mirror of
https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip.git
synced 2026-10-29 21:07:40 +01:00
5fdbdb9fbdf9ff87f7ad68c803aed654e2d0cffa
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Devin FoleyandPaperclip
|
5847f047c7 |
fix(connections): retire requests for already available tools (#15856)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Connection cards let users provide the access an agent needs. > - Users can complete setup in Apps while an earlier card stays pending. > - A stale card can then cancel recovery despite valid existing access. > - This change verifies existing access and expires the obsolete request. > - It records a system outcome and sends one durable continuation. > - Approval, identity, permission, and workspace recovery gates remain in place. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An ordinary tool connection request stayed pending after the addressed user connected the service in Apps. A later conversation retry was cancelled with `issue_waiting_for_response`. **Expected behavior** A request expires when the same user and requesting agent already have usable access. The agent gets a durable tool refresh. The system records no new human approval. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Have an agent request a tool connection on an active task. 2. Connect the service through Apps with the addressed user's existing grant, agent install, and allowed tools. 3. Let a conversation run stop and retry. The pending card still blocks the retry on the base branch. Related: #12345 introduced the connection request flow. This fix uses its existing access checks and delivery queue. ## What Changed - Verify company, task ownership, user identity, membership, health, grants, installs, and task tool policy before expiring an ordinary request. - Preserve AI account, channel, additional permission, and upstream provider requests on their existing paths. - Save the system outcome, audit event, and continuation in one transaction. Notify an idle delivery worker when a request commits. - Recheck access and other questions or approvals before delivery, retry, final dispatch, and native projection. Refresh system observations for an authorized replacement account. - Rearm delivery when access changes before provider work starts. Verify the host's admission receipt against execution evidence before allowing retry without a repair incident. - Require the current delivery claim when marking an attempt complete. An old completion cannot overwrite a rearmed continuation. - Add embedded-Postgres regressions for permissions, policy, concurrency, restart, replacement accounts, both dispatch gates, and the delivery race. Keep genuine workspace repair holds blocking. ## Verification - Latest-head connection, wake-context, dispatch, and legacy recovery suites: 124 tests passed. The connection suite includes 44 real-Postgres cases. - Server typecheck passed. Full `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build` passed on the latest head. - `pnpm test:run` was run locally. Its general-server group passed 18,583 tests and failed 20. That long run started before the review fixes, then loaded new test cases against modules transformed before those fixes. The affected latest-head suites pass in a fresh process. - One full-run failure also reproduces on unchanged base commit |
||
|
DottaandPaperclip
|
9ae3d8db3d |
fix: keep pre-dispatch review waits out of execution recovery (#15024)
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - The queued-run gate can cancel a continuation that must wait for review. > - This cancellation happens before execution authority or a provider starts. > - Recovery currently treats the gate receipt as unknown provider execution. > - That mistake blocks a conversation after a successful reply and hides Retry. > - This pull request recognizes only the recorded, unclaimed review-wait state. > - Review waits keep their normal disposition path, and new user input can recover older false holds. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description Refs #15015, #15020, and #15022. Related #11614 narrows the review posture that causes cancellation; this change corrects recovery after a valid cancellation. **What happened?** After a successful agent reply, the queued-run gate cancelled an automatic continuation with `issue_continuation_waiting_on_review`. The gate retained `timeoutSource: stale_queued_run_gate` and a matching stop reason. No execution authority or provider started. Recovery still created an unknown-action hold, moved the task to Blocked, and hid Retry. **Expected behavior** Use normal review-wait disposition repair for this recorded state. Allow Retry, a new user message, or saved undelivered input to recover an older false hold after ordinary admission checks pass. Preserve the cancelled run and do not replay its input. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Finish an agent turn on an open task that has a real review target. 2. Let the automatic continuation reach the queued-run review gate. 3. Refresh after the cancelled run is checked by recovery. 4. Confirm a review wait is handled as a wait rather than unknown provider work. 5. Reproduce an older false hold for the same receipt, then request Retry or send a new message. 6. Confirm only one fresh turn starts, and contradictory execution or cleanup evidence retains the hold. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on `215586d127`. **Deployment mode** Authenticated private self-hosted server, built from source. ## What Changed - Recognize the exact review-wait dispatch receipt only while all execution claims remain unset. - Exempt recovery only after checking retained launch and provider events, coordinators, and environment cleanup. Keep the synchronous classifier conservative without that database proof. - Apply the verified classification to automatic recovery, heartbeat retries, and stranded-queue release, so saved user input starts once. - Reuse guarded startup admission for Retry, new input, and saved input on older false holds. - Show a precise review-wait notice and keep continuation guidance consistent with Retry availability. - Verify provider events, launch events, coordinators, and cleanup before admission. - Add five initial red regressions, three additional red recovery evidence regressions, concurrent saved-input coverage, and negative evidence checks. - Document the review-wait contract. ## Verification - Red: five regressions fail on unchanged master. Existing review-wait and contradictory-evidence cases still pass. - Workspace `pnpm -r typecheck` passes. - All 752 affected recovery, continuation, queue, classification, and retry-scheduling tests pass. - Three additional review regressions failed before the database proof was added; all 12 focused review-wait cases then pass. - Workspace `pnpm build` passes. - Saved-input promotion and recovery notice regressions fail before their fixes and pass afterward. - Current-head CI has 54 passing checks and 2 skipped optional Storybook checks. Greptile reviewed `0bf1437110e1617ae4544afa41f4319eac763dba` at 5/5 with zero open findings. The complete suite runs in sharded CI. No complete local monolithic pass is claimed; an earlier long run was stopped, and its unrelated failing case passed in isolation. ## Risks The error code alone cannot establish that no provider started. This exception also requires the server gate receipt, matching stop reason, and null execution authority fields. User admission separately checks coordinator, launch and provider events, environment cleanup, pending decisions, ownership, task holds, budget, and active execution. No migration or dependency change. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex, an agent based on GPT-6. The exact runtime model ID and context window are not exposed in this session. Used reasoning, repository tools, code execution, and browser inspection. ## 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> |