mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-24 18:19:05 +02:00
5fdbdb9fbdf9ff87f7ad68c803aed654e2d0cffa
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 DottaandPaperclip
|
96bf004a79 |
fix: use persisted state for lifecycle continuation and retry budgets (#13888)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Its control plane decides when a task can continue, wait, stop, or complete. > - Legacy continuation could change when an agent changed its wording without changing task state. > - Shared attempt counts also let repair and infrastructure retries affect each other's limits. > - This pull request uses persisted state and separate, bounded allowances for these decisions. > - If automatic repair stops, the task explains what happened and offers a guarded retry. > - Paired tests and real-provider evaluations verify that Stop, approvals, ownership, and spending limits remain authoritative. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Related work: Refs #13761, Refs #11126, Refs #13610. These cover obsolete continuation dispatch and retry storms. Open and closed issues and PRs were searched for related lifecycle, continuation, and retry work. **What happened?** Legacy continuation depended on English wording and progress heuristics. Repair, failure retry, and productive continuation could consume shared counts. When bounded repair stopped, the task showed a technical recovery message without a clear next action. **Expected behavior** Persisted disposition and owned execution paths determine the next action. Missing disposition prompts bounded agent repair. Explicit work mode determines planning mode. Narrative changes and raw activity counts cannot replenish allowances. An exhausted repair shows a readable notice. An explicit retry checks current controls and preserves the assigned agent. **Steps to reproduce** Run `pnpm test:lifecycle-baseline`. The paired probes keep structured state constant while varying completion, planning, blocker, and progress prose. Run the explicit `lifecycle-baseline` and `continuation-accounting` Product E2E suites for real-provider coverage. In Storybook, open **Design previews / Recovery notice** to inspect the production component's normal, pending, acknowledged, unavailable, failure, and mobile states. ## What Changed - Hide the image attachment button, icon, and drop/paste hint in answer composers. Image paste and drop support remains available. - Merge current master and retain both browser regression sets. Use a production-stamped service worker in the offline recovery browser fixture. - Share one state-based legacy continuation decision across immediate, delayed, and recovered dispatch. Bind bounded repairs to their source run and episode. - Remove title and description wording from work-mode authority. Agents can still write requested plans in execution mode. - Persist separate failure-retry and productive-continuation counters. Disposition repair and resource waits cannot consume or reset those allowances. - Validate delayed repair identity, then recheck current gates before provider dispatch. Fence native startup cancellation. - Show **Agent needs attention**, a plain-language explanation, **Retry agent**, and expandable details in both task interfaces. Report request progress, acknowledgement, and errors inline. - Store typed recovery notice metadata. Recognize older active notices only through exact stored action and run IDs. Notice text never grants retry authority. - Use the existing recovery-action endpoint for retry. Recheck current action, status, owner, agent availability, dependencies, active runs, pending questions and confirmations, approvals, pause controls, and budget. Duplicate requests do not wake twice. - Add component, page, route, database, contract, and Storybook coverage. Keep the scenario inventory and executable evals here. Historical reports and snapshots live in the [commit-pinned paperclip-evals archive](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/blob/ce3e5afcd4a1184650f586a2b5b8be5874c66c8b/experiments/2026-09-lifecycle-authority/README.md). - Preserve unsaved project fields while the same project URL changes to its canonical alias. Do not reuse data across projects or companies. This separate fix addresses the repeated repository-editor browser failure without changing the browser test. - Keep the development service worker from intercepting Vite module reloads. Update the connection-intent browser fixture to record progress and completion through the agent API. ## Verification Merge preparation on September 25, commit `c1e8e4b7ddd9fbc4913ed55ce21b8e12906c2f97`: - Merged master `bd2030932` and resolved the browser test-list conflict by keeping both sets of regressions. - Deterministic lifecycle baseline: 1,090/1,090 assertions passed; no failures, skips, or missing selected evidence. Unit 423, runner 184, database integration 397, grading 86. - Browser support: 17/17 passed. The offline recovery test first failed with an unstamped development worker, then passed with the production stamp. Its assertions are unchanged. - Focused interaction UI and offline fallback tests: 19/19 passed. Verified the custom-answer composer in Storybook: no attachment controls or hint; entering an answer enables Next. - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. The worktree is clean. No new real-provider campaign was run. - Current CI and review: [Current PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36166011243): 55 successful checks and two optional Storybook skips. Greptile scored this exact commit 5/5. Hiding the question attachment controls is an intentional UI change; paste/drop remains available. Earlier recovery UI verification, commit `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: - Recursive typecheck, production build, token gates, and diff checks passed. - Focused UI coverage: 338 tests passed across six suites (336 before the interaction guard, with the two affected suites rerun at 149 passed after it). Covers both task interfaces, the real page mutation, pending/error acknowledgement, stale state, and unavailable controls. - Recovery database integration: 352 tests passed before the interaction guard. The complete recovery-action and mutation-route suites passed 181 tests after it. The two new pending question/confirmation regressions failed before the fix and passed afterward, including resolved-interaction controls. Shared validator suite: 31 passed. E2E catalog suites: 34 passed. - Browser inspection passed for light/dark themes, mobile layout, expandable details, pending retry, acknowledgement, failure, and disabled retry. Storybook renders the production component; its request is simulated. - The broad local run hit two chat callback-order wait failures and was stopped after all CI unit/database/runner shards passed. Both local failures passed when rerun without the competing full-suite process. - CI exposed a repeated project-repository draft-loss race during canonical redirects. A new unit regression failed before the fix; all nine project-page tests now pass, including controls for other projects and companies. Both unchanged repository browser tests passed against a fresh local server. UI typecheck, production UI build, and token gates passed after this fix. - [Earlier PR CI passed](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/36072486798) on `21be0fec0e90e86b6d662b8ee4831847cd041cdb`: 55 successful checks, two optional Storybook skips, and no failed or pending checks. The repository browser shard passed with the production fix. Greptile is 5/5 on this exact commit with no unresolved review threads. The PR is mergeable. Historical, source-qualified lifecycle evidence: - Lifecycle baseline: 1,074 assertions. Native session coverage: 447 tests. Product E2E support: 515 tests. Browser support: 11 tests. Full earlier verification is retained in the archive. - [Real-provider campaign: 8/8 passed, zero retries](https://d1p6rlowie26tp.cloudfront.net/runner-e2e/campaigns/gha-35881382080-1/index.html), source `e88d210417280140b44a36449027290adcb1aeaa`. Evidence and cleanup checks passed. This includes deliberately exhausted repair cases that correctly remain blocked; it does not mean every task finished Done. This campaign predates the recovery UI change. - Archive migration verified all 16 original JSON files byte-for-byte and all 24 checksum entries. App tests do not need private archive access. [Archive PR #27](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip-evals/pull/27) is merged. ## Risks - Agents that omit durable disposition receive at most two repair attempts by default. Prose-only completion exposes missing state rather than silently changing scheduling. - A retry is an explicit board action. The server rechecks current controls. A successful response confirms the task returned to To do; it does not claim that the provider has already started. - Existing notice metadata remains valid. Only older active notices with matching structured evidence receive the new UI. Historical notices without that evidence keep their existing rendering. No schema migration is required. - Old run records require conservative retry accounting. Tests cover old counters, alternating retry lanes, restarts, and exhausted repairs. - Historical snapshots require private `paperclip-evals` access. The app index retains public campaign links. Live campaigns qualify specific sources and scenarios; no new real-provider campaign has run for the recovery UI commit. > This fixes existing lifecycle and recovery behavior and does not duplicate planned core work. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex assisted implementation, reasoning, code execution, and review. The exact serving model ID and context window are not exposed in this task. Historical real-provider evaluations used Codex model `gpt-5.6-sol`, separately from the implementation assistant. ## 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 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> |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
4b6de5327e |
Remove cheap model profiles (#12683)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip manages agents that use different model providers and adapters. > - Paperclip must keep agent execution rules clear and predictable. > - The cheap-model profile added a second execution mode across adapters, task recovery, APIs, and the UI. > - That mode increased configuration and recovery complexity. > - This pull request removes the cheap-model profile as a product feature. > - The benefit is one model-selection path for normal work and recovery work. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What existing behavior does this improve?** This change simplifies model selection across agent configuration, task execution, recovery, and adapter capabilities. **Current behavior** Paperclip exposes cheap-model profiles in adapter metadata, agent runtime configuration, task overrides, recovery rules, APIs, and the board UI. Recovery work can select a different model profile from the agent's configured model. **Proposed behavior** Paperclip uses the agent's configured model for normal work and recovery work. Status-only recovery stays limited to coordination work. The API rejects legacy model-profile configuration. A migration removes stored model-profile values from existing agent, issue, and historical revision records. **Reason and benefit** One model path reduces configuration, API, UI, and recovery complexity. It also prevents status recovery from becoming a separate product-level model-routing feature. **Breaking changes** This change removes model-profile fields and adapter capability metadata. Existing stored model-profile values are removed by an idempotent migration. The validators reject new legacy profile values with clear errors. ## What Changed - Removed model-profile types, adapter capabilities, API fields, and model selection logic. - Removed cheap-model controls from agent and task UI surfaces. - Kept status-only recovery limited to coordination context while normal continuations use the configured agent model. - Added an idempotent migration that removes stored model-profile values from agents, issues, and configuration revisions without changing issue update timestamps. - Updated tests and product documentation for the single-model behavior. ## Verification - `pnpm check:token-gates` passes. - `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - `pnpm build` passes. - `pnpm test:run` completed with 5,607 passing tests and 8 environment-sensitive failures in unrelated fixed-port and database-deadlock suites. The same failures repeated in an isolated rerun. CI is the final clean-room result. ## Risks - This is an intentional breaking change for clients that send model-profile fields. - The migration changes legacy agent, issue, and configuration-revision JSON. It is idempotent and preserves unrelated fields and issue update timestamps. - The change is cross-cutting because the removed feature existed in adapters, shared contracts, the server, plugins, and the UI. > 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 `gpt-5`. Reasoning and tool use were enabled. The runtime did not expose the 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) - [ ] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [ ] 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> |
||
|
Dotta
|
51ad751e0b |
feat(runner): integrate Codex native execution (#12616)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source control plane for teams of AI agents. > - Agent runs currently use direct adapters and their established finalization paths. > - The new runner package needs one production integration before it can execute a real provider through the server. > - That integration must not change direct adapters or expose unsupported providers. > - The rollout must also preserve native runs that were already recorded when the feature flag changes. > - This pull request adds a default-off, Codex-only native execution path and its authority boundary. > - The benefit is a recoverable production vertical slice with explicit compatibility guards. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Cross-cutting server orchestration and adapter selection. **Problem or motivation** The runner package exists, but the server cannot yet start and recover a governed Codex run through it. A careless integration could also route existing direct adapters into the native runtime or lose cancellation and finalization state. **Proposed solution** Add a hidden `paperclip_runner` adapter for Codex. Keep it behind the default-off instance flag. Bind native execution, resume, cancellation, semantic tool authority, and finalization to the recorded company, issue, run, and coordinator identities. Leave every direct adapter on its existing path. **Alternatives considered** A multi-provider launch was rejected because only Codex has the complete production bridge in this series. Replacing direct adapter execution was rejected because the runner remains experimental. **Roadmap alignment** This work supports governed tool access, action attribution, and self-healing runs. It keeps the integration narrow and default-off. ## What Changed - Add the Codex-only native session executor and persisted resumption path. - Add run-scoped semantic tool projection, authorization, receipts, and idempotency. - Add audited native cancellation with durable issue and coordinator binding. - Add result fencing so a recorded result cannot reacquire the provider and run twice. - Reject fresh runner starts when the rollout flag is off while preserving recorded native recovery. - Keep direct adapters outside native status, cancellation, record creation, and finalization. - Add focused conformance, recovery, cancellation, status, portability, and compatibility coverage. ## Verification - GitHub Actions is the authoritative test environment for this large stack. - The PR policy and lightweight stack checks run while this is a middle PR. - The full required suite runs when this PR becomes the lowest unmerged or top PR. - Greptile will review this exact delta after the branch is pushed. ## Risks - The main risk is routing a legacy adapter into native execution. Runtime selection and heartbeat tests cover that boundary. - The next risk is stale or cross-company cancellation. Durable binding checks and transactional audit persistence cover it. - The adapter remains hidden and default-off. Only Codex is admitted. - There are no database migration, lockfile, or GitHub workflow changes in this PR. ## Stack 1. [Runner package, SDK, and developer tools](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12608) 2. This PR: Codex production server integration 3. [Provider-neutral task-thread UI](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12617) ## Model Used OpenAI Codex with GPT-5, extended reasoning, repository tools, and parallel review agents. ## 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 - [ ] 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 - [ ] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge |
||
|
DottaandDev Agent
|
25cf079ec5 |
feat(runner): add Codex-native application integration (#12591)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The runner package is useful only when the application can start, observe, and recover a native Codex run safely. > - Existing direct adapters must keep their current execution and finalization paths. > - The application boundary therefore needs additive persistence, authorization, coordination, and recovery behind an explicit experimental adapter. > - This pull request adds that Codex-only boundary without activating generalized providers, remote environments, or the later task/SDK surfaces. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **Subsystem affected** Shared contracts, database persistence, adapter utilities, server native-runtime services, and the experimental Paperclip Runner adapter. **Problem or motivation** The already-landed runner package has a qualified Codex path, but the application needs durable native-run state, guarded runtime selection, authenticated coordination, tool security, finalization, and recovery before the experimental adapter can be exercised safely. **Proposed solution** Add a Codex-only `paperclip_runner` application path behind the existing default-off native-runner setting. Bind native state and coordination to company/run identity, preserve persisted-run recovery, and leave every direct adapter on its existing legacy execution path. **Alternatives considered** The earlier stack boundary introduced a generalized executor and remote-environment lifecycle here. That made this PR depend on implementations in higher PRs and changed reusable sandbox behavior globally. Those pieces are now deferred together to #12592. **Roadmap alignment** ROADMAP.md does not list a conflicting native-runner integration project. This change adds the application boundary for the existing Runner architecture. ## What Changed - Added native run/result/finalization/provider-trace persistence, shared validators, and idempotent migration/replay coverage. - Added guarded Codex-only runtime selection, authenticated PRP coordination, recovery, finalization, and interaction services. - Added run/company-bound tool-gateway authorization, credential redaction, SSRF protections, and replay-safe behavior. - Added the explicit `paperclip_runner` adapter behind the default-off rollout setting. - Preserved legacy answered-question wake projection and direct-adapter execution/finalization paths. - Hardened cancellation so only owned in-memory child processes are signaled; persisted recycled PIDs/process groups are never trusted. - Retained the narrow Claude ACPX isolated-context security follow-up discovered after #12590. - Deferred the generalized executor, provider ingress, remote lifecycle, SDK/lab/eval work, release-process changes, and lockfile. ## Verification - Changed-file delta against `master`: 133 files. - GitHub Actions is the authoritative verification environment for this PR. - Full CI, security, and Greptile review will run on this lowest unmerged stack PR. - Local tests/build/typecheck were not run because this checkout is resource constrained. - Static diff/reference checks pass, and `pnpm-lock.yaml` is unchanged. ## Risks - This touches central heartbeat and agent-route code, so legacy compatibility is the primary risk. - Runtime selection remains Codex-only and explicit; direct Codex, Claude, OpenCode, process, HTTP, and plugin adapters remain on their existing paths. - Fresh native starts fail closed while the rollout flag is off; persisted native records remain readable and recoverable. - Cancellation, company/run binding, tool calls, status decisions, and completion writes are guarded or replay-safe. > 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. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, GPT-5.6, with repository tools, code execution, and parallel agent review. ## 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 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 - [ ] I have run tests locally and they pass — GitHub Actions is authoritative for this resource-constrained checkout - [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 risks above - [ ] All Paperclip CI and security gates are green - [ ] Greptile is 5/5 with no open actionable findings - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before merge ## Stack - Position: 3 of 5 overall; lowest of 3 currently unmerged - Base: `master` - Previous: [#12590](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12590), qualified Claude ACPX runtime — merged - Next: [#12592](https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/12592), generalized Codex executor, task experience, and developer SDKs --------- Co-authored-by: Dev Agent <dev@paperclip.ing> |