configuration integration keeps an agent reference and its dependent records in one transaction. It cannot change a budget or invoke a lifecycle transition. A periodic scan starts pending setup after that transaction commits. - Secret approval and binding use separate transactions. A failed binding can leave an approved secret with no agent binding. - New approved hires remain unavailable until setup and verification complete. Existing clients see `paused` during these steps. This PR does not change the UI. - Migration `0320_daily_onslaught.sql` maps existing statuses and pause reasons. It does not create external resources or claim that an existing harness passed verification. - Use a coordinated server update for this migration. Older server versions can write legacy status without the new lifecycle checks. - A failed onboarding or invitation request can leave a committed hire. A retry reuses that hire and completes the remaining records. - Deletion requires completed termination. Company deletion can require another request while cleanup is pending. - Required plugins must make repeated calls safe and reject older revisions. A disabled or removed required plugin blocks completion until it is restored. - A new hire can run a second harness test after the existing UI test. Some adapters can charge for this test. - No live provider test was run. Provider implementation and resource backfill remain separate work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with reasoning, code tools, 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 searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have described the issue in this PR with the feature request field labels - [x] I have not referenced internal or instance-local issues or links - [x] My branch name describes the change - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation - [x] I have considered and documented risks - [x] Targeted local tests pass - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green on the new commit - [x] Greptile Apex is 5/5 with no open comments on the new commit - [x] I will address review comments before requesting merge --------- Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
0829d94af2 |
fix(auth): derive low-trust human direction from existing execution records (#14775)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Low-trust review contains work that may include hostile input. > - Its default intake boundary currently blocks direct human chat and tasks outside that boundary. > - Human direction should authorize the assigned work while preserving containment. > - Existing conversations and execution requests already identify direct human instructions. > - This pull request derives exact-task authority from those records and the current assignee. > - The agent can perform that work without gaining access to unrelated tasks or privileged tools. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A low-trust agent with a project boundary rejects its owner's direct Agent Chat before provider execution. Human-assigned tasks outside that project fail the same check. **Expected behavior** An authorized human can talk to the agent or assign it a task. The exact task runs with its existing sandbox, credential, and tool restrictions. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Enable Agent Chat and isolated workspaces. Configure a sandbox agent with low-trust review scoped to an intake project. 2. Send the agent a direct board chat message, or assign it a projectless task. 3. Observe `low_trust_boundary_mismatch` before execution. Related: #14766 adds private task directories for repo-free low-trust execution. It is now merged into master and included in the branch base, so CI and staging verify the combined behavior. ## What Changed - Derive owner-chat access from existing conversation identity. - Derive exact-task access from the existing human requester and server-owned request origin, including coalesced requests. Plugin and external sender attribution do not authorize work. - Follow existing `retryOfRunId` database links for automatic continuations, checking company, agent, and task throughout; cancelled ancestors cannot grant authority. - Require a live run and current assignment. Preserve sandbox, credential, privileged-tool, responsible-user, and quarantined-output checks. - Retain board backlog assignments in existing request records without starting execution. Reassignment cancels old human requests in the common service transaction, including plugin writes; late settlement cannot revive them. - Add real database and HTTP coverage for request provenance, retry ancestry, cancelled runs, concurrent reassignment, spoofing, and containment. Document the rule. - Preserve legacy board assignment requests through their existing source, reason, and human requester. - Use the existing wrapped-error helper for concurrent chat-question idempotency; a deterministic race test reproduces the CI failure before the fix and passes after it. - No new schema, migrations, or user-identity fields. Existing requester columns hold attribution. ## Verification - Passed the focused database, policy-retention, HTTP, and reassignment tests locally. The HTTP test creates a task through the real board route and checks the resulting persisted wakeup before exercising agent reads, comments, mutations, and review handoff. - Database tests hold a reassignment transaction open to verify coherent authorization before and after commit, with a two-connection pool. They cover retries, coalesced requests, cancelled ancestry, invalid cross-company/agent/task links, cycles, and forged attribution. - Full local `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the final commit (`d107c26df`). [Latest-head CI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36815589542) passed: 54 successful checks, two expected skips, including all eight browser-test shards. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved threads. Local tests were targeted; the full test suite ran through CI’s test matrix. - The revised HTTP suite passed all 13 tests; database authorization tests passed all 11, including legacy compatibility and late watchdog settlement; the backlog route contract passed all 3 tests. Another 102 tests covering durable chat admission, wake queues, and Cursor execution passed. - All 90 interaction-service tests passed with both create calls deliberately held until their optimistic reads complete, forcing duplicate-key recovery. That forced race failed before switching to the shared wrapped-error helper. - Previous staging proof covered owner chat and projectless task persistence. The simplified revision has not been redeployed; that earlier proof is not claimed for the new implementation. ## Risks - This is an authorization change: only the live run's exact task qualifies, and normal responsible-user restrictions still apply. - Existing request and retry records are authoritative. Merely naming a responsible/originating user or an external connector sender does not qualify. - Reassignment invalidates existing human request records transactionally. A cancelled run or request cannot regain authority when the task is assigned back. - Ordinary task exceptions require server-owned origin or the legacy board assignment source/reason/actor combination. Existing owner chats use conversation identity. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 in Codex, with reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser testing. The runtime does not expose a more specific model ID 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> |
||
|
Nicky LeachandPaperclip
|
3ed5b7c5c8 |
refactor(server): extract the active-run output watchdog into a feature module (#12853)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work > - The server recovery service monitors active runs and applies watchdog decisions > - The watchdog rules and database operations lived in one large recovery service > - This structure made the rules harder to test and made company scoping harder to inspect > - This pull request moves the watchdog into domain, application, and adapter layers > - The benefit is a smaller recovery service, pure policy tests, and clear company-scoped ports ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** The active-run output watchdog that detects silence, suppression, and terminal evidence. **Current behavior** The recovery service contains the watchdog policy, use cases, database operations, and process control in one file. **Proposed behavior** A feature module separates pure policy, use cases and ports, and Postgres and process adapters. The recovery service delegates its public watchdog methods to this module. **Reason and benefit** The separation makes policy decisions easy to test. Company identifiers on every reader and writer port make tenant scope clear. Smaller service methods reduce change risk. **Breaking changes** None. The recovery service keeps its public methods and call sites. Related public watchdog work includes [#7043](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7043) and [#7770](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/7770). ## What Changed - Add the `server/src/modules/active-run-watchdog/` feature module with domain, application, and adapter layers. - Move watchdog policy, use cases, Postgres access, and local process control into the module. - Keep the recovery service public methods and delegate them to the module. - Add 53 pure module test cases and retain 8 Postgres integration cases. - Add company scoping and transaction rollback coverage. ## Verification - Run `vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/modules` and confirm 3 files and 53 cases pass. - Run `vitest run --config vitest.config.ts src/__tests__/heartbeat-active-run-output-watchdog.test.ts` and confirm 1 file and 8 cases pass. - Run the full server suite in pull request CI. - Compare the type-check result with a fresh baseline on the same checkout. ## Risks The main risk is a behavior change in recovery decisions during the move across layers. The pure policy tests cover the moved rules. The integration tests cover database behavior, company scope, and transaction rollback. Pull request CI runs the full server suite. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5, runtime-managed context window, tool use, code execution, and repository review support. ## 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] 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> |